In this post, I will assume a methodological flow beginning from the establishment of what should ideally constitute the dialectical process, and using our knowledge of the female cognitive process and decision-making correlates in developing a dialectical manipulation theory suited for females. With that said, it is obvious that this post is assuming key differences between the cognitive structures between men and women, at the neurological level. I will also hypothesize some cognitive routines men and women might use foundational to their decisions, regressing from some obvious economic and social behaviors. The analysis assumed will be post hoc, as I will try to theorize the underlying sociological, psychological and anthropological mechanisms from correlations that manifest superficially.
With the epistemology set straight, I want to shed light on the dialectic method of discourse. Dialectics differ from logic-oriented debate in two key domains – one, in the fact that it’s premises aren’t necessarily rational and two, in its ability to constrict the logical flow to one direction only i.e., deductively. This has prompted some people to dub dialectics as the “corruption of deductive reasoning” – I agree wholly to this notion. While the contemporary dialectic has been attributed largely to Hegel, the foundations for this sort of epistemological discourse was laid by Kant in his Critiques. The popular attribution to Hegel might stem from the fact that this method, of corrupting the reasoning of the subject, has been politically weaponized by later philosophers like Marx and its frequent use among conspiracy theorists. The Hegelian dialectic, or more abstractly, the Kantian dialectic, when weaponized, provides the illusion of freedom of choice while simultaneously convincing the subject of the apparent rationality of their conclusions. In other words, the subject whose reasoning is reduced to a dialectic one may be easily manipulated. But there still exists a vulnerability in this seemingly fool-proof technique.
Individuals who are in high possession of rational faculties will see through the irrational premises easily. The premises often used in the dialectical method, or more accurately, the thesis and anti-thesis, are rhetorical. They appeal to the emotional faculties of the subject. I, for instance, who considers myself to be a rational individual prefers to avoid employing rhetorical devices in my speech and writing. Why? Because rhetorics are innately fallacious in their appeals to emotions and they leave a lot of information open to interpretation. They do this by reconciling with the cultural system operating around the subject. A mastery of rhetorical dialectic might only be accomplished through a post hoc analysis of the target cultural system.
dialectical thinking is the corruption of deductive reasoning…
Stoicism, to me, is far from being the pursuit of happiness. It is instead self-sufficiency attained by absolving the emotional imperative in life through an extensive and rational evaluation of oneself, which neither brings happiness nor sadness. It is equanimity.
In my previous post about coping strategies for emotional suffering and trauma, I had postulated that being narcissistic is one excellent and fool-proof way – and this was back when my knowledge in this wonderful Hellenistic school was at its infancy. Now that I can safely regard myself as a practicing Stoic, how did I tie that in with my past subscription to narcissism? The form of narcissism I’d advocated had its premises not in the reluctance to uphold virtue, in holding an ignorant and over-inflated ego but rather in the autonomy from society. Most people are evolutionary conditioned to predicate their social, economic and life decisions upon the repercussions it might have on one’s social standing. Women are particularly susceptible to this sort of social behavior. Men are too, but only to a lesser degree. Narcissism, in the context of social autonomy, refers to the individual’s ability to operate autonomously, or without the influence, from the many dictates of society. This lack of social autonomy is regarded in my philosophy as a massive hindrance to self-actualization and personal enlightenment.
internalize, internalize everything!
Throughout history and in parallels observable in the present-day, there are keen differences in the many institutions of culture, economy and polity between civilizations. But these differences, when abstracted, generally seem to share one common premise somewhere in the garbled causality links. The premise is the philosophy of Romanticism.
To give you a little historical insight, Romanticism is the philosophical movement that shaped up in a post-industrial Western Europe in the mid-18th century. It is believed to have been instigated by the poets, artists and philosophers in response to the paradigm shifts brought on by industrialization and the intimidating perplexities of modern civilization. These artists and poets thought that Romantic ideas were inherently what held the sanctity of the individual together, in attachment with their free and creative and spiritual side. Note that I use the words free and spiritual freely here – our discussion here pertains to a life philosophy, not one of epistemology or metaphysics. This idealism prompted the romantically-distraught to wage a war against the industrial establishment in their passionately-worded literature, paintings and philosophy. The cultural movement that manifested out of this collective ambition is then believed to have vastly set apart the post-industrial Western civilization from all others that were falling steadfastly into the age of industrialization.
Regressing through almost every civilization, excluding the West, one can distinctly see how the institutions of culture are designed to benefit the collective ambition of their peoples. Some markers may include those belonging to markets and society, for instance. Marriage is an apt contender to gain a deeper perspective on the lack of Romantic ideas in Eastern and Islamic cultures. I say this because the idea of wedlock adapted for the modern, post-industrial society calls upon a monogamous relationship on the part of the male subject and a hypergamous practice on the part of the female that draws upon a system of meritocratic honor. In the East, parents and extended family members are tasked with marrying off their children. This system, however contradictory to our evolutionary conditioning, orients the individual’s life decisions toward the greater prosperity of their family, and ultimately, society. Education isn’t much farther either, with much of what students learn aligning with the prevailing market scene. To these cultures, it is not the individual that is important, but the collective ambition and sustenance of their peoples. To them, the individual’s welfare is contained in their collective prosperity, rendering an ego-centric culture obsolete.
the cultural doctrine that one should live a life they want and do as they desire is unique to the West
Education is believed to be the liberation of the mind, but is it anymore? Or was it ever? We are constantly fed with these age-old preconceived notions about education from society. And sometimes directly from the people who are meant to be educating us, almost creating a moral paradox! They tell us that school will enrich our creativity. They tell us how the intrinsic, natural creativity of the human mind is a speckles’ worth in contrast to the mind that has endured years of methodological indoctrination and testing. But are these notions valid? Or are we (they) confusing one thing for another? What are the drivers of education? How is it intertwined with the prevailing cultural and economical scene? These are some of the pressing questions that surfaces when one fundamentally re-examines the very concept of education that much of civilization has held on to dearly for decades, if not centuries. After years of school and college, it’s about time for us to step away from the tradition of receiving grades to being the ones to grade our education system.
Like every other endeavor of human civilization, education is one that has had its movements and reforms. From the early attempts at systematic indoctrination in religious and philosophical schools to the modern system consisting of graduated learning levels from elementary to graduate school, there are unmistakable commonalities to the keen eyes. From the times of the ancient Greek civilization, the Platonic academy and the two men, Socrates and Aristotle who surrounded his legacy to the Huehuetlatolli of the Aztecs to the madrasas of the Islamic world to the Vedic teachings of Indus Valley civilization – the earliest attempts of systematic indoctrination were based on the moral code essential to the functioning of early society. Their teachings were subjective to each civilization and time period, and very further subjective to the teacher or master leading the congregation. Education was simply restricted geographically and lost its relevance with the natural progression of civilization and the spread of ideas. Perhaps one of the most notable cultural exchange of the early days happened with the Silk Route, in a time when education was still in its infancy.
philosophy came to be the grand unifying force for many culturally-divested schools of education
[This post will use anecdotes with reference to US politics. It’s fine if you’re not familiar with it, they’re only supplementary. This post contains embedded content that I’ve seen to not load in the WordPress Reader.]
When I first got to college, I proudly identified as a progressive, a liberal. Little then did I know about the political foundations of this movement – What it was built on? What were they trying to accomplish? What were they basing their rhetoric on? Liberalism intrinsically appeals to the younger, politically active generation – that is in the present-day, Millennials – by using attractive rhetorics and popular opinion to give shape to their arguments. I’ll elaborate more on this statement later in the post but for now, let’s try and figure out how they manage to coerce so many people into joining their movement, let alone sustain themselves.
liberals cover their lack of information and/or intellect under the protective blanket of popular opinion
Humans like it simple. Any professor of communications will tell you how rhetorics single-handedly get more attention to marketing messages and political agendas. They are powerful and tell people that something ought to be innately true and no amount of evidence discrediting it can ever balance out. From the teachings of table manners in kindergarten classroom to your average liberal college campus where students get a hand on safe sex, rhetorics are extensively used in perpetrating these key messages. Popular opinion and rhetorics go hand-in-hand by complementing one another. Home appliance manufacturer Whirlpool uses the supposed possession of a 6th sense by their machines as a marketing message. Why 6th sense? It is believed to be a notion representing extraordinary diligence, a thing intrinsic to intelligent life – finding a central place in many sci-fi works. The premises for popular opinions may not be known by everyone, but the opinions are and that is what matters when you’re trying to convince a mass of people.
What the majority of people deem correct is also what rhetorics should learn to coincide with to resonate with their audience, and to get their message across with the strongest effect. If the majority of people in a political system deem homosexuality as appropriate – any rhetoric that wants to be successful at appealing to the most people must follow behind this popular consensus. Sometimes, they might help reinforce what’s already there or help incorporate a new idea into this existing base. Rhetorics are able to do this because people don’t readily question the rationality of it when they have or are already believing a higher opinion to be true, almost like they’re mathematical proofs.
Love trumps hate. The people united, will never be divided. No ban, no wall, immigrants are welcome here. This is what democracy looks like.
Change. Believe. Hope.
Does any of these ring familiar? I bet it does, you Antifa commies!
There are several lines of thought in philosophy – the most popular being the separation of the soul and body. The Venn diagram of the what these domains are supposedly believed to contain are exclusive. Something like that would have made sense in 16th century France, where theological ideas primly shaped the everyday functioning of society, where a spiritual domain was required. Ancient philosophy was essential to establish the foundations of ethics and morale – approaching a time where advanced political systems were emerging in Europe such as the democracy. Once a philosophy of people was established, what was left was conquering and rationalizing perception and reason and knowledge – in that order. Today, modern science tells us more on sensory perception than any philosophy, and the rules of reason have come to be known under a wider subject of logic. Knowledge has moved past being a substance of the mind acquired through sensory experience and thought to scientific consensus – where senses are used arbitrarily to reach personal satisfaction of any conclusion. At any time, we can employ logic and mathematics to go back or forth from present knowledge to understand it’s coming into existence or predict what could be or coming.
In the present day of the 20th century, science has far progressed past this phase of individual reasoning. We have build a framework into which we fit things and if they don’t, we conclude them false. A framework consisting of mathematics and science, ruled by logic or pure reason. However, as the society of today moves past the moderating theology that helped maintain humane order of the ancient land, into secular and liberal institutions – we must develop a new and contemporary philosophy to help sort through the ethical and moral conundrums of the present-day. Especially now with artificial intelligence around the corner, we must work on this fast.
[Also included in this section is a lengthy introduction that will be foundational to upcoming sections. I might seem to use culture and society interchangeably, but society should refer to a people’s culture, accounting for their demography while culture is an ideologically constituent part of a demography. Cultural ideology on a whole encompasses the theological and philosophical realms.]
An innate desire to creatively and artistically express oneself is among the fundamental of human wills. I’ve often emphasized my theory of cognition and religion and culture being as one closely woven net, almost like an inseparable fabric. As a result of my insistence of the mentioned, I’ve managed to offend many people. Culture encompasses the various demographic intricacies operating in one’s immediacy – these include popular theological and philosophical ideas, geography and race and complex environmental feedback mechanisms. Religion refers to the majority religion among a demography that influences their theological ideology as mentioned above. Cognition, in this context, is defined as an individual’s ability to perform tasks of reading and writing, comprehending and reproducing information effectively and efficiently with respect to some statistical benchmark. Like gravity, IQ and other metrics of cognitive ability are all relative – and it wouldn’t do justice to compare the IQ of a chimpanzee with a gorilla. Just like the animals, I believe every civilization, over time, with the aforementioned factors of complexity, developed a standard cognition among their people that we call today as average – like the international average IQ of 100. Inductively reasoning from present-day IQs of many civilizations might be key to understanding their culture and religions.
Metrics such as the popular IQ measure an individual’s ability to perform specialized tasks by narrowing down with the specifics at hand. It is iterative and systematic. You could train your brain with IQ tests for a couple weeks leading up to your counsellor’s appointment and pull off a few 10 or more points on your existing IQ. Such cognitive metrics measure how well your brain has specialized – from the time of birth, that is. I believe as one gets older and leaves childhood, IQ is no longer a complete and holistic measure of one’s cognition. Therefore, a fair measure of brain function would be accomplished through divergent reasoning. Divergent tests measure the collocially-called creativity metric – also a statistical measure of how well an individual’s brain is divisive. As one progresses in age with experience, this divergent and rather chaotic type of cognition manifests into convergent cognition. Everything from the simple essay prompts to analytical problem solving can be employed in the task of measuring this lesser-known type of cognition.
This likely will be my last time discussing religion. Unlike the last two times where I directly spoke out against certain religions and how they manage to work in contemporary times, today’s installment will be more on understanding why they work – a question that will require a philosophical analysis of this concept. Our discussion will be focused on exploring why religion might have been necessary and maybe still is. Later, we will get to understanding some shared ideologies among religions.
Where do we start? A new World Order? Sure, let’s start here – despite your forced consent that would’ve otherwise made no difference if you’d answered. The fundamentalists of religion saw the state of political chaos – the anarchy – invading our civilization as the people grew. With more people came more demands to meet their individual and collective needs. People would then give in to their animalistic instincts – their innate desires and ambition – and that would soon overcome any order of the people. Imagine a world without law and order, a world where ethics and moral were foreign ideas – this is exactly the kind of place religious fundamentalists realized and saw. In fear, they envisioned a word of order. A world where man’s innate desires were suppressed for the greater benefit of his fellows – and indirectly himself. The fundamentalist knew order cannot result from the reign of another man – because man’s ambition of a control of his territory would destroy his obedience – and conflict would soon prevail. The solution was to device something of an outside entity – a supreme and perfect being in all regards of man. An entity that lives and grows in apparent truth with the belief of man and other men.
Resources come at a premium – and anyone from a third-world can perfectly relate to this. Nothing is free. In a world survived by man’s innate desires, it would have been hard to ensure fair distribution of vital resources such as food. Also, as anyone who watches the National Geographic can describe – these desires are often lawless in modern hindsight. Animals aggressively secure their territory, their food and their potential mate at any costs. They fight among themselves and among others and form clans – where they venture together into unknown territories to conquer or mark as their own. The fundamentalist knew man was no different from his ancestor and such instincts would soon creep in as they outgrew in numbers eventually leading them to their own destruction. A need for a system of order was in dire necessity. A system to channel man’s own emotions – that he has been naturally predisposed with – against his unknowing will for the benefit of other men and himself. A concept of religion was therefore required.
This is part II to my previous post on subjectivism in science. The last part for those of you wanting to catch up, explored the mechanisms by which subjectivism creeps into scientific literature and also ways to alleviate it. Part II will explore subjectivity in observation or more generally, observation bias – from a practical and metaphysical standpoint.
you interact to perceive
mutual exclusion is nothing but an illusion
Scientific instruments are limited to their resolution, accuracy and precision. An instrument can only resolve within finite numerical intervals, only being able to gauge some metric with some degree of statistical consistency. The fixed numerical gaps between which an instrument can register is called its resolution. All instruments have a resolution that is predetermined from design – and probably something you can expect to find on the back label. Accuracy and precision are parented in statistics. The ability of the instrument to consistently register close to some numerical value is called precision, while its ability to register closer to the actual numerical value is called accuracy. The keywords are highlighted.
In my previous writings, I have shown self-reliance and narcissism as wonderful methods of coping with emotion turmoil. However, they fail to remain foolproof as I’ve stated if one of two conditions are met,
- you are a minor still
- you operate in medieval legislation i.e., Islamic and Hindu countries
This method of self-reliance and narcissism which I’ve claimed to go hand-in-hand cannot work if the political system of your country prevents you from enjoying the liberties of a forward-thinking, contemporary culture – where you rely on yourself for everything. With that duly noted, this post will help formulate alternative measures for the temporary – until such time you can leave to a better place. Most conservative cultures – such as Islamic and Hindu – have deeply rooted ideas that the legislation cannot practically do away with – even the legislative ideas of an advanced and open form of government such as a secular republic – that it claims to be. In a country like India – the world’s most ignorant country by all measures – there is a cultural consensus about heirarchy – a belief that people of a higher order are perfect and it is unlikely from a moral place that they would ever do something you should accuse them of legally. So much that this cultural idea affects how willing a lawyer would be to take up your case, how much interest your local city police will take in your report given they even consider you for filing a report in the first place, and ultimately effecting your verdict by the judiciary.
the Indian judiciary is one steaming hot pile of cow shit!