It is the unending curse of every population to one day require that the shackles of their governing bodies be thrown off. At some point in the life of every civilization there occurs the moment in which the people become victims of a government that has far outstripped not only its granted powers but its ability to move beyond a particular M.O. that is tyrannical toward its own people. Each generation is in possession of a longer line of hindsight than the last, yet somehow this comes as a surprise every time it happens.
We are now saddled under the yoke of a president we did not vote for, who now blatantly and consistently ignores the documented will of the people he is sworn to serve. Indeed, even the powers set in place to curb the abuse of power have become little more than advisors with the desire to replace the king. A pissing contest is now in session in which the American people have no say, yet are the direct victims of this power struggle.
Don't believe me?
In the National section of the LA Times for 3/29/07, this article ran concurrently with this article, and if that doesn't chill your blood, please reference the post in slashdot from spiedrazer regarding this conversation between our esteemed Attorney General and one Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18 (conversation paraphrased courtesy of Danny Dorsey):
SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there's an express constitutional provision that it can't be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.
GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you're referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: Well, you're not right about that. It's plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn't mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I'll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. [technically true i guess. so the framers were saying you couldn't take away something that isn't granted or assumed in the first place? clearly.] But it's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
GONZALES: Um.
Please read this article from the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel for details concerning the exchange.
Are these truly the people in charge of protecting the American people, of which they are (at least nominally), a part? I do no support violent revolution or terrorism, GOVERNMENT SANCTIFIED OR OTHERWISE, but for how long can the tyrannical leanings of ANY government be tolerated by its own people?
Many will say that such statements are unamerican, to which I would reply that they need to re-examine the nature of our original split with England. To constantly test the decency of the powers that govern us is in the very nature of the American Spirit (at least in theory). To blindly ignore the signs of impending storm and to blithely swallow the ravings of the propoganda-machine that is modern entertainment, to continue to support a government that blatantly lies, misleads, and double-talks its own people, to ignore the mounting outcry of ones fellow men, domestic and foreign, is quite possibly the worst act of treason imagineable in a country that prides itself on the supposed freedom, intellect, and dedication to good of its people and leaders.
It is far past time that something be done to curb the destructive actions not only of our president and government in general, but indeed to re-examine entirely the philosphy of government that can lead to and allow such flagrant war-mongering, hate-mongering, and power-mongering.
It is our job. No one elses.
Mar 29, 2007
A Time for Change
Jan 3, 2007
Moby Dick: An Allegory of the Human Condition as Compared to the Work of Daniel Quinn
Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael series (Ishmael (1992), My Ishmael (1997), and The Story of B (1996) ) is, at the surface, the story of a gorilla named Ishmael (specific species unrevealed) that can somehow communicate telepathically with the “students” who answer his newspaper ad. This plot functions as a springboard for a philosophical conversation in which Quinn examines the state of the world resulting from the actions of what he calls Taker Culture. Interestingly, the major concepts Quinn is addressing seem to be a much more involved, and in some ways a more abstract, explication of the things going on under the surface of Moby Dick.Because I can’t assume the reader’s familiarity with Quinn, there is the difficulty of attempting to explain some of these concepts while comparing them to Melville’s work. As a result of this, a list-like format is required. Let the reader bear in mind that this is by no means a synopsis of all three Ishmael books, nor are the concepts examined chronologically through plotlines. Indeed, much of Quinn’s message has been ignored here, simply for the fact that it is so wide-ranging in specifics that to examine them all would take up a whole book in itself. However, enough will be made clear that the reader will be unable to ignore the similarities and parallels to Melville’s piece. Perhaps what will make this more difficult is that few of the characters in Moby Dick occupy only one archetypal slot. Ishmael the whaler may at one moment be a Leaver, and at the next be the very epitome of the Taker dream.
First there is the nature of the names of our main characters. Ishmael (in both books) is a mystery to the reader, for the most part. The opening line of Moby Dick, “Call me Ishmael,” is just as arbitrary as the manner in which Ishmael the gorilla is named, in that the reader is left to simply accept the name given. For all we know, the gorilla really was Goliath (Ishmael, 18), and the narrator in Moby Dick is really named Bob. The point being that both characters are ambiguous, even mysterious, in their own particular ways. Examined in tandem, this phenomenon serves to create a certain degree of removal from the philosophical precepts being discussed, perhaps making the reader feel a little safer, more remote from the lives and emotions in the books.
Quinn’s Takers are a specific human culture that developed in today’s Near-East, and by nature of its structure (totalitarian agriculture) began to spread rapidly. For Quinn, Taker culture supercedes concepts of East and West and all the connotative impressions involved (see Joseph Campbell’s The Masks of God). Instead, the Takers are one of two world-wide archetypal cultures. In Moby Dick, Ahab permanently occupies this seat. He is the Takers. His monomania mirrors the enthusiasm with which Taker culture is pursuing its systematic destruction of all things not Taker, i.e. outside the realm of their immediate and total control. Concurrently, Moby Dick himself is one of the other few permanent archetypes, at once representing nature, the planet, and, indirectly, Leaver philosophy (though this is a bit of a stretch). The reader will never see him represented as a Taker. The easiest way to draw the parallel to Melville is with a statement of the Taker myth: The gods made the world for man, and made man to conquer and rule it (Ishmael, 80). This makes our job a bit easier. In Ahab’s mind, for whatever reason, the only reason Moby Dick exists (and perhaps by extension whales in general) is for Ahab to conquer and kill him. Indeed, he was “consumed with the hot fire of his purpose, Ahab in all his thoughts and actions ever had in view the ultimate capture of Moby Dick” (Moby Dick, 204). This is also manifested to a degree by Ahab’s viewing Moby Dick as “the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them” (Moby Dick, 176). Moby Dick is the cause of all Ahab’s distresses, his death Ahab’s reason for existence, the highest possible manifestation of his purpose.
The Leavers, like Moby Dick himself, are the diametric opposite of the Takers. Generally tribal in nature, these cultures exist today where they haven’t been eradicated by the Takers (though the process is far from over). This is perhaps the most difficult concept to pin down in Moby Dick, particularly because there is no specific character that permanently occupies this one symbolic niche. Ishmael, our narrator, may be seen as a reformed Taker, or an almost reformed Taker. He still exists, for the most part, in their world, haughtily berating the “common man” who would disagree with the established norms of the whaling industry (the Taker dream). He even names one of his chapters The Honor and Glory of Whaling. However, as a result of his experiences he is unable to continue to support the pursuit of Ahab’s madness (this is implied, for the most part). We can see this waffling most specifically in his early descriptions of Queequang, who represents recently assimilated Leaver cultures, being a savage who has subscribed to the Taker philosophy of subjugating the world (Moby Dick) into destruction. Similar archetypal niches are occupied by most of the “savage” crew of the Pequod (Tashtego, Dagoo, Pip, etc.) Ishmael runs a range of emotion from alienation to fear to acceptance and friendship with this savage “wild cannibal” (Moby Dick, 23), only eventually abandoning the disgust for all things non-Taker that has been bred into him by Mother Culture.
The reader may question why there is no actual Leaver represented in Moby Dick, and I can only postulate that this is because Moby Dick is a Taker story, written by a Taker, for Takers.Totalitarian Agriculture is a system of agriculture geared towards the production of human food and human food only, eliminating competition, and then locking up all surplus food so as to force cooperation out of members of Taker culture, which mirrors Quinn’s portrayal of the inception of division of labor (My Ishmael, 54). The concept of Totalitarian Agriculture is treated specifically in chapters 89 and 90 of Moby Dick. In chapter 89, Ishmael goes into a lengthy description of the rules of ownership in whaling, referring to fast and loose fish. To hear Ishmael tell it, any whale (land) not occupied (held) by a Taker culture (ship) is a loose-fish, up for grabs to the strongest arm. Chapter 90 is perhaps the most representative of the totalitarian agricultural system. Here, Ishmael relays the tale of the Lord Warden, who lays claim to a whale caught by some local fisherman (Moby Dick, 387). The fishermen did the work, and immediately their winnings (food) are to be taken away, essentially locked up, so as to force the fishermen to work even more for the goods that they originally produced. This scene is paralleled in My Ishmael with the tale of Terpsichore, a planet where inhabitants are forced to dance in order to receive the food that they’ve helped to produce (My Ishmael, 51); which story is again indirectly mirrored by the story of Steelkilt (Moby Dick, 234). Steelkilt’s refusal to cooperate results only in his (symbolic) destruction.
Quinn states that The Great Forgetting was and is a process enacted in the Taker culture by which they convinced themselves that nothing prior to the birth of Taker culture is of any real value. According to Quinn, this is where the ambiguous term “prehistory” comes from, as well as the (now long defunct) theory that the earth is only about 5000 years old. This is represented in Moby Dick when Ishmael addresses the head of a beast who “has moved amid this world’s foundations . . . and [yet] not one syllable is thine!” (Moby Dick, 302). The reader gets the same impression, though perhaps less defined from Ishmael’s condescending attitude towards opinions outside the fishery. Without question, it is Ishmael’s opinion that the fishery is one of America’s greatest enterprises, and those who belittle it members of the uninformed, savage masses.
The Flying Machine is another of Quinn’s metaphors. He uses the flying machine prototype as a model of cultural systems. Previous designs that didn’t work have been discarded (Aztec, Inca, etc.) and despite the increasingly obvious uselessness of the Taker model, the Taker culture continues to insist on its being the only correct model for a flying machine, or cultural system in Quinn’s case (see Ishmael). One of the easier correlations, the reader can see Quinn’s flying machine in the Pequod, a boat much like any other whaling boat, valiantly and courageously sailing the seas in pursuit of the Taker dream. Ahab’s monomania prevents even the sad tales of failed ships like the Jeroboam (Moby Dick, 303) from stopping his pursuit of the white whale. It is precisely this refusal that leads to the destruction not only of Ahab, but of his ship and crew: the complete collapse of the world he has dedicated himself to (see “The Collapse of Values,” The Story of B, 276).
Perhaps the easiest of Quinn’s concepts to examine chronologically through Moby Dick is that of the boiling frog, a metaphor for the current worldwide state of Taker culture. A frog placed in a pot of boiling water will immediately jump out. A frog placed in a pot of tepid water will float calmly as the temperature is consistently increased, until the water is boiling and the frog is dead. The increasing number of bubbles in the pot Quinn likens to the increasing frequency of human disasters (famine, plague, gang violence, drug addiction, etc.). By far the most directly parallel metaphor, we see the plight of the Pequod increasing by stages, beginning with the Starbuck’s disastrous pursuit of a whale in a dense fog (Moby Dick, 217). The pressure increases with Tashtego’s falling into the emptied head of a Sperm Whale (Moby Dick, 331), and yet again when Ishmael’s whaling boat is becalmed in the center of a mob of confused but still very dangerous Sperm Whales (Moby Dick, 372). This progression is perfectly (though more extensively) paralleled in The Story of B as “B” continually relates increasing “signs of distress” in the world at large(Story of B, 262).
So what does it all boil down to? Melville and Quinn both seem to be telling us something very important about what we’re doing here. Quinn’s work is a warning (as well as a possible path to correcting the problem). What Melville gives us is not the warning, but the story of what’s happening now, and where it’s going. It is no mistake that Moby Dick was the victor, just like it is no mistake that Ishmael the convert was the only survivor. What we will or can do with the information they’ve presented us, that is the real test.
Bibliography:
Campbell, Joseph. THE MASKS OF GOD, 1959-1968 (4 vols., Primitive Mythology, 1959; Oriental Mythology, 1962; Occidental Mythology, 1964; Creative Mythology, 1968)
Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael. Bantam: New York, 1992.
Quinn, Daniel. My Ishmael. Bantam: New York, 1997.
Quinn, Daniel. The Story of B. Bantam: New York, 1996.
Oxymorons
Our educators can be some of the most moronic people ever.
Read this first
Now:
" The concept that searching a blog site is an invasion of privacy is almost an oxymoron . . . . It is called the World Wide Web."
-Associate Superintendent Prentiss Lea
1st:
"World Wide Web" indicates ONLY that the communication network/ informational dispersion system in question extends througout the globe (which even at this point is technically untrue). The "World Wide Web," or the internet as anyone living in the 21st century calls it, is completely familiar with private information. Even Live Journal and MySpace have options to make information viewable ONLY by the author. The internet abounds with information accessible only by username and password. To make a statement indicating that simply posting ANYTHING on the internet makes that information "public" is a grave and sadly typical misunderstanding on the part of people responsible for educating our children and American society in general these days.
2nd:
Simply "monitoring" a students communications based on the "concerns" of friends, family, or ADMINISTRATION (and dont' kid yourself) is an invasion of privacy. Even the police (who, let's admit it, generally do whatever the fuck they want), are technically required to go through some kind of legal channel before searching someones home or confiscating their personal correspondence or "diary" work.While I'll admit that concern over the safety of schools after the incident in Columbine is much more important than in the past, this concern can not be met at the expense of the basic rights of every person on this planet, regardless of any man-made law you can think of.How are we supposed to teach our children to be inventive, creative individuals in a complex society if we use the first third of their lives instilling in them a fear of "thinking out of line."
THAT'S on oxymoron.
Oct 24, 2006
Captive Audience Consumerism
Convenience: Performing an action with a minimum of immediately expended energy.
It is arguable that convenience has become a necessity in today’s culture. Everything we do is constructed around the time-or-energy-saving concept. However, taking full advantage of such social organization necessitates a higher than average social standing. Lower social classes (here indicated soley by overall income) find themselves trapped by the same convenience mindset.
EX. Assuming a lower class example, it is less expensive in the long run to buy food at the market, but immediate need combined with availability of funds traps the individual in the “convenient” state of satisfying immediate hunger by buying fast food, which is overall more expensive and less healthy.
Earlier I stated that in order to benefit fully from this structure requires a higher social standing. It is interesting to note that a higher social status also makes said individuals less dependant on this system. The only reasons (theoretically) they continue to participate are familiarity, contentment, or lack of conscious knowledge of the particular structure.
Oct 12, 2006
Symbolization, Expression, and Objective Reality
On the nature of our perceptions and the world that surrounds us . . .
Symbolization – The process of attaching sensually or intellectually indicative meaning to perceived objective reality.
Expression – The process of projecting symbolized perception outside of the self (here synonymous with “intent”)
-Just as some languages consist of words that refer to concepts unknown in other languages, so the disagreements between science and mysticism are a result of inconsistent translation.
-The realm of human perception is inherently larger than that which can be fully expressed.
Therefore, mysticism/religion (even as they are understood today), are indispensable, as they express the next level of our perception of objective reality (science being the step upon which we stand).
Just as physiological aberrations that do not work (do not increase representation in the gene pool) are bred out and cease to exist, so must the philosophies that do not work be abandoned.
It is possible to perceive and symbolize an experience while lacking any means of expressing that experience. Symbolization requires only a basis for comparison with previous (ly symbolized?) experiences or perceptions.
It is possible to perceive and experience while lacking any means of symbolization. These moments of perception become what we call the “religious experience,” which is the beginning of the road to the establishment of godhead.
Two related arguments:
1. There is no objective reality.
2. There is no objective view.
The difference between the two is that the “view” occurs after reality has been perceived, and is formed through the process of symbolizing an experience (a perception/interaction with objective reality).
So objective reality is that which has:
a. not been perceived but still exists.
a1. An object does not cease to exist without sentient perception of its existence. This can
be proven by videotaping any physical object and viewing the video at a later time.
Therefore, objective reality does exist
b. Been perceived but has not yet been symbolized.
b1. All sentient or semi-sentient entities perceive and interact with objective reality by
symbolizing its meaning in relation to themselves. Symbolization only becomes possible
once previous experiences have been accrued. At some point this process becomes
essentially automatic (in all life?)
Therefore, while objective reality is always present, it is essentially impercievable by any sentient or semi-sentient entity that has accrued previous experiences, nullifying the “objective view.”
Notes:
At what level of sentience? (ants, fungus, etc. What is the criteria? Cephalization.
What about infants? Lacking any previous experiences, do the newly born, or even pre-natal, have any means of symbolizing external stimulus? How long have I know that “red” is the color I see on my wall?
What about retarded people? Do certain types of disabilities necessarily maintain a more “objective view” as a result of the slowing/halting of the symbolization process? Autism. Subject/object interference.
The Dogmatic Paradox Principle
What is the nature of the word dogma, and how does one go about creating a system of philosophy that not only espouses non-dogmatic principles but also does so in a systematic, presentable form without falling into the use of dogmatic statements?
***
First, some definitions that will relate, all taken from Dictionary.com:
Dogma: 1. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. 2. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
Canonize: 1. To include in a literary canon. 2. To approve as being within canon law. 3. To treat as sacred; glorify.
Doctrine: 1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma
Archaic use: something taught; a teaching (n.)
***
Earlier discussions of these and other definitions have negated religion specifically. Dogma is any statement of absolute truth, whether it be moral, social, political, or scientific (though this is arguable in the modern world. Science knows this if nothing else: we know jack.)
***
New uses for other words:
Set: Also readable as paradigm. The philosophic paradigm is the set within which we are operating.
Subset: Conceptual groups arranged within the set, e.g. philosophic systems allowable within the larger paradigm.
Minutiae: All the various pieces of information that make up the framework of the paradigm. This works essentially as a conceptual filter for philosophic systems, or aspects of them.
***
In this light, the minutiae of the paradigm are in danger of becoming dogmatic statements. They are the keys to defining what is accepted within our paradigm, but by the very goal of the system must avoid making statements of absolute moral truth. Is this possible? Can we generalize our minutiae enough to avoid this dogmatic paradox?
It is an absolute truth that one should always question an absolute truth.
That is dogma. Or is it? This is not, I think, a question that can easily be examined without running in circles, so now we must move on to a different, but related question. Does it matter?
It seems that common consensus in the modern world is that dogma has entirely connotative meaning. Is there such a thing as good dogma and bad dogma? What would be the manner of determining such states, if they exist?
The key is generalization within the scope, I think, of what we know of the systems that promote life on this planet (and when I say life, I mean all life. I would hope weve moved beyond the fallacy of man being the center of the universe and the ultimate product of all creation shit is this dogma?!).
The Dogmatic Paradox Principle: A system of establishing paradigm filters that promote diverse inclusion by excluding those symbolic sets that work against said diversity. It is an absolute truth that all statements of absolute truth must be continually scrutinized for their adherence not only to their own standards of dogmatic delivery, but also to the very concepts of the Dogmatic Paradox Principle. This requirement applies to the Dogmatic Paradox Principle itself. Only in this way can any system of belief continue to support its workability within reality. Any dogmatic statement need not necessarily be proven true; it need only remain workable or valid en totale under constant scrutiny for the duration of its application.
I believe:
There is good dogma. There is very little of it there, but it is there. Good dogmatic principles are extremely inclusive, as they must be in order to foster a biological system whose strength is founded on diversity. There is also bad dogma, and there is much more of this than there is good dogma. Dogma in and of itself need not necessarily be avoided. It needs to be minimized. Accepted dogma must allow for the inclusion of various subsets within the paradigm it defines, and disallow the inclusion of subsets that work against that diversity.