Posts tagged ‘modal philosophy’

Back to “Work”

I’ve been busy on Quora, and I notice a growing interest in what I have to say.  This was lying in wait, because I realized years ago, long before the Internet existed, in the days of paper tape and UNIVAC, that most probably the thoughts that inspired my actions then would still be needed now.  I wrote a two and a half page note to the powers-that-be (ComSeventhFlt–>JCS–>upward) that was designed to prevent WWIII for the time being, then.  By doing so I influenced the economy of the world.  I knew that if it worked I would be and I knew that it was supposedly utterly impossible that I could.  I had the opportunity because of that and two other things to remain in the ranks of the powerful and to actually become known in a couple of years; I felt that it would have been at the price of my soul.  I fled that war; I fled that position of power (or illusion) and I convinced myself that I knew that there were others like me.  In fact I assured myself there were others much more intelligent who knew much more, who had already thought of that and who would precede me.  I tried to ensure that I would not be alive now, just to insure that…I would not need to act again.  I knew that my insights could not possibly be unique.

In 1992 I got a degree in psychology, and the vein of logic and observation I had used was something that current theoreticians in any applicable field was still something utterly my own.  It worked.  I used that method in high school to actually pass two tests in subjects at which I wasn’t good–without studying.  They were multiple choice tests, and I used the patterning employed by the given teachers in the given tests.  I missed one question between the two tests.  My (private) saying in high school was “Tell me two things and you tell me three” and it very much applied in the Navy–and afterward; I actually did some research in the public sector to confirm some things.  Things, let me add, that were supposedly classified Top Secret.

According to that little paper (according to Brunner’s theories, Kissinger’s theories, the theories of the military at JCS rank and their strategists (to whom they hoped to co-opt me) there was going to come a period of collapse.  Partially it would be caused by the transition of “Third World Countries” to a recognized status and realize that part of the warlike clash would be caused by the very usage of “Third World” and its negative connotations.  Part of it would be caused by the virtual disappearance of material production (factories that make cars, for instance) from countries such as ours because of labor costs and environmental concerns.  Most of all it would be caused by a massive increase in population–a necessary concentration of the mass of population in urban areas (this was achieved here as of the 1990 census, over half the population lived in cities)–and a consequent, maintained and deliberately increased demarcation between the wealthy, the ‘middle class’ and the poor.  I recognized at that time that the poor served a social function of defining privilege and presenting an intrinsic warning should one lose the societally-conferred right to exist (that is, right to food, shelter, warmth and protection from casual crime).

Who among us who isn’t homeless hasn’t seen how they are treated and whether ‘consciously’ or not decided at every level that that was a step toward hell?  And now ponder, if you are not one of them, that most of us live   paycheck to paycheck.  Many live working for consciously brutal employers, with no recourse at all (Oregon, for instance, as most, is a hire-at-will/fire-at-will state, and if fired there are no benefits).  I recognized this as a direct result and so did those who took my advice.  And the alternative, which was attractive to some, was nuclear war.  Why, it would even have taken care of the overpopulation! although they didn’t like the reminder that there would be some people waiting at the doors of the hardened bunkers those who would use the nukes had ready.

I am trying again to convince myself I’m merely mad.  That’s what my compensation is for, after all.

The unfortunate part is that the threat is in the Middle East, it does involve religion and nukes and it involves once again regrettable acts in the past.  Mind you, we were warned a millennium ago, at Tours.  Surely others will rise.  I am merely an old man, dying of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and anti-seizure medications.  I have begun to write again; I am pondering how to put snippets in here.  I will put a copyright reminder with each one, now.  Not for pay, but so I will  receive attribution.  Having spent 50 years mapping out a new sort of social theory, I need to have it available in a structured format…which means, precisely in line with the theory, I am actually attempting at the onset to provide an informational/definitive/social and therefore protocol-oriented…stability, although hopefully it’s not in the least exclusion-oriented as well.  I will say that at the outset I basically equate Marxism and capitalism and for that matter at least most proposed religiously-oriented value systems.  The reason is that the core is a socially assigned right to llive.  The method of assignment appears to vary but can be nicely defined as nearly identical.  I wrote all of the notes over fifty years, believe me, although I haven’t retained them.  I suppose I should have, but at the time my audience was me and I didn’t need to read what I had written.

Whether I’m correct or not doesn’t concern me now.  I just feel a need to teach what I seem to have learned.  What’s done with it is unlikely to involve me.

April 26, 2015 at 7:52 pm Leave a comment

Modal Philosophy and Truth

Modal philosophy isn’t necessarily tied to a religious system (lack of religion should be taken as implicit in this statement).

A modally-oriented philosophy could actually be one of several sorts.  Dooyeveert’s version was that basic truths were acquired by means of the Bible (without going into origins and editings).

The more that a philosophy (particularly one restricted in viewpoint) or sociopolitical system provides stability the less it is able to adapt.

[mutterings and murmurings at midnight]


October 25, 2008 at 4:12 am Leave a comment

The 10/22 Entry

It’s not complete.  I burned out.  At least I have remembered that one of my major discrepancies with Dooyeveert’s version of Modal Reality was quite simple:  he assumed God.  I assumed something began the whole process.  Yeah, the Vietnam war really wasn’t the best part of my life, especially since I had access to TS without need-to-know and couldn’t resist (of course).  Sort of like the people who go to horror flicks.



Of all things, an “insert date” option on my word processor, its one major lacking.  The other is its dislike for single quotes, which it shares with all other word processors I’m aware of.  That’s probably because it’s used–‘, that is–for data separation, just like the comma is in a “csv” file.  [Comma Separated Values]

A visit with Mom today.  She’s in Medford while Shirley and her husband are in Hawaii celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary.  My actual sole point of connection with Shirley is a hot date while I was still in the Navy, latter part of 1974.  She’s Mom’s surrogate child.  Some notes on Mom.  She married Jay Eatherton when I was 5 or 6.  I was formally adopted while I was 7, a few days before I turned 8, by her sister.  Hell with it, I’m going to first names or this will be too complicated for me.  Marie is Barbara’s sister.  Was.  Barbara is ‘Mom’–she took care of me for about six years.  Rather than divorce Jay she got rid of me.  She’d tried to have me aborted, but it was too late, and she had every other pregnancy aborted.  She’s presumably intelligent enough to know about birth control.  I can picture her with some weird supposedly Christian argument to support her in that, but I frankly keep turning down the picture in my little mind.

Barbara, after Marie adopted me, had no idea that I was being mistreated.  At the time she had no idea what to do how to help me (she was a teacher who didn’t know about Children Services Division).  Had no idea that Jay was a child abuser.  She was just having me stay with her sister for the summer.  The adoption was my idea.  (Before Marie brought it up, oddly enough, I’d never heard of adoption.  I do actually have a photographic memory.)

The report cards that indicated I was a troublemaker because I was too intelligent.  She couldn’t do anything about it.  That means there was no program for gifted children.  She was a teacher in that school.  I have the report cards.  Even bearing in mind that that was the age of the worshipped average, the whole thing seems a bit strange.  I’m very, very high on language and logic and low to normal in everything else (retention is generally scored as is the highest score, if I have to explain why the explanation would likely be a trifle cloudy).  Actually, I guess I have come up in math skills.

She was seeking someone to take me and wouldn’t admit it afterward.  Family friends had refused.  She wouldn’t tell me what her motives were.  Mine were simply that I didn’t think I could survive in that environment.  I needed information and didn’t know where/how to find it.

Marie did indeed take me to “straighten me out”.

And presumably the “average”/usual person can’t think without words.  So the unconscious=the nonlingual.  Which pretty much works, and also would go a long way toward having a logic that could include what I’m experiencing.  It also fits much more neatly into a lot of holes than did alternative explanations.  Bear in mind that there has to have been a nonlingual person, so to speak, at least something that ate and whatnot.  As far as evidence toward the nonlingual person ceasing to exist, I don’t actually know of any.

Lingual consciousness is socialized consciousness (not, however, with the political connotations generally ascribed to it).

Lingual consciousness is generally the product of behaviorally-oriented training.  There are numerous indications that this is necessary in most cases.

“Intelligence” can be in terms of a lingual system, or it can be in terms of problem-solving.  The “or” used here is generally not inclusive.

Values based on an unsubstantiated “average” are part of the attempt to maintain stability that actually is central to a social system that attempts to confine awareness to the lingual and “proper”.

A lingual personality would quite definitely depend upon the stability of definition.

The introduction of the Hebrew singular God into the world of gods produced a real uproar, particularly once Christ was produced, who would waive the requirement that the saved all be of one certain race.  It’s interesting that even the one-god group has to allow for the powers of evil.

One god also introduces the possibility of a whole host of other things.  Before this, you’re not assured of any constant theme; now, you just place your tithe and leave.  As matters would have it, it even laid the foundations for social development in what was regarded as the “civilized world”.

[Minor side note.  Anyone who might happen to read this might start believing that I actually did study a lot of areas of human knowledge.  I didn’t study physics.  I have studied everything I know of that can be categorized under “soft” science.  It was on the way to this, or rather the thing this is the notes for.  I’m basically in disagreement with everyone from Socrates on.]

Formal communication is going to be necessary, basically, when the group becomes big enough that not every face is known.  That means that considerations outside of hunting and warfare suddenly have to become more formal, or they don’t work.  It also means that the establishment of a language, then, wouldn’t be the dramatic thing we sometimes envision.  At first, “language” is pretty efficient:  a certain kind of grunt for a water bucket and another for a frying pan.  Might not want the grain instead of a knife, either.  It started in hunting, most likely; yells to coordinate movement.
As knowledge develops, language develops.  The growth of a plant is known and recorded, then of another.  Colors are named.  All this means that a child I never see may guess at what I’ve seen.

As language develops, society develops.  That is why “body language” and intonation and so forth are quintessential to the meaning of any sentence, let alone a dialogue.  Bear in mind explicit knowledge is seldom an active component of any relationship.  Names are a way of avoiding language, not seeking it.  There are some interesting implications about the formalization of religion in that.  Power as value.
So lingualization is socialization.  Lingualization is the establishment of a language-based personality.  This gives rather a different view on autism.  Established psychological theory treats lingualization not only as a norm, but an assumption.  Language is viewed as integral (and innate) as an arm or a leg.  There have even been discussions whether or not usage of language is genetically transmitted.

Language is expression of protocols in various formats with respect to action.

The protocols must vary with respect to function/identity within given society (again, position within [sequential] ordered set, which is more accurate with the number within sequence–images, however you’d say it–and duration involved, which is why calling time as we know it a “dimension” is experientially false).  So we have the matter of assigned identity.

Also picture all this from nonverbal aspect.  Just as illiteracy doesn’t mean stupidity, lack of language doesn’t mean complete inability to comprehend.  The statistics such as they exist tend to indicate most people find it hard to think without language, so they start doing it with its acquisition.

That’s of course one of the first tests for this hypothesis, or series of hypotheses.
Lots of additions, by hand.  (I was playing chess on the computer, and it’s a jealous program.)

Communication without shared representational system means intrinsic, implicit logic.  Note that this is a great deal more of an absolute statement than it first appears to be.  Interestingly enough that statement also seems to be intrinsic to our social system [note I–accidentally, must have been–said nothing about that statement being true, accurate or anything of the sort].  This is also a resurrection of the “nature vs. nurture” theorems.  In my experience there is no inherited knowledge.  I am remembering much more, and most of all I remember frustration.  I wasn’t especially quick.  After all, my parents were quick to assure me of that.  (There are more twists and convolutions to the tale than I can happily imagine beginning to portray today.  The one survivor–my mother–seems to vary between shrugging it off (”I couldn’t have done things any differently”) and aimless statements, unless they’re attempts at recrimination of all and sundry.  Now.  For what’s happening.  Whatever that is.

The background to that is that where she is now was her heart’s desire according to what she said.  She’d promised Shirley she’d spend her last years with her.  I’m not a Christian because God failed the test, doesn’t exist, or doesn’t speak English (basically).

Anyway.  Back to the implicit statements concerning our social system.  So de facto decisions can be made in advance (example being anything that weakens our [current] social system is wrong and first line of defense is the obvious, its dependants and dependencies.

Single god system, New World, expansion factor and dehumanizing definition of the new and different.  (Black men as not human.  And Indians, Asians, Amish, whatnot.)  The single god thing has with one sudden flash given you the power to draw the line.  So it’s as important as the Justinian code.  Empiricism is innately weak as a system of faith because it starts out by being complicated and most people just aren’t up to it.  They need something simple.  There’s a set of circumscribed rules and (at least mostly) no nasty surprises.  By all rumors the Israelites for a while there were unbeatable in war.  They did allow women in, which took care of the in-breeding problem potential.

Note that in Hebraic system god and king are directly related.  Varies somewhat in the Med.  It looks like some cultures were hated so much they were literally wiped out.

Lack of advancement in certain areas seems almost by agreement.  At that point knowledge on some subject could be wiped out by killing an entire tribe, or even keeping the one alive in order to obtain the knowledge.

So definition of the “proper”–preservation of the “Norm”–ensuring stability is all ensuring lack of adaptation with first concern preserving the classes.  There’s a heavy suggestion here that problem solving is done in a specific class or classes, set used to work on it has few members.  There are a number of suggestions throughout history that a man or a group of a few men (or women, but power mostly in hands of men) not only had unusual intelligence in the sense of information, but also was able to reason about subjects nearly impossible to express in an ordinary language.  I certainly wouldn’t swear to it, but it is recurrent.

This (first and foremost concern preserving social structure) in turns means a few things.  Physical adaptation is by means of society not the environment.  In humans, for instance, the standards of attractiveness change–the change is very widespread and was even before the advent of “mass media” although the method of transmission of data was necessarily quite different.  By “widespread” I mean of course that the change in these standards spreads very rapidly.  If the experiment could be made I would predict that mass media are peripheral to the information exchange.  Being “cool” [yeah, I’m positive that one’s dated, but so am I] isn’t a pose that’s oriented to making money from viewers.  Standards of beauty and handsomeness change, and if we’re honest we don’t know how.  It wasn’t taught in school, and it wasn’t the subject of a television program.  The adaptation being influenced by society accounts for our quick adaptability.  Note:  the more crowded the life, the less “natural” it is.  This means society has had a lot less time to produce and test these protocols.  Note too that the typical gang structure is merely a miniature society except in one respect.  There’s a cementing force that provides an identity they can recognize and value.  Being in the gang is also of and by itself a reward as far as the gang member goes.  [Contrast this with the average honest person who hates their job and their identity and most of all their powerlessness to change it.  They know they can’t count on their neighbor for support; their fellow-worker nearly without exception is a set of habitual responses.  Personal relationships are usually someone’s attempt to take advantage of you.  To have anything you really value is a liability.  The basic difference is in themes.  Oh.  And one other thing; the average gang member enjoys what he does.]

Okay.  I’ve got to finish this off.  I’m not going to follow natural instincts and embellish.

So what we’ve got on the initial growth of language seems to go with some other things, like the non-seasonal mating which allows much faster progenation.  A lot of “magpie” like traits, a learner.  The closes modern thing should be the intelligent monkeys in Asia that are such a threat.

Originally it seems species was formed by niche.  Intelligence beyond certain level doesn’t seem to be good for survival but then we’re talking about very short term.

The process by which you indicate and create, by which you judge and to which you refer truth, as truth is crucial.  The gap between that and the temporary definition of reality with which you make do surely indicates something.  Something meaningful, even.  It’s just that you can only guess toward a means of determination.  Pursuing a thing quite assuredly does not lend it truth or even existence.  Certainly presuming to set the boundaries in terms of the moment’s perspective is absurd.

Bear in mind too that Christ wasn’t respectful and he wasn’t a conservative.  It’s doubtful too he was a Christian.  The very last time I skimmed through portions of the New Testament there seemed to be evidence of more than one author, with the true one being political expediency.

The moment you define truth in terms of a sociopolitical construction you’ve abandoned hope.  You might as well expect a blueprint from a poem.  It seems current languages are pretty well in terms of sociopolitical systems.
[crap.  still more than a page.  at least i’m sticking to not adding to what was originally written]

October 24, 2008 at 9:56 pm Leave a comment


It will get better, I’m sure.  This is a day reminiscent of my mid-teen years, when the first person who might have understood WTF I was thinking about…lived in the Netherlands.  The problem with Dooyeveert and his Modal Philosophy as was, was that there were too many holes, too many unanswered questions.  A series of statements about a regular representative system that is meant to correspond to an irregular system has some integral problems, which means examining the irregularities first.  The irregularities can arise from many sources; most of them arise from the system of description meant to bridge from irregular to regular (which involves first and foremost the assignment of relevance, and then some other critical [presumably core, or integral] aspects, for which language <or any other representative system, by necessity> doesn’t exist.

That’s the real reason I left college, this second time.

Surely, assuredly, I must be mistaken.  Surely.

September 29, 2008 at 1:14 pm Leave a comment

a minor note

A minor note.

What I’ve been babbling about solving is this:  Dooyeveert’s Modal Philosophy employed modes which were essentially absolute.  That is, the validity (the “truth”) of a given mode is reportorial, and you don’t have to consider the origins of the definitions involved.  The tendency to use exclusivity-oriented definitions in this context means essentially that error is inescapable.  Another way of saying this is that the usage of absolute statements in a relative world is at least questionable.

The notion of modes is observably defensible.  It’s at least a way of describing ways in which people organize their perceptions, names, knowledge and assigned protocols in dealing with the environment (which naturally includes other people).  There are some fascinating possibilities introduced by this that I’m thinking about as well.  The notion of modes deals  well with the origin of human structures of knowledge and communication.  There’s also the matter of dealing with political structures and names.

All of this has direct effect on the nature of value.  “A change in values must result in a change in goals.”  The Nuclear Society has led to the Disentitled Generation; what the more current generation is remains to be seen.  My peers, I should say, fell back (predictably and actually without choice) on the dollar, peso, pound or whatever as the sole possible determination of value.  There was nothing else.  Trying to deal with others on any other basis hopefully just made us look like fools, rather than making us look dead.  Honor was the cool thing for comic books and popular films.

This is a minute fraction of what I’ve been scribbling away at.  It is kind of interesting.  I really did read a lot.   So I’m somewhat absent just now.  Assuredly the spirit will run out and I’ll spend more time on the Internet.

September 28, 2008 at 8:47 pm Leave a comment

Modal Philosophy

The primary problem I’m facing now is deceptively simple; what are modes?  Combine this with the statement that each occurrence is necessarily unique in some respects, and it becomes obvious that primarily modality is an artifact of a representational system or systems, although it is real in various respects.  It affects action (because it affects perception); modes can be shared (to some extent they have to be, because society per se is a product of shared perceptions which are the products of modes) and have stability.  A repetitive characteristic of modes is the assumption of the norm; what is experienced “now” (variously defined) is what has been and will be.  [Adaptation is the product most of all of pain.]  Modes are absolutely not exclusive.  Exclusive modes are the product of abstraction; Dooyeveert’s choice of “justice” as a mode was perhaps as perfect an example of this as could exist.  Modes as we know them descriptively are lingually-derived.  Experience itself is and must be pre-lingual.  The behaviorists and Freudians both might or might not argue.  If “conscious” experience then is lingual free will in most is arguable.


This is a tiny fragment of what I’ve been muttering about having thought about for forty years.  I’ve finally come to some actual conclusions.  Sort of; my philosophy doesn’t actually allow for absolutes, odd as that may seem.  The true origin lies in the meeting of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Luther, and Calvin of all things.  Throw in a little Bible (I did read it three times) and a few other books, plus at least a million words I’ve written (I’ve probably managed to get a thousand published).

September 27, 2008 at 4:12 am Leave a comment

Further Odd Notes: Renditions of Reality

August 24, 2008

5:37 PM

Switched to Jarte. Lots of notes toward a ‘finished’ version of A Relative View, which seems suddenly more the name of the thing. This seems appropriate since I spent about 20 hours writing and notionally it was all on the same day. Actually it would have to be 2000 for that to be true, I guess. I’m a bit cloudy just now. I got a compliment on a blog entry that I just didn’t trust, so I marked it as spam and now am running a thorough scan on the machine. Perhaps it’s mainly because I can do it in such silence.


08/25/08 04:28:30 PM

Continuing on this entry simply because I’d closed the first, and never posted this one. In the midst finally remembered to change the system reference to *.rtf files to AbiWord (fires up faster than Open Office) and finally forget the point of all that. It’s actually going to be continuing on about protocols and such, after I got too tired to carry on with actually writing about it but kept thinking about it. The frontal lobe acquisition of processing is fascinating in a number of ways, particularly since there’s particular indication that a socially-oriented animal will be less efficient at surviving alone or in marginal situations–but can’t survive in group-oriented situations, because the logic varies too much. Which bears thought. It’s also why in a situation where the scheme of value of someone is known (and verified), actions can be predicted, and why that scheme of value can actually be obtained through a relatively limited number of definitions, mainly because the source of the definitions (the logos) tends to be intrinsic. Patterns, that is, are much more revealing than words, though the words are the bridge to the patterns.



Most particularly important is the methodology of knowledge employed. It’s curious that it has so many names, and that the most common–at least when the thinker is being honest–is “faith” or some variant of the concept. Truth is defined by faith. Reality presumably requires truth. I’m tired of all the quotation marks I’ve used through my life, so I think I’m abandoning it. It might be apparent that there was a time gap there; however, it was more a pause to consider just how to word something than a break. What’s coming up is a break. My major problem in the consideration that formally started when I was about nine was that I couldn’t really find a way to envision the whole model of “reality” at one time. There were too many parts to it. It was like needing to present 3-D in 2-D, and being the artistic equivalent of dyslexic at the same time.


Before I take a break, there is absolutely no way that evolutionary theory–in point of fact the evolutionary hypothesis–is exclusive of the Bible. God could use any means God wanted. God doesn’t have sexual equipment, though, and “she” would in many ways be a more accurate analogy. To a great many extinct species, the extinction of “humans” (something I’ve never seen well defined) would be at least appropriate. Death is a matter of time. Sooner or later you’re picked as a dance partner.



To take a staggering step backward, that is, there seem to have been steps that might have aptly been termed triage. There were limited supplies that were dwindling, and not everyone was going to make it. A survival bar came into being. If you didn’t pass, you didn’t survive.


The time of limited supplies lasted quite a while. If I’m right, one source puts it at “a thousand generations” or 500 or so years. I don’t know. I’m interpreting scraps that I’ve read from various sources, and the people quoting them certainly wouldn’t agree with my identification of the subject. That was one of the problems I had every time I was in a school. The only part of this I would stand by is that the tactics–which are an entirely different matter–in fact do point to this having happened.


There was also of course the following age of growing plenty. Bear in mind that behaving morally–the mass of people, at least–means that you actually have a way a society can work. The other way found so far is complete subjugation, and it doesn’t work, even worse than the other way. In any population which is expanding, the current means of government (let alone members thereof) will fall. The question is whether sooner or later.



A successful society would be one in which its language and structure allowed it to react successfully to an ever-changing environment. One of the changes intrinsically included would be a continual change in values resulting from interaction with other cultures. Note that media and nodes (personalities or events) may actually establish modes–methods of perspective effect over variant periods of time, and generally extremely changeable with respect to physical position (because of political jurisdiction).



There are going to be some characteristic cultural reflections of tactics employed at the political and military level (and particularly at the religious mode, bearing in mind that any of the three can function as modes, nodes, or both) that will be lasting and will essentially bear the marks of lessons that have been learned.


A node is a point in a society that’s identifiable, and of an inherent duration. Generally, a cult is going to be a node while a religion won’t be–because a religion is generally considered to be longer-lasting, and to have impact on and be impacted by the society or societies in which it resides. An actor is a great example of a node. A medium generally isn’t a mode; it isn’t a way of perceiving meaning–which is one of the ways in which a cult satisfies the requirements, intrinsically. Interestingly enough, it’s become pretty apparent that nearly all cults are actually based on just one person, or rather the presentation of that person, with the media employed lending the appearance of “reality” to whatever the teachings are. Because of the fact that without society there are a limited number of ways to deal with and therefore to perceive reality, the whole thing is pretty much a social phenomenon.



The means of acquisition of knowledge and its definition–and most definitely its communication–are absolutely social phenomena. From everything we’ve seen you’ve got to be alive to talk about it, first. That was my first real problem with Dooyeveert’s Modal Philosophy. I actually do intend to deal with the “truth” end of things later, because that’s actually an entirely different and somewhat interesting matter. For now, though, I can assure you that to the Moon your brand new car is worthless and you’re crazy. Of course, so am I and I don’t have a brand new car.



The biggest problem with a system of government surviving in a time of change (and probably more in a time of growing resources than in a time of dwindling ones) is that one function of government is maintaining stability and yet the entire reality in which it’s based in changing. One characteristic of humans is that there is a social–not a genetic–tendency to breed ourselves into extinction. It’s best characterized by the Catholic pronouncement that preventing inception, and especially abortion, is evil. We can and we will keep on breeding as long as we can. It is interwoven through every culture of which I know, even though it’s often (thinly) hidden.


One result of living in a time where population is increasing is that there will be contact with other cultures, and there will be a simultaneous need for the same resources. Thus far basically every mention of constructing an artificial language or of attempting to rationally examine human society has met with outrage. One assumption that has continually been made is that there aren’t any truly exceptional human beings and that if they exist of course they’re being well-treated and even if they aren’t they would be nice. Surely.


The society which is automatically aggressive does tend to “win”.


I do know of a few communes which supposedly are successful. I have made some attempt at contact. I think somewhere I finally gave up on something I find impossible to describe. One example was going to that Calvinist church and attending catechism for years. Other examples are explorations of various ways of representation and belief. (I’m not done.)


At the beginning of this all, I was 9 years old, a philosopher, a would-be zen Buddhist and a poet. I’m still a philosopher, would-be zen Buddhist and a poet at 54 (55 in about 3 months). At the beginning I doubted truth, and do yet. I have, though, learned that progress is probably an illusion.



A giant step backward. In the evolution model, awareness of the environment is progressive in terms of distance. First of all it’s going to be things like water modified by the presence of another cell. A giant step forward is the awareness of sound. The less awareness is localized the better the chances of reaction. Then comes sight.


And at each step there are intrinsically necessary changes with regard to protocols.



Bear in mind that at each step there is some sort of (potential) communication with others. Any time that a given action by one elicits a consistent reaction by another, there’s an established protocol (we’re not talking about results to a protocol, by the way; every time you hit me I run away doesn’t do it; something led up to this). When this occurs at a distance, something resembling language has been used. When you’re closer together, this isn’t necessarily true (remember the class bully who you’re sure could speak, although he never managed anything coherent while you were around?).


Put this together with a lot of others of the same general type, and you have a society. A lot of the time, I think that scholars have further defining criteria. I actually define it as a lot of animals in the same place (generally, in our experience, of the same type) who manage activities outside killing, eating and procreation. We’ve historically been very anxious to kill non-human societies or anything that might resemble them. I don’t recall having seen any explanation for this, it’s just something I’ve observed. Any causes cited noted the society involved only tangentially, and generally emphasized the “fact” that the society involved is only theoretical. Like the societies of greater apes. I’ve always been very skeptical about scholastic types being unable to imagine how and why Cro-Magnon man took over so rapidly from Neanderthal. One absolute characteristic of humans is that we can’t stand something that looks like us but turns out not to be us. I’d imagine most of our horror movies are based on something like that (I frankly have watched only a few), with the back-stabber in whatever variation being the most popular.


What this means in a time of expanding population is a government that’s brutal. Rather, a succession of governments which are. Better than that, the most popular theme for explaining the replacement is that God liked the new government more, and you’d better believe it because that’s what police are for. If you haven’t yet been replaced, of course, God loves you more and you’d better make sure of it because that’s what police are for. And armies and suchlike, come to think of it.



The most important thing to remember about reality is that there are two sorts. There’s the one with which one has to deal, and there’s the approved way of talking about it. There’s even apparently a school of thought which holds that if you talk about it correctly, then that’s the way it is. When I understand that one, I’ll let you know. And that’s probably it for the end of the “day.” I mean, for this odd quasi-philosophical note. As if I’d a clue about what I’m talking about. Heh. Follow the grammar on that one.


August 25, 2008 at 9:52 pm Leave a comment

Older Posts