Context Based Philosophy
It all Started with Agile Systems Development (and Hermeneutics).
[Once I was able to include hermeneutics in my own software development methods (in my battle with the structured methodology) - I could then develop software using the methods of post-structuralism in my work as a developer. The leaders of that methodological effort, in my mind, are Foucault and Habermas. {You can read Habermas directly (well, I mean, a translation) but Foucault lives in his work and is hard to understand directly. You need to read summaries done by his followers. You just apply what they are saying to your development work and you have a much better understanding of all the development issues.} These are two different ways of breaking away from the problems caused by structuralism. When you get the idea of how to truly "read between the lines" - by archeological layering or language action - the picture you get of "reality" allows you to go beyond these post-structuralist originators. It is seeing behind the language/culture structure (The Wall) that allows post-structuralist methods to reveal what is otherwise hidden. Jerome Heath]
[By the way . . . Marxism is a structuralist formula that Marx thought would solve structuralism problems. It is ultimately far more structured than any other philosophical base. So it is ultimately far worse rather than better at solving structural problems.]
This is my Father's World
Contextualism
The goal of this methodology is to develop a philosophy that is not based on negatives. When centering our discussion on truth the evaluation of words, issues, ideas are primarily normative. That means once some idea is brought forward it is evaluated first by normative value considerations. The problem with this is that a lot of things cannot be evaluated for their usefulness because they are questioned on value before we know what they are, before we understand the meaning. And the normative judgement, in fact, is actually a cover for personal bias. That approach then, also, is hiding extreme biases, and to criticize such bias activity also violates the normative issues. This is why we need to base our inquiry on meaning rather than truth.
There is a remnant of ancient concepts [God , or gods, or spiritual beings] and ideas that relate to the necessity of some higher rule or justification. Kant called this the transcendental. Hegel referred to this as a need for greater abstraction. Ultimately the point is that this abstraction or transcendental has some authority over truth as compared to reality. This problem becomes serious when we agree there must be a transcendental but cannot agree on the specifics. This is particularly problematic when the abstraction can over-rule other more substantial ideas. The transcendental is to be the final authority in philosophy; but the ancient spiritual concept that there's a god, that the transcendental value depends on, are no longer considered meaningful in themselves. The transcendental is a naked meaningless gesture. This is why we need to specify that reality is more important than theory [a broad reference to the abstractions derived from the transcendental]. There must be a connection to reality. If we are not connected to reality we ultimately are connected to nothing.
The usual approach to analysis and understanding of something is to follow some kind of structure. This is establishing the methodology to follow as we proceed. The problem with structured methodology is that the structure has too much to say about the results. It is like choosing a path before you know what the path leads to. Often more mature philosophers do know what the path leads to and use it on purpose since they desired that result. The path or structure is a ruse for not being objective. This is why we need to base our effort on context rather than structure. Laying out the relationship of all our entities provides a special [woven] understanding of the context of the problem. We can follow a procedure but we can't forget the context.
Emergent
In language, sounds are interpreted into words. The rules for this are part of understanding language and relates to the set of sounds available. We learn these sound combinations through life. If we are literate we also can do this interpretation with written words. The words are then interpreted into phrases by other language rules; such as nouns, verbs, prepositions, and how these are to be combined. We then hang these phrases together into a sentence that ultimately can allow us to make sense out of a communication. At each step the reduction in complexity brought on by the use of rules allows a limitation on the possibilities and this creates the path for emergence of meaning in language. The process is always probabilistic and not structured. The analysis has a distribution of possible right answers at each step. The ultimate result is tuned into through the process.
From Jung: The Archetype, expressed as something singular and also more general and universal, is the negative region to logical and rational thought [Jung]. It gives the logical and rational meaning by holding the symbols in some configuration. But the configuration of the Archetype is like the (photographic) negative of the logical and rational process [Jung]. So it fills the empty space of logical and rational thought. It also fulfills the meaning of such thought as such thought is merely symbols that have either no meaning in themselves or that may have some meaning but not exactly the meaning that is referenced in some logical and rational thought [Jung]. Here the meaning arises out of the real memories that are extended from that Archetype. But, as we discuss below, the meanings as patterns blossom (are visualized) from the polymorphic links between the memories as they are extended from the Archetypes.
This is an extremely powerful way for the mind to recognize patterns very quickly. The Archetypes, themselves, are not instantiated, so they cannot be seen; they are part of the "subconscious" - in the shadow.
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated “in themselves”. The Archetype, is an abstract class. It gives the logical and rational meaning by holding the symbols in the polymorphic configuration. Archetypes are the “shadow” (sub-conscious [meaning not instantiated]) of a conscious symbol, which is extended into the memory object. The Archetype fulfills the meaning of the symbol in thought. The Archetype molds a thought into meaning [Jung]. The Shadow (an Archetype) is the Archetype of Archetypes (the shadow of all shadows; the base class of all base classes).
To understand language I picture that there is some kind of probability holes that words can fit into [per Jung]. But the structure must be surrounded by applicable memories that are somehow linked to the memory holes [Archetypes] so the content can be matched, quickly, to the contexts we already have. This matching starts tentatively. As the probability of success in interpretation goes up, the context and content are arrived at smoother, faster, and with immediate links to meaning.
It takes how many seconds to say a sentence. At that point we usually know what the sentence means; and can reply in an intelligent manner. If we don’t do it in a couple seconds people will wonder if we are missing something. Unless of course we are on satellite feed.
The mind seems to have a huge and complex set of links to information that, to us programmers, appears to be strangely but somehow usefully related. We are able to link words with the contextual meaning by color, size, shape, and of course by various possible meanings in the text (and the first letter of the word). And we also seem at times to use some rather unscientific link processes (metaphor and allegory). How do we do this?
Mist
There are two important issues with this processing. First our mind’s compiler is more polymorphic than object oriented. The object orientation, of course, is the child of our polymorphism. But being polymorphic is definitely the more important part of our mental object orientation. But there are some polymorphic rules used by our mental processes that, in general, the present computer object oriented languages can not keep up with. One of the main issues is our mind’s ability to change the object designation on an entity at any stage. An object is not defined completely and then frozen. Some object orientation languages have late stage definition possibilities; but for the mind this is an extremely important and extremely flexible capability.
All memory entities are at first held by the Shadow [after initial neural interpretation], but it also would have another extension of something else that is immediately contextual (such as word one, word two, . . . in a sentence). But then during processing they are discretely transitioned to a new ‘object definition’ (extending from an Archetype other than the Shadow) on the way to discovery of the meaning (this is by using a set of polymorphic links).
Forming a Polymorphic Philosophy
Through New Language Understanding
Previously I have talked about language issues in the process of developing a philosophy (and about developing software). Many philosophers saw the language problem that Wittgenstein talked about in the book “On Certainty”. They tried to develop languages to solve this problem, but these were necessarily stilted and mathematical rather than linguistic. Such languages tried to express truth in regular [but stilted] philosophical arguments.
They did not get people to accept and use the languages [the languages probably would have difficulty with issues related to normal contexts and meanings, which got lost in the effort.]. Wittgenstein portrayed that the issue with such approaches was the fact that the the rules or methods they wanted to use in the language and word meanings of the language were not in the "language game". Expressions that are outside of the language game do not work (do not convey a proper meaning) in language.?
My view is that this is caused by the polymorphic nature of real language. In such a polymorphic language, an entity of the language needs to be objectified. That means the entity (or the word for it) carries some attributes and processes into the conversation. These are not the meanings of that objectified entity (which are related to the context) but define the character of how the word or words are used to convey that entity in the conversation. The meaning is also derived from the polymorphic linkages in the context of associated memory objects in our mind. This provides pattern; and pattern is meaning.
I think you should be able understand how abstract concepts are being used in a philosophy. Abstract means it refers to many different things, and at the same time. So when you bring a real [not abstract] issue into the conversation you can include everything in the issue in the truth of the whole [actually this is not true if the real concept has a little abstractness about it]. But an abstract concept or issue contains many dimensions (at least more than one). When you bring an abstract concept into a discussion you can only be sure that some of it is true - but not all of it. The three stooges (Kant, Hegel, and Marx) should have been able to see that this was the problem after writing or reading the “Critique of Pure Reason”. Their problem of recognition was that they felt that it was caused by not being abstract enough. They were in love with the abstract because that provided interesting intellectual discussions. But it could not be a basis for the truth of a general philosophy (which requires abstract concepts to be actuated [instantiated]). That is if we based our philosophical development on truth we have trouble using abstract concepts as a base; which prevents it from being a general philosophy.
This problem could be solved, in my understanding, by basing our philosophical investigations on meaning rather than truth. It has a different method of development and our results will be a different set of ideas than what comes from truth. And it can be general [due to polymorphic linkages] without instantiating an abstract class.
Habermas says that with previous efforts in establishing truth as a basis for philosophy the process tends to deteriorate into normative restriction on thought and discussion. Again, this is PC as we know it today. You are not even allowed to ask a question. The lack of dialog yields a very narrow minded philosophy. One way to avoid such problems is to base our development of philosophy on meaning rather than truth [and context rather than structure].?
Dictionary Meaning
Structured or Dictionary Meaning
The structured understanding of the meaning is more dictionary based but the post-structuralist “layered” meaning is more thesaurus based. The thesaurus allows a more useful (pragmatic) understanding of the meaning of words as shaded by the context (as developed in the thesaurus) and linked by polymorphism, whereas the dictionary meaning sees words as atomic and immutable (specific) in meaning.
Both (atomic and immutable) are not a characteristic of real words in real contexts. Both atomic and immutable take words as though they were like numbers (so languages for this type of argument are "mathematical") and not words. Thus (being number like) they have a specific place in some meaning cluster (atomic and immutable) as though they were place holders (but then they actually lose their real meaning). Whereas in any context the meaning of the word (in that context) is determined (in some form of shading) by that context. Wittgenstein - The meaning of a word is in its use.
Layering [of Foucault] allows us to recognize the meaning and shades of meaning of the words used in their real (and present) contexts and also compared to the whole system as a context. The structured analysis equivalent to this can only produce a first meaning or, perhaps, a most common (single) meaning (since, in structured thought, meanings need to be viewed as atomic and immutable). Post-structuralism is more akin to poetry than prose (since prose is more structural).
Thesaurus Meaning
[Archeological layering is proposed by Foucault as a means of recognizing trends in the development of information over time and from different sources. It is important to understand the epistemology of the changes in meaning of terms (words used) over time. That is because changes are forgotten without some history. In my own work I am less concerned with the difference between epistemologies and transformations since the transformations are as important as the epistemology in systems development and since both those are often buried in the data available. In some areas the changes due to epistemology can become hidden by the fact that they are the result of other conversations. I am concerned with recognizing all the relationships between artifacts of a study as any one of those transformations could be important to the results of the systems development process. Once all the transformations and other relationships are uncovered the important ones become easier to define and use.]
Thesaurus Meaning
The structured understanding of the meaning is more dictionary based but the post-structuralist “layered” meaning is more thesaurus based. The thesaurus allows a more useful understanding of the meaning of words as shaded by the context (as developed in the thesaurus).
Word And Contexts
Whereas in any context the meaning of the word (in that context) is determined (in some form of shading) by that context. Wittgenstein - The meaning of a word is in its use. Layering [of Foucault] allows us to recognize the meaning and shades of meaning of the words used in their real contexts and also compared to the whole system as a context. This methodology also demonstrates the context of the text and the words that we are dealing with,
Communicative Action
[Juergen Habermas developed a theoretic approach to developing dialog based on a functionalist rather than a normative basis. Thus pragmatics (and usefulness) becomes more important than the normative process of establishing truth. This does not deny the need for truth but denies the necessity of normative investigation at every step in the process. The truth methodology is used mainly to stifle discussion and debate (i.e. PC).]
The meaning process is closer to the way the mind works; thus, ultimately, it can be more successful for people to accomplish.
In the minds process the methodology has a finger in the context of the words that are being activated. For structured methodology there is an intent to remove the context [excess context] as it is felt that it hinders real meaning. Just the opposite is true. Real context develops real meanings.
The Manifesto of Contextual Philosophy
Meaning over Truth
When centering our discussion on truth the evaluation of words, issues, ideas are primarily normative. That means once some idea is brought forward it is evaluated first by normative value considerations.
The fact that Truth is the problem point in all Western philosophy does not prove they are all liars. It actually means that Truth, as defined by philosophers, is not real. It cannot be made real since there is a characteristic of the definition of philosophical Truth that means philosophic Truth will always be illusive. "Critique of Pure Reason" actually proved that. Philosophers have never accepted that proof. The problem is that you must instantiate an abstract class in order to have a general philosophy based on Truth; but abstract classes cannot be instantiated. Instantiating an abstract class trashes any and all truth tables you have. Your system is garbage when you instantiate an abstract class.
The other issue with Truth as the basis of philosophy, is that Truth based anything becomes a normative nightmare very quickly. Everyone is soon condemned completely and that condemnation is used as a basis for control. So everyone's mind is enslaved in a network of what you can't do (almost everything is included in the can't do category). There is no room for discussion and a few blatant bullies take full control of all thought [Stalinist Russia].
Meaning based philosophy is much more helpful in providing guidance and allowing discussion and agreement. To achieve such processing the basis must be Meaning and not just another form of Truth. Meaning is based on a set of relationships that are linked to the context (physical first, but includes mental objects that become familiar enough so they can be tied closely to the real physical objects [through the Archetypes], for which they are activated in our mind). Pivoting to the Context, rather than abstract Truth, insures a unification in understanding without the problem of singularity that is the only rendering of Truth relationships. Truth must be singular. Truth makes everything into a cause for discipline and control; but not as a basis for understanding. The word "understanding" defines the use of Meaning in a way that it becomes a basis for discussion; and agreement.
Truth is deterministic and fixed. We may not even know what it is fixed on right now. That is, whether we have the correct truth or if we have the incorrect truth (which is the more likely case), truth is fixed (in our minds). If it is not fixed, it is not truth. It is either the truth or not the truth [singular]. There is no neutral territory with Truth. That is why it cannot be used as the basis for negotiation. That is why structuralists have problems with negotiating. It is high noon and time for the shootout at OK corral.
Meaning is not so locked and closed. There is freedom in meaning, (as compared?to truth). Meaning is based on the abstract, but is not entirely abstract. In fact the center of a meaning is at least one real instance that becomes meaningful because it is extended in our mind from or to?an abstraction (at least one abstraction). Meaning, as i am defining it, is always tied to reality. The abstract puts life into the meaning. And the abstract opens the possibility of flexibility. The reality in meaning means we can talk about it since there is a reality that we can refer to. The abstraction in any references to that real, allows the freedom to negotiate. The abstraction is the Archetypes which are not instantiated but are extended from. Extending provides abstraction in context without having an instantiated abstraction hanging around and trashing the meaning.
Reality over Theory
There is a remnant of ancient concepts and ideas that relate to the necessity of some higher rule or justification (god). Kant called this the transcendental. Hegel referred to this as a need for greater abstraction. Ultimately this abstraction or the transcendental provides for authority for truth as compared to reality. But, if you don't believe in god the transcendental is nonsense. This is why I want to insist that reality is more important than theory [a broad reference to the abstract and transcendental].
Modern theoretic approaches are based on structuralism. This basis of thought pattern is an attempt to keep it consistent and simple so we can get duplication on building, discussing, or testing a theory. The problem is, our problems are no longer simple. So simplicity leads to difficulties in consistency (loose ends).
Structuralism
The assumption of this theoretic approach is that the universe is structured; it also means that it is basically Newtonian. But much of the activity in the universe follows the processes of harmonics. In those cases the simplicity and consistency of Newtonian analysis does not apply. Harmonics does have its own simplicity and consistency but that is not Newtonian. The baseline of reality (as the fundamental basis), needs to be extended since harmonics implies the existence of issues structuralism is ignoring.
The structuralist theory is always limited in how much it covers. That is because much of what is going on is harmonics. So structuralism only covers little patches of theory, which leads to science being divided up into small separate segments so we can talk about each one of these parts (separately). Structuralism (or Newtonian-ism) does not ever fit into covering large segments of reality in a solid continuous meaningful way for true analysis and development. And quite often the different segments of theory cannot even discourse with each other.
Another large difficulty with our structured solutions to problems is the fact that we use Gramsci arguments to solve many of our problems. This leaves us with the difficulties of analyzing hegemony, and the resulting conclusions of hate, hate, and more hate. Gramsci analysis always aims at determining who we are to hate, now.
Hegemony?
Hegemony is one of the constraints of Cultural Harmonics. If the constraints of our harmonics are right the middle class appears (this is an Adam Smith kind of magic in group processes). If the constraints are wrong then the middle class disappears (another kind of magic).
A big problem here is that PC hegemony constraints leave the middle class out of the solution. This is on purpose, since Marx wanted to get rid of the middle class because they (the Bourgeoisie) had too much freedom. And freedom cannot exist in socialism (see excepts from?The Communist Manifesto). To this mind set we are somehow saved by giving up “all” our freedom to these bullies. The only guarantee is that they will never give back our freedom.
Between structuralism and hegemony we have a problem with diving into the difficulties of a system. So we need to look at reality and let reality not theory be the basis of our analysis and development. Reality is related to Meaning (they are cousins).
Existentialism
The god who is me, that we formulate out of an internal leap of faith, is always questionable. Basing your life on a god who is me and a set of slogans that sound good (but often simplistic), is rather simplistic and stupid. The slogans sound good because they fit in with what is currently popular; but what is popular right now is no basis for a lifetime and a total commitment. You may have to throw that set away in a week and start over with the new set of currently popular slogans. Being up-to-date means always being out-of-date.
The reality of the leap of faith is not the reality of mindfulness. Actually the leap of faith is not reality at all. Mindfulness is seeing and believing what is there in front of you; and accepting that set of things as at least a good part of Meaning (but not necessarily as Truth). Actually, the leap of faith is looking for Truth by making it up. The leap is an argument (excuse) for accepting personal opinion as Truth.
There needs to be a spiritual part of the leap so it can be the transcendental as specified by the three stooges. But we don’t really believe in Sanity Clause. So to start "Thus Spach Zarathustra" right, I suppose, we need to pretend we believe in Sanity Clause temporarily. Then our leap becomes the transcendental. I know I am being silly. That is because existentialism is nonsense.
Trauma can rob you of Meaning. But leaping into some "sounds good" Truth is not really a solution to your problem. You need Meaning not Truth to solve these issues. Meaning can only come from a healthy dose of mindfulness.
Reconnecting with the reality you fear is the only long term solution to your trauma problem. Your options become a useful start toward recreating Meaning in your mind and life [trauma always challenges meaning]. And there is more real spirituality in Meaning than Truth; because it is Not a Lie (you don't need to temporarily believe in Sanity Clause), and it is anchored in reality. Reality has Meaning and the Cycle of Life.
Present theoretic methods used at this time tend to be structured and based on singular methodologies. In order to have your methodology working with a polymorphic reality you needs to use concepts of meaning [non-singular] discussed previously and language concepts which are polymorphic in nature. See more on this kind of methodology in Hermeneutics in Agile Systems Development.
Context over Structure
The usual approach is to begin by following some kind of structure. Thus establishing the methodology to follow before we proceed. The problem with any structured methodology is that the structure has too much to say about the results. It is like choosing a path before you know what the path leads to. The path is a ruse for not being objective. This is why we need to base our effort on context rather than structure.
The mind has a way of producing mental objects out of the interpretation of external information. A fresh encounter with the outer world is analyzed by a neural network. The information is carried by nerves from the sensing point. These nerve signals are then filtered through neural networks to an entity for the Shadow. It is then captured as a memory by instantiating a memory object extended from an Archetype of similar patterns [hash to meaning].
The idea is that, for the mind, there is a polymorphic process. This only requires that the minds polymorphism is polymorphism on steroids (the mind has a polymorphic freedom that no programming language yet has). I believe that the mind is polymorphism on steroids; the object orientation is just a feature of polymorphism.?
(See: Contextualism)
The mind is a probabilistic process that is under constraints. The process is probabilistic but the constraints provide limitations so the result is controlled by these limitations. Thus the constraints prevent dissipation [and loss of process results], and encourage meaningful results [emergence]. The constraints in the young child are the Archetypes. As we grow older our minds develop aggregate (abstract) classes that are useful as though they were Archetypes. That is what learning is all about.
For most people these constraints are key pivot points of a story. These constrain the mental process so that meaningful patterns result from the interpretation process. The meaningful patterns are stories or story parts that make sense. Our goal in interpretation is meaning (patterning) not truth. Thus the Archetypes [abstract classes] are the basis of meaning as the new real [object] in memory is extended from one or more Archetypes. The process is too fast to allow time for any kind of truth table. The Archetype molds the thought into meaning [Jung].
In the mind the base class (and the most abstract) is the Shadow. This is the abstract class of all abstract classes. This is how our compiler works. The archetypal region of thought is also tied to the world that our physical senses encounter. Thus we only understand the world from our senses as it is carried to our rational thought through the archetypal region. The Archetypes mediate our understanding of the physical universe [Jung].
Again, the mind is polymorphism on steroids. The polymorphic links between the objects extended from an Archetype (or set of Archetypes) provides the meaning. The mind finds meaning through the polymorphic links in the minds context. This is how we have meaning. This is not about truth; again, there is no time and no methodology for a truth table.
The context is the transcendental.
Wittgenstein recognized that language itself does not support the force of atomic and immutable definitions. Structured design (of Systems Analysis and Design) was specifically developed to create a language (the structural design methodology) that could support such characteristics. But such characteristics do not actually fit into the real world. The real world is actually closer to our language than to structuralism. The early developers felt the computer would make our world scientific; but only the world inside the computer could be that kind of scientific.
Our cultures have developed languages that are pragmatic (useful) instead of “perfect”. Structuralism assumed a perfect world (the computer was going to bring about this perfect world) but computer processing really needed to fit the real world - see: “through the looking glass”. Structuralism may have been able to create a "perfect" world - but, as a matter of fact, that could not have been (and wasn't) related to a real world.
The important part for analysis and design is the context [per hermeneutics]. The changing relationships to surrounding words and other elements cause the words we use to have a different context and a different meaning. We need to know that, in order to analyze and design the system correctly. In these relationships - the context is the transcendental. For hermeneutics the context is the transcendental or it is not really hermeneutics. See Formation Data Context.
Using a structured methodology puts the structure above everything else. Then, the structure replaces the context in defining the meaning (of all the patterns of the system). This imposes a meaning onto the system before we understand the system.
Polymorphic Interpretation
Polymorphism is like shadow puppets dancing on a screen. As they pass through each other we can see “pattern or not” quickly. When there are enough pattern matches we have the understanding from the link. The patterns make sense (in other words: form their own pattern).
This is an extremely powerful way for the mind to recognize patterns very quickly.?
Shadows:
领英推荐
Polymorphs as Shadows Dancing
[Newtonian processes (structuralism) predicts none of the patterns that are there in the universe. The only true structuralist pattern is the normal distribution curve of random events. Constraints on distributions always cause patterns to form. The patterns ultimately follow a wave equation (and a set of eigenfunctions). So these patterns make sense and are sense.]
We need to base our approach on the Context and not on Structure, since structuralism overrides reality and leaves us with an approach that misses what is going on in the system in the name of replacing the reality with some structure that simplifies but cannot duplicate Reality.
The building blocks of the wave mechanical universe (Quantum and Harmonic) is the probability distributions and, particularly, the constraints on those distributions. This applies to the harmonic universe. With the organ pipe the “output” is related to the length of the pipe (constraint); nothing else. Each different wave mechanical or harmonic system may have quite different constraints. And there are different kinds of probability distributions.
See also: Polymorphic Linking;
End - The Manifesto of Contextual Philosophy
This is where Post-Structuralism "should be" and is going.
Gramsci And Habermas
Hegemony
Gramsci And Hate (who do we hate now)
This is a force, or I would call it a constraint. It is a constraint from within the culture. This is part of what I call the onion skin - there are layers of activity in culture. In the case of hegemony this is one layer of culture constraining the activities at another layer. Such constraints affect the way the culture proceeds through the rule of Harmonics. A probability distribution of activities in a system conforms to a pattern that fits neatly into the constraints on that distribution.
Fire in the Sky (is this the Apocalypse)
But Gramsci’s Hegemony arguments are filled with hate - hate for non-socialist solutions. The non-socialist solutions are evil because they supposedly ignore some group in the system that, all of a sudden, Gramsci, or the Gramsci based author, likes. The goal, then, is to give special privileges to that group to overcome the Hegemony against them. And the people who caused the Hegemony or even accepted the Hegemony must be hated and punished (hurt, trashed, destroyed - they are evil because they can think). Freedom of expression is definitely lost in this effort.
Political Correctness is presently our cultures only Hegemony. Gramsci does not mention this fact - probably because it makes his arguments trivial. Any Hegemony problem we presently have is actually caused totally by Political Correctness. And the leaders of Political Correctness should be punished rather than the rest of us. We are totally constrained to do whatever we did by the Hegemony of PC. If we stand up to the Hegemony of Political Correctness we are definitely harmed. So if we are racist [or total racists] it is the fault of PC and nothing else.
Modern American Gothic - Bring your Pitchforks and Torches
Gramsci was strongly followed in Europe before the fall of the Soviet Union but seems to have lost favor there (in Europe) after the fall. Europe knew the relationship of socialism and the Soviet Union more than we did (here in the USA) since the problems were closer at hand and obvious. Gramsci did not make as much sense to them after the fall.
Gramsci remained strong and even became more important to scholars of the USA after the fall of the Soviet Union. That is why the many arguments of our present academics are filled with hate - they are based on Gramsci hate.
Red Dawn
Gotterdammerung
Terminology: these arguments could not be related expressly to the thinking of Soviet Communism (and Communism in general) so they were not called “Communist” and authors used euphemisms to avoid the word Communism. These, then, are referred to as the teachings of the Critical School. They often used the euphemism of Progressives (that certainly hid the Communist name entirely). Bold writers would mention Marx or refer to themselves as Marxist. But references to Communism were avoided by proponents, but often used by their opposition (for good reason because they really wanted Soviet Communism).
Meaning instead of Truth
Habermas and Language Action
Europe found a new and different Critical School leader in Jurgen Habermas. His approach was unique for the Critical School since the important thing was to reach a compromise that worked (pragmatism - now Gramsci often talked about pragmatism, but that did not include compromise for him).
You notice that this is not at all the approach of the left in the USA. Here they need to hurt even destroy opponents (burn them down, bring your pitch forks and torches, you will reap the whirlwind, you will pay the price). That is very much Gramsci hate-filled thinking. Hate Mongers!
Interestingly Jurgen often referred to himself as Communist or Marxist. With his softer approach, this seemed to be accepted. Others referred to Jurgen as Post-Structuralist; but he denied that name for himself. The Post-Structuralist name refers to the Post-Structuralist activity (hermeneutics) of developing a new language approach in order to solve a problem. Language analysis and changing the language of discourse is a Post-Structuralist methodology (especially analysis that avoids or side-steps structured methodology).
For Jurgen Habermas it is about language. He chooses to use language to clarify the understanding of both sides (or all sides) about what we are saying. We try to make the words and phrases we use for our arguments useful in order to fully understand each other - and yes bring about a possible agreement [use is related to meaning and not reality]. That is the part that the Left in the USA abhors - we must destroy the evil people who can think (where is the freedom of speech in that).
The left in the USA obviously has the intent of making their arguments particularly unacceptable to any opposition. The opposition must be destroyed - not compromised with. The opposition have violated some group because they - they don’t jump to orders from the Left, - like some slave. I have been there and know what is going on. That is part of why I retired from academia. It is not fun when hate speech from the Left is encouraged, but defending yourself from imbeciles is punished. That is Truth based process.
Habermas’ language techniques (The Theory of Communicative Action) have led to successful negotiations of important issues in Germany and Europe. I have found that when using the Archeological Layering of Foucault, to develop a less bias [and closer to the context] understanding of the issues; and combining that with Jurgen’s Theory of Communicative Action [to improve the understanding of and by users], will produce a result that is both more understandable and also useful in solving the issues on the problem [user understanding is critical to system success]. Such a solution is very effective in resolving all of the issues [not just technical issues] of the problem (See: Hermeneutics in Agile Systems Development). This is Meaning based process.
So - to the Left of the USA - slash and burn may give you jollies, but it does not solve any problem; and it definitely makes everything worse for everyone - including yourself. So quit being imbeciles. Toss Gramsci and his Hegemony in the garbage can. Try Foucault and Habermas. They allow a more open understanding and more useful solutions to problems than the slash and burn of Gramsci’s hate. And yes presently the Left is definitely the hate mongers here. And this is what they learn in the school (sadly). Note, recent adds on racism are actually racist because they assume everyone is racist.
Gramsci is on the side of Truth. It is a Truth based philosophy. See: Truth is just a Chinese Lantern. Habermas, and Foucault, are on the side of Meaning. Meaning is the basis of this philosophical development. See: Meaning over Truth.
The problems we are trying to solve are solvable. But the left would rather hurt people than try to find a reasonable solution. You will reap the whirlwind, you will pay the price; if you even try to resolve these problems reasonably. The left shows hate and destruction and tries to blame conservatives, whites, white males, citizens, Americans, the middle class [basically racist definitions] because we don’t just give in to all their hatred. I do not like living under their hatred. The hate comes from hating anyone that will not join political correctness. So the effort ends up with hating (almost everyone) and not, really, with helping whoever we were hating for. The goal is lost in the warm feeling of hate.
We need a Meaning based philosophy to resolve all kinds of problems fairly and justly. Truth based philosophy has failed [the three stooges of Modern Western Philosophy proved it could not work, early on, but then went on using it]. People who are greedy for power misuse something like a "Chinese Lantern" for Truth. And Truth must be singular; there is no room for compromise. And like a Chinese Lantern, Truth has no basis for extension and then no real base for discussion. Meaning is based on reality and the extension from reality allows negotiation. Then there is room for discussion and the ability to produce meaningful discussions and successful results [when I returned to education, after being in industry for many years, I was surprised there was no debating - that is really not education]. Maybe we can teach Meaning instead of Truth in the school (I hope).
Let us leave the hate-mongers behind as they destroy our cities to prove they are the hate-mongers - and join a chorus of voices for peace and meaning instead of war based on their phoney truth. Fake slogans like "everyone is a racist" do not justify burning down Minneapolis. Their dependence on the "Three Stooges" is showing.
"O God Beyond All Praising" from Christmas at Susquehanna
When symbolism is more important than reality - there are no real answers - just symbols.
When every action and thought is interpreted negatively [to the max], it is time to turn the page and read another book!
You are not totally evil because you woke up in the morning, and thought a thought. You own your own mind.
Watch them. Hate only destroys [like downtown Minneapolis].
The evil ones are those condemning everyone. They base their whole argument on Mumbo Jumbo Voodoo to scare you and frighten you. Run away from them - close their book - and open your mind - mindfulness.
Contextualism is a philosophy that is based on mindfulness.
See: Contextualism.
You are loved by Da Big Guy, Da Boss.
This Light of Mine
This Little Light of Mine
The Aramaic literal translation of the Our Father is in the mindset of Meaningfulness.
Our beloved, who is everywhere - Help us breath and live your name?
Your rule come to earth now - Create your desire in me - Grant what we need each day?
Forgive the faults that bind us, as we forgive the faults that we bind to others?
Free us from distractions and help us to not forget our source?
From you arises every vision, power, and song from gathering to gathering.?
Amen
Sources: [https://medium.com/change-your-mind/the-mystical-poetry-of-the-lords-prayer-in-its-original-aramaic-34b6a37ec56], [Aramaic Lessons - Dr. Rocco Errico -?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZYNjJLL0ac]
Light a Candle for Peace
VALERIE BOOK BELOW