Dunno why or how exactly I came across this, but here’s some of what I hope to study in/for a MA/PhD in Philosophy. And yes, I do understand 90% of it!

And for comic relief..

This is part of an ongoing theme in my head started by the Frankfurt school:

Capitalism, for all it’s “worker responsibility”(don’t work= don’t get paid) doesn’t have a lot of boundaries when it comes to ethical practices, since  the #1 ethic is to do whatever it takes to get the consumer’s $.

The opposing force that *should* be enacted to balance this out is consumer responsibility:”I ain’t buyin’ it cuz it’s crap!” Which *should* have some kind of influence on how the companies do their business practices/product..

But then, enter the ‘greed’ factor: Consumer responsibility dies because the consumers don’t hold out for ‘the best’ but go for the crap cuz it’s ‘good enough’.  Likewise, corporate responsibility (of not ripping ppl off) dies at the promise of higher profit/pay.

Internal to each company, the managerial structure is unethical by implementing the equivalent of ‘forced labor’. Again, this should be countered by the consumer responsibility of ‘who wants to buy from a company who treats their workers like crap.’ But in comes the greed factor of “eh, who cares, I just want this even if it’s crap, even it’s from a crappy company.” Or the ‘need’ factor, “I’m not getting paid enough, so I need to buy the crap product (further supporting a crap company) simply out of pragmatic reasons (my crap company has me in a forced-labor situation, not paying me enough to buy from/support a good company).

I’m sure this isn’t a clear post, but it does bring up some of the main issues, which I’m starting to see can be applied to politics of a democratic republic, both of which have their major flaws exposed in the question/underlying situation behind: “What do I do when I don’t like any of what’s offered?”

..have I become a poli-sci-econo-socialogist?..
oh, and for all you who think you NEED vista for fancy graphics, check out the LINUX side of things.

What is it about this new millenium (about the past century really!) that gets us all begging for identity and, well, something MORE than just words – art?

Logocentristic ideologies vs. Aesthetic symbology.

Perhaps in it’s marketing attempts to reach us, capitalism has reached out throughout our common language and stolen all our words for it’s own purposes, such that:

The whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry. The old experience of the movie-goer, who sees the world outside as an extension of the film he has just left (because the latter is intent upon reproducing the world of everyday perceptions), is now the producer’s guideline. The more intensely and flawlessly his techniques duplicate empirical objects, the easier it is today for the illusion to prevail that the outside world is the straightforward continuation of that presented on the screen. This purpose has been furthered by mechanical reproduction since the lightning takeover by the sound film. –Adorno & Horkheimer

On the other hand,  standardized commoditization and ‘kitsch’ leaves us without anything for ourselves.

I want to say that it’s Platonic, in terms of exalting beauty, but I also want to call it anti-platonic in it’s image/shadow preference. I suppose it’s a ‘new kind of divided line,’ in triple-form where images (can) display beauty, words (can) display truth and actions (can) display goodness, all pointing to the Form of the One that is Good, True and Beautiful; the exaltation of shadows.

This freeing of the shadows from being subjugated by word into their own parallel domain is possible only by the symbology of both word and form. In a sense, the artist creates his own language which when privy to, the audience can listen and respond to just like verbal communication.

But there is a fear here. Our logocentrism is shown in our belief/trust/preference that words are more specific, and less likely for mis-interpretation. We as christians, want to make sure we’re clear about Jesus. But I dare say that we’ve chopped up the tree to see how it works and in process lost as much as we’ve found. I may want to know my wife(whoever she will be), but you won’t find me dissecting her like I biology lab!

But Art, when informed by the deepest knowledge we have of reality (even when attained through dissection) has the ability to communicate that knowledge through extra-linguistic means as much as action does. Thus you can love Jesus with your heart, mind and action all to the same level of inherent importance. (I say inherent because it all changes if you only think when God tells you to act).

So I’m getting the impression that there’s a lot of people my age who are doing a lot of the same things I am. We’re all white post-college’ers who value the same thing: real good art and real good relationships. We’re all white and somewhat urban-ish… that is to say, “yuppie” and most of us are running or involved in small businesses.

It’s funny that we’ve all got a similar identity and theme. No one told us to go start a small business. For most, it was like, “we love this; we can do this; let’s do this!”

It’s funny how social-theorists/commentators like to jump on the bandwagon that the philosophers have already jumped off of. I remember a few years back how savvy you were to use the word ‘postmodern’(or as my philosophy prof short-handed: po-mo). It’s a dirty word now. Overdone, overblown, emptied of meaning. I caught hold of this when I saw a million and one christian books about the joys or evils of po-mo theology & practice, and laughed at most of ‘em for missing the point. They all were turned by their modernistic mind to try to define the anti-definable.

But here we are nonetheless. PoMo’ers living out the values.

The new metanarrative seems more and more to be capitalistic. And while pomo’ers should be antagonistic about ‘big business’ (and they are) they still embrace capitalism as a ‘necessary evil’, to the point of using it for their own purposes- creating small businesses ruled by their own values.

I get confused though, because this is all about people like me. What of the urban minorities? From what I’ve seen they are taken by the ‘culture machines‘ as much as the rural kids who ‘just want out’, who hear of a ‘far away place of bliss’ from the culture industry. And even the Bobo’s, while rejecting one form of capitalism and it’s product embrace their own ‘organic/yoga/low-emission’ version.. Looks like the Frankfurt School really did describe PoMo culture best.. it’s all a herd of people following their own version of the same “give-me-what-i-want” savior. Seems nothing has changed much.

So call me crazy, but I agree with the German Rationalist (see the end of page 3).

Speigel has a funny LONG article on the role of religion on the continent and in the states.. and it’s kind of a kludge. The writer has some good insights from some people who have something good to say, but they seem to be connected to some ill-logic (9/11 = rise of christian fundamentalism in states). Maybe I’m out of it, but I think religious fundamentalism has been going on in the states from before 9/11. Maybe I’m missing something though. I’d see it more in generational terms: my grandparents were the atheists. My parents are the old-school religion=good. In between those 2 generations, you have the ’80’s liberal christianity kids. I’m in the 90’s “nihilism didn’t do me any good and Jesus did” crowd. Somewhere between me & the 80’s generation (now in their late 40’s), those in their 30’s now are the pluralistic ‘little gods’ who view life as all about themselves, including the ‘use’ of Jesus. And younger than me are an interesting set of kids who are born of the 80’s liberal /cultural christianity- 100% christian schooled, and twisted views of what america is(usually indoctrinated with/holding to ‘pet theologies‘)

So where’s the fundamentalism? It’s a kludge itself, mostly in the old-timers (in their 50’s) who still have an affinity from religion mixed with the 80’s  culturalized-into-conservitism-so-much-that-it’s-liberal and the kids who’ve been raised in it.

9/11 didn’t so much do anything for those who don’t believe so much as helped to polarize those who were “looking for the devil behind every bush.” Sadly, this will leave america completely missing the point- not seeing the devil’s work in our own souls.

But like Jurgen Habermas, I seem to think that rationalism and religion have often been nipping and biting at each other so much in their zero-sum tug of war that fundamentalism has arisen inevitably. Why not merge the two, “like in the good ol’ days” (Augustine/Boethius/Aquinas/Calvin). Where are the volumes of logical, well-thought out worldviews? I like Piper as much as the next guy, but the fundamentalist can use him as fuel. I’d LOVE to see Piper write “Contra American-stupid-religion.” I think what he has written can well be used for this purpose as well, as one of the underlying pillars, but it’s not explicit.

(comments are preferred about speigel over my own silliness, but i’ll take what i get)

Apparently Jesus didn’t resurrect, just because there’s 3 names than line up. Fallacy: Appeal to unqualified authority (James Cameron, who, btw, ignores the QUALIFIED authority at the end of the article!) Likewise, the repeated devaluing of *worthy* and *important* evidence (like the biblical account and the common names for that time period) is another fallacy of suppressed evidence. AKA: Propoganda.

But not to be outdone in the states, the continent is ready to claim Communism “works” simply because China’s economy is growing.

Don’t get me started on the logical fallacies involved here! You don’t have a large enough “market share” to make the general claim that it ‘works’. You have to have at LEAST 50% of a significant number! One doesn’t count. Hurley calls this a ‘hasty generalization”, when “a conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.”

Now, I’m a good skeptic on both fronts, willing to doubt either end of the stick, so how about this reasoning, suggesting I have a fallacy of presumption(like suppressed evidence): “How do we know what is ‘atypical’ or not? Perhaps all previous iterations of ‘communism’ weren’t true to true communist ideals, and FINALLY China is?” Ah, the joys of scepticism. This reasoning may be plausible, but I lack the historical knowledge of the details of the implementation of communism to bring any real conclusion to the matter, but I will say that from what I do know, it sounds like communism is impossible to fully implement, and thereby China isn’t ideally communistic, and hence, the original article’s title instills a fallacy of equivocation, or more likely, the hasty generalization I mentioned earlier, and perhaps, from the stories of the REST of China (quite poor) as compared to the wealthy leaders who AREN’T living on a half cup of rice(this is now an ad hominem argument on my part ), it sure sounds like this propoganda piece is suppressing evidence as well.

J.S. Mill joined the ranks of the famous with his utilitarian ethical system. “Greatest good is the greatest possible happiness for greatest number of people.”

Now, as much as I hate that, I do love it. I can *DO* something with such a definition. Take the historical alternative: “God is the source of goodness. We learn what good is by what he does.”

Somehow, you just can’t “do” as much with that.  I suppose what I mean is the the usefulness, the pragmatic qualities (i can’t say ‘utility’ like I want, cuz that’ll be a different meaning that JS Mill who I already referenced..) of such a definition are different.

I can extend the Mill’s definition of good- I can think about it and come up with finer uses and get a set of experiences which it prescribes. It’s a scientific definition.

But God’s definition is a blur. We need to know something either about ‘good’ or about ‘God’ to know what I’m saying, lest “Fargishads are mufotu.” (that actually sounds like a few languages.. unintended) The ambiguity in the mind of humanity over God’s nature and actions in this world are the srouce of the lack of easy-extention. But even then were we to select a nature of God of our own mind’s creating, could we not then have a set of experiences which we could say fit under our definition? Sure we could make such an argument, but even that isn’t what ppl are after. Would the argument be sound– corresponding to our daily experiences? Do we really have all the information we need to say “This is the mind of God”?

And that’s where I think most ppl don’t like God, as Biblically portrayed. They can’t “use” him. He’s not science. You can’t extend particulars from His general nature. All you have is a set of historical actions (which many balk at being arbitrary) and a set of statements on morality, relationships, etc. Whaddya do with that? It’s a bunch of particulars, from which the thinker tries to build a general model of, to build a definition of God which we can then “USE” like a good pragmatic. We thinkers just can’t live with a set of unrelated particulars.

This week has been a big reminder of a truth I first learned about because had to literally fight for my life over. And now, a friend and wife of a brother is learning the same lesson.

But more on that in a moment.

I’m in Logic class, something I believe should be entrance requirement for every single university/human on the planet. On tuesday our prof mentioned and again today he reminded us of one of his core beliefs: spiritual warfare in the world, and especially the west is in it’s nature ideological.. a battle for our minds.

There’s something basic in Christianity about having the “mind of Christ.” We’re told that we are to be renewed unto it. What then are renewed from? To put it into “my own words”: from World-thought (lies) to Christ-thought(truth). Our ability to detect & counter (fight) the lies that’s put out by the enemy, the world and even our own twisted minds is core to Christian living. We don’t believe all is one & one is all. 1jn 4 1jn2 2Cor 10

Here’s a quick set of common lies my prof spit out: My life is not worth living(so I ought kill myself), All religions are the same (so it doesn’t matter what I choose), Science has the answers(so religion isn’t of worth/truth-holding), Religion ‘A’ says that Jesus is ‘Y’, religion ‘B’ says that Jesus is ‘Z’.

Now, back to me & my friend.. I like the very first lie my prof said. Cuz that’s very close to what I had to fight a few years ago. Previously a friend had caught me asking, “You keep calling what you think ‘your thoughts’. Are you sure they’re yours?” I didn’t understand what he was getting at.. keeping me from pride, that there are others before me who’ve thought the same and maybe I’m just repeating it? Probably true, but in this direction, I was actively living according to what was in my head. Not all my thoughts I thought were from me. I thought they were. And when thoughts like, “God isn’t with you”, “God doesn’t love you”, “God is irrelevant to your pain”, “You’re alone.” “You can’t do this”, “You’re failing” start into your head.. even subtly, even on a lower level than what you would even admit to, there’s a war going on.

So I had to explicitly state those quiet statements in my mind that would ultimately control my actions & emotions.. and actively choose whether they were true or false. Now, I could have used any criteria for deciding truth from lie.. I could have gone Post-Modern and said there is no difference, but these thoughts and such a criterion were driving me to a very lonely, isolated, unhealthy position in life. So that wouldn’t do. I’ve known the truth- I know the truth is in Jesus, so His words became my standard. And freedom came with the fight. I started throwing out & denying when all I felt was the opposite of what Jesus said. It was the front-lines of a battle for my life. And it was a battle for my mind.

Now I hear of my friend, who is in a similar position. We’re both thinkers. I’m sure it hits thinkers the worst. The enemy’s hitting our heads. Her husband is going crazy cuz he wants to solve her problems, but he can’t. He has before, but this time, this is her battle.

We’re all praying for ya sis.

I admit, I’m a software engineer. At least, that’s one of the MANY titles I could/do take on in a small 3-4 person company. So when I ran across this article, I kinda liked what he said. But the most interesting point was made by the first commentator:

Are you familiar with the notion that software design and the software product generally may be “evil” problems? problems where the solution changes the nature of the original problem, which requires another solution, and so on? The analogy is to social enginnering and the failure of housing projects. This is not something that could be done away with by better planning.

There are other factors that make the problem “evil”: problems are always essentially unique; there is no defined stopping point for solutions; there are too many alternatives and alternatives which, at one point, were possibilities, once implemented are too costly and risky to reverse.

This may sound like a grab bag of gripes. I’ll have to get the references for this topic. There is a classic paper,
Rittel, H., and M. Webber, 1973 “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning” pp 155-169, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc. Amsterdam

This is so very interesting to me- on just about every level of my existence, actually. First off, concerning the software development I do, I wonder why I get frustrated sometimes. I’ve usually just chalked it up to “poor planning/foresight” (just rushing into the project without planning it out). But sometimes I wonder about that. Sometimes I just think that I’m trying to juggle 50 ‘rules’ in my head which can only handle 30.. I try to find ‘the perfect model’ which will allow a consistent use of languages & models, but there’s always the outliar– usually called ‘the next project’. So on & on the cycle goes..
As to another application, while studying philosophy here in seminary, I’m curious about Plato & Natural Theology. Philosophy has always been ’searching’ for a conception of God that is ‘pure-God’, consistent, full, beyond disbelief. But it’s a search without an end. Who’s to say your conception of God “is”? You conception of God will never be The Concept of God, it will always only be Your Conception of God, in-so-far as it’s based only in your head & not in external info (like God’s own self-revelation).
And once again, we can apply this idea of the ‘evil’ problem perhaps to science in the same way as philosophy’s God– The Enlightened search for Truth was held up in Science. Science is progressively getting “closer” to Truth. At least, they thought so 100 years ago. I believe science is useful & good, but only as long as it understands that there’s more to Reality and Truth than it can uncover. But in the end, any solution which science presents, only creates other problems.. So comes the infamous line, “For every question answered, we find 10 new questions unanswered..”

My 6 month old hope for a European trip has made a couple steps forward, and upon such, interest has grown to understand where I’d be putting myself. Hence, this article I google’d upon:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0402/articles/weigel.html

(Interestingly enough, he quotes Charles Dawson, who also came up on the google search.)

While I’ve not been to Europe & have heard hardly any stories, other than the label “liberal”, I’d like to think this guy is on to something. I fully agree with his statements of culture being driven by what it values/worships (as expressed in it’s ideals) & I like how he describes European ideals (whether right or wrong, I’ve yet to find out). And of course I can see American being a slow-moving, yet “beefed up” version of Europe. So his method I can agree with.

His questions in the middle of the article are.. (for an intellectual) ‘fun’. They’re the questions I’d like to ask “on the street” and in the universities if/when I go there ($533 ticket to franfurt! yeah air india!). They’re the kind of thing you could imagine people thinking about, but not saying to each other. Or if conversation would occur, then no answers/action would come of it.

So I guess I’m left to propose my own solution, per my own experience. These questions are the “face the reality of the situation” questions, much like (for Americans) questions of ’spiritual pragmatism’. “You’ve tried that.. is it working? You don’t like to admint, ‘No’, but you know it’s true! So try something that DOES work- JESUS.”

But I’m curious if they see ‘declining birth rate’, et al as a bad thing..