2021
JANUARY 25, 2021
In an instant, a different world, at the moment of a final breath
Empty spaces that sense and order and constant, soothing presence used to fill
Surrounding thin and fragile pages in the tumult of these winds
Hope beyond reason, my arms could not embrace, now hangs in the ether
Tolerance torn from that throne of peace
All the moments savored can never satisfy
Death, just a promise fulfilled, still a thief out on the sly
I see pictures, but cannot walk the landscapes since that day
I hear sounds, but music cannot speak out since that day
I ask questions, but the world has much less wisdom since that day
I sought shelter, but found the front door closed up since that day
I withdraw from a setting sun, the light of kindness dimmer since that day
Grief sets out to mend with its long and bitter dose
The paused collective calls to share. Loss, we know, can make us one.
But no one sees the new demons rising from this fire set.
I brace myself for their consumption.
How do I move? Did you show me how to move?
Never noticed Guilt stalking in the shadows of Despair – the foe that can’t be vanquished.
“I’m sorry” is the rumble of every beat, the whisper of breath after suspended breath
How do I move? What is it supposed to be? Did you show me?
CONSTRUCTIVISM THEORY IN LEARNING: THE LIBERATING INDIVIDUALISTIC “HOW” AND THE CHAOTIC AND PURPOSELESS PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS “WHAT”
www.simplypsychology.org/constructivism.html
Constructivism: “An approach to learning that holds that people actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by the experience of the learner.” (Elliott et al 2000 p 256)
This theory seems to be accepting of the existence of “common knowledge” to be shared. But what constitutes this knowledge as opposed to the knowledge that is available for multiple re-constructions and interpretations? How is that distinction made? How can the idea that knowledge is personal co-exist with the idea that knowledge is a collective effort, respective of the culture and sub-culture within whose malleable and morphing parameters it is treated?
Three types:
Cognitive Constructivism (Piaget): OK. I call this largely an emphasis on the utilization of models. New information is processed against models, or knowledge put into sensible order, from prior learning. These are really the only cognitive tools available with which to shape this new information, after all. So models and knowledge structure become both more stabilized and complex. Then we move on to build knowledge into knowledge.
Social Constructivism (Lev Vygotsky): Hmmmm. Things are getting a bit shaky with hints of useful and sound (p)rogressivism and unstable, even contradictory, ideas. Knowledge is developed from collaboration and interaction within culture. This is first between people (interpsychological), then within the learner (intrapsychological).
Suspicions arise. Isn’t this the framework or methodology for social and cultural brainwashing, or at least susceptible to its (voluntary or involuntary) tainting? Consider that the teacher (whom we are supposed to regard as a mere “partner” in the learning process and not the focus) does hold a position of power and authority whether the theory chooses to ignore this or not. This loosely defined role still holds the ability to “guide” the course of this cultural/learner-based (collectivist/individual? Oxymoron?) this process of information presentation toward certain conclusions (the new knowledge).
Let me re-iterate the criticism that this method of learning seems to contradict the idea of a personal, “me-centric” construction of knowledge which is the core of the whole theory.
Radical Constructivism (Ernst von Glaserfeld): WTF! This is the level of self-actualization, the Promised Land, at which we ultimately arrive. Knowledge is constructed, not perceived; invented, not discovered.
“The humanly constructed reality is all the time being modified and interacting to fit ontological
reality, although it can never give a ‘true picture’ of it.” (Ernest, 1994, p.8)
By “ontological reality” and “true picture”, is this author, again, referring to Truth? And musing at its elusiveness? Is any attempt to pursue or develop our knowledge to that end just futile so… might as well have a knowledge free-for-all? The author of this article (Saul McLeod) writes: “…radical constructivism states that knowledge individuals create tells us nothing about reality, and only helps us to function in your environment.” (Again I read “reality” here as “truth”.) This defeatist treatment of the theory isn’t much of a sell. What is the purpose or value of this knowledge construction and how is this helpful in our environment? On the contrary, this all sounds dangerous. It is detached from any sense of an order of things beyond a learner’s comprehension, releasing a mob of validated egos with unmitigated or regulated carte blanche. Are freedom and chaos synonymous. Me-centered knowledge and reality are pre-validated by acceptance of the theory. Whatever you, the student, decides it is, we say therefore it is.
This is all a jumble of too many ideas and I’m not aware that any effort has been made to extract the good from the ridiculous. I’ll keep reading on that. But so far…
There is, at first, a proposition of “student-centered” education focused on “how” one learns. I would imagine this must be very challenging for a teacher of a diversity of learners, with strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies characteristic of the optimum cognitive processes of each. But the concept seems to have some liberating value. Who else hated when you were asked to solve a math problem on a test, but show your work! Can’t I just give you the answer and explain that my process doesn’t involve wasting pencil and paper the way your extraneous process which I have been forced to use does? Isn’t the solution (part of a universally-accepted reality, by the way) the important thing? There is really a cool beauty in the cognitive diversity reference by this “how” of learning.
My concern here, however, is with the “what” of learning. This theory seems to shrug its shoulders with a “whatever” and declare that the “what” is irrelevant to the individual’s existence. The world is a fluid farce like the Matrix or something. But at the end of the process, something grows and is stamped “knowledge”. So, what is being “learned” or is anything at all being learned when the learner who cannot explain how a car operates is handed the steering wheel? Is a fantastical creation of constructs flourishing in the learner’s head called “my knowledge” and “my reality” that he/she is encouraged to hold onto proudly and steadfastly?
Are facts (huh?), ultimately, conveyed to the student in such a way that they are understood as fair representations of what they are in truth? Or are facts not the things of importance now so much as they are only pieces, colors, shapes, sounds, toys with which a student is free to create his/her own reality to be passed off as a fair, functional and integral bit of the collective reality? (Wait, I forget. Is it the “collective reality” or a collection of realities that even matters in all this?) Is this reality even an attempt to respect truth or what we have agreed through shared historical experience is comfortably and workably close? Are facts, like beauty, in the mind (eye) of the beholder?
(These are the journalists of tomorrow – and today, it seems.)
GIVE ‘EM WHAT THEY WANT AND THEY’LL WANT WHAT WE GIVE ‘EM – THUS SAYETH THE MIGHT ALGORITHMS
In this obsessive need to encapsulate (Label and Quantify) the inclinations and interests of those about whom an understanding is sought with the intent of gaining something from that understanding, the perpetrators (advertisers, ideologues, etc.) set a whole array of vicious information cycles into endless motion.
Consider informational venues such as social media. The agents have been outright now in their explanations of how their perception of how a consumer will interact with certain types of ads, stories, videos, posts, news flashes, etc. dictate how they will accelerate the rate of exposure to you of these very things. I recognized this more in the items they regularly jammed into my feed that I was less interested in. For a while I was bombarded with NASCAR and tennis videos and stories. I watched the US Open about a year ago and I went to a race about 15 years ago, but I do not consider myself a strict follower of either. After pondering these inexplicable choices made by the powers, I was unable to pinpoint what Google searches or prior circulated stories I may have read which must have prompted them to label me as “highly interested” (or whatever). They missed the target on those two attempts, but they did adjust and move on. It appears one’s activity “profile” is constructed sometimes based on even a seemingly minimal sampling.
But, sadly perhaps, we have become too dependent on (if not outright addicted to) these venues for information due to their immediacy and accessibility. This plops us all down in place before our algorithm-wielding exhibitors like malleable little globs of putty. Once the profile is molded, the assault on our attentions and sensibilities is unleashed at the touch of a screen.
Into the cycle with you. And once you are in, it stands to reason that what you are exposed to is, generally, what you will interact with. We all give in to that allure of something shiny in front of us in exchange for something we meant to seek out. Or that little something to occupy a minute or two of our down time. And the algorithms furiously keep calculating behind the text and the pictures. Every moment of this interaction increases the amount of exposure to something similar going forward, be it visual, categorical or informational.
This exposure-based-on-prior-interaction formula works universally as well as individually. I remember when I thought Google was actually a really great tool for information-seekers. I could type in something pretty specific and damn if it didn’t return a well-tailored and specify article or item. It was so cool to see that there were like-minded weirdos out there like me.
Now I suspect that the migration from blogs and forums and other specialized internet locales to things like social media based groups and peer-reviewed articles has contributed greatly to this re-shuffle and dilution. But commerce-centric presentation is surely a greater determinant. The first page or two of a search return are littered with ads, usually for something completely unrelated to what you asked for, from players who paid handsomely for one particular keyword there in your search bar. It’s when we get past the ads that it gets interesting.
One quickly becomes frustrated that with every entry we seem to be moving in some bizarre direction away from your target. Should my search be more specific? Less specific? Should I choose some obscure, loosely-related search term that might find me a side door to the right party?
At this point, you, the seeker, have likely become a victim of the universal searcher profile which the algorithms have constructed in association with some search term used that, because common, has seized their attention. This is where you start to get the sense that it is more interested in guiding you toward what everyone is interested in right now rather than what your search query has specified that you are interested in. Now don’t that make you feel like a sheeple (sherson?)? Google has deemed something more popular based on the universal click and interaction behaviors of all. This frequency of clicks pushes it higher in the rankings. It will get exponentially more clicks because of its availability and so on. This all serves to effectively limit exposure to a broader information spectrum returned for your query. How about when you read an article that comes up early in the return because the subject matter seems right in line with your query, only to realize it is 6 or 7 years old?! An information lifetime in this day and age. Of course it got more clicks to gain it that ranking, it’s been around so long! But it is no longer relevant and the updated info has been pushed down where no one will find it because it has no clicks… because no one can find it.
Between this frustrating phenomenon and the intentional “cancelling” of information and those seeking to share it (are they co-conspirators? Hmm), it is a challenge and an effort to find everything of value out there. If one is really genuinely determined to do that and not just seeking validation for a buyer’s choice they have already accepted without any inclination to reconsider. (That’s for another ramble.)
I THINK, YOU THINK, THEY ALL THINK WE ALL THINK
All history is interesting. There’s a cool feeling about somehow being connected to any point in the past just by hearing about it. History of action is cool and we are warned by the wise to learn from it so as not to repeat the mistakes of it (and to replicate the successes). History of thought is also cool as we will likely find shiny little nuggets of philosophy which seem universal, timeless and applicable to one’s place in modernity.
That all being said, I sometimes find the obsession the “educated” have with their education lacking any practical value. A student of philosophy can elevate him/herself with some allusion to a proclamation from some thinker way, way back. They impress by knowing the name of the once-lauded figure and slam dunk with their application of the ancient piece of wisdom to a current topic of conversation. While this might add some clarity to a point being made, I’m not so sure it necessarily lends any weight to an argument because some dude from Athens, or wherever, whose name survives into modern publications, uttered an idea that seems to show relativity.
I was just reading from a little book called Philosophy In Bite-Sized Chunks which I pulled off the clearance shelf at Barnes & Noble. It isn’t the first book on philosophy I’ve read and I actually remember the Socrates/Plato/Aristotle timeline and their methods, contributions and controversies, etc. Others I was familiar with too, although I had forgotten their basic positions born of their contemplations on life, the universe and everything. And then I thought, “How much does it really matter?” Do we feel like there’s more validity to our thoughts on the current state of things because we have familiarized ourselves with the teaching of a bunch of old guys in sheets and sandals?
We, today, have the benefit of the scientific knowledge procured by those who dug and sought with all the tools they created to aid in the task. We have the wisdom past down by those who used it to achieve happiness and success. All of this, that is, if we listen and seek it out. We have much more of this than those thinkers who preceded us. Shouldn’t this put us in a better position from which to contemplate and postulate on the things we find to be important? Shouldn’t those after us be in an even better position for this?
No one wants to re-invent the wheel. Similarly, no one probably wants to experience and share some epiphany about life, nature or the humanity only to be told that many long dead have had the same basic version of what you are posing and already published it for millions to read about. But, why not? Is originality really the important thing when it comes to philosophizing? Any honest writer (and anyone not consumed by ego in Hollywood) will tell you that nothing is completely original. Albert Einstein is credited with the admission that “the secret to creativity is hiding your sources”. In the spirit of what I’m rambling about, he is probably not the first, last or only person to utter this very notion (if he really did at all). Here is a great little blog post on this topic: https://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/the-secret-to-creativity/ But consider that, aside from a creative concept, a thought or idea, although maybe consciously or unconsciously pulled from some outside source, might also be original to the thinker. Although redundant many times over and completely unoriginal, this idea may have been independently conceived by the thinker.
This really makes more sense, doesn’t it? If all humans basically have the same structure used for the awareness, perception and processing pattern; we all live in the same universe; many of our experiences are endlessly redundant, wouldn’t it stand to reason (reason, get it?) that we would arrive at similar or identical concepts to explain our world?
I guess the point of all this is that memorizing and regurgitating who said what about what when to confirm one’s academic virtue to oneself or others (I’m now reminded of that scene from Good Will Hunting – love that), isn’t the important or useful thing. Just being aware and allowing your mind to process things as it will is your duty to yourself and humankind as a sentient being. Eating and breathing are endlessly redundant to (and enjoyable), but no one criticizes the lack of originality in it or seeks to document the first to propose these behaviors. Keep on thinking and wondering.
THE READY-MADE NEWS DRAMA
It was one of “the stories” of the year. Two young people, Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie, in a dysfunctional relationship go on a trip. They fight and he kills her (we all assume). He avoids press and police when they are onto him and eventually escapes into the wilderness and kills himself (we assume again).
If you watch any of the multitude of channels offered in devotion to real crime, you’ll see that, unsettling as it is, stuff like this seems to happen more often than one would think or hope. That is, crimes of passion (or profit or purposelessness or whatever) and the ensuing cover-up. So why was this one not just relegated to a slot in the rotation of one of the many retold dramas on syndicated cable? Why did this one, instead, consume so much air time on the major national outlets?
Senator Dan Sullivan, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and others would compare and contrast this seeming obsession with the Gabby Petito tragedy to those suffered by countless, unnamed and unknown Native American women for centuries. Trinettea Williamson and other black parents cite similar disparities with regard to the attention given their missing and/or murdered daughters. The way she sees it, “She also should have that same treatment, and any other young lady of color should have that same treatment. They should be on TV.” Sylvia Colon, who works with families of missing loved ones adds, “I struggle with saying this, but I’m going to say the hard thing. It’s also because she [Gabby Petito] was a beautiful white woman, and I think in this country, we don’t think someone of color is equally as beautiful and has worth.”
So is there validity to these accusation of unfairness in the social psyche, or is this a knee-jerk application of the readied race-centric explanation?
Call me naïve or “unwoke” but I think the smothering pile of attention poured out for this case speaks to something else indicative of our society today. More specifically, it demonstrates the eager answer to a desire to fill the image-based, stimulus-addicting information landscape that has become the 24-7 news cycle. There is something indeed unusual about this specific case and that is ready-made-for –TV drama package.
The characters in the story themselves provided an abundance of footage documenting their narrative as they went along, complete with scenes of blissful love through which we strained to see the demons behind. Add to that the extensive footage of their police stop after his “alleged” attack on her while driving. Then there’s the bystander report of them fighting just prior to that. (No video but some good audio from the police 911 call.) And what are the odds that a resident of Florida might happen by in Wyoming and decide to shoot some footage of a van with Florida plates by the side of the road (near where the body was found) just because? You can’t write and produce this stuff as fiction. Well, yes, you can. But why would you? It was handed to you already. And it all satisfied society’s apparent thirst for real-life crime drama. News outlets have become no different from other “entertainment” channels in answering the call to satiate that thirst. The marriage of reality TV and crime drama gift-wrapped to be presented as news so important to us all that we must follow every visually-documented detail in real time.
Does race matter here? I think far less than the availability of sensationalism, if at all.
A SUSPENSION OF DIVERSITY AWARENESS: MICROCREDIT AND THE CLARION CALL FOR ALL TO UNLEASH THEIR INNER CREATIVE ENTREPRENEUR IF ONLY GIVEN THEIR RIGHTFUL FINANCIAL RESOURCES
OK, that seems to sum up the mission statement of Muhammad Yunus and those of a similar mindset. Well, minus the “diversity” part which seems to be more an American obsession at the moment. This is a sub-flavor of economic socialism which moves to put the power of wealth into the hands of the unfortunate rather than continue a model of the rich getting richer. By empowering those without means, so it goes, they will, in turn, raise themselves, their families and even their communities out of poverty. In the larger scope, this will promote economic growth. Like many ideas, it sounds great on the surface and may be in some cases, but is surely not a one-size-fits-all solution. Few are. It is, once again, this assumed universality that is likely the biggest flaw here. Yunus’s approach is a bottom-up remedy for economic health (perhaps similar to Saul Alinsky, and other socialist activits’, strategy for societal revolution). It seems to me that this peaceful and positive revolutionary path requires firs the setting aside of that selectively beloved and applied concept of “diversity”.
This is an analysis of the application of the microcredit initiatives as put out by Vox… https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/15/18182167/microcredit-microfinance-poverty-grameen-bank-yunus
Now, I don’t know, this seems to compliment the system on its success at providing emergency fish to men (woman) rather than making fishers of women. But then it goes on to provide a results-based analysis of positive results examples as well as the negative ones one might expect when the rosy, save-the-world glasses are removed. The studies, like many on any investigation, seemed pretty inconclusive or twistable into the shape of whatever message you want to glean from it. One question, as the article points out, which has been raised is regarding whether microcredit projects would benefit all better if a stricter method of targeting prospective participants was put into place. So I feel confident in gleaning the lesson that, no, one size solutions do not fit all.
Oh yeah, the diversity thing. Let me digress to Jordan Peterson for a minute. He gave an interview (Exploring the Psychology of Creativity) (sorry, don’t have the link handy) in which he talked about the creative mind and traits of creatives as compared and contrasted with others. He associates openness, among other traits, with creatives but not so much conscientiousness and orderliness. He goes on to exemplify by comparing the more “liberal” minded to the more “conservative” minded. There will inevitably be a conflict in perspectives, with each seeing the other as approaching an issue in an erroneous, unethical or irrational way. It is in this conflict that, I would add, we see diversity being ignored and unappreciated. He goes on to reconcile the two saying, “liberals start companies and conservatives run them.” Without this diversity in character traits and strengths, that contribution withers and dies. Entrepreneurship, me might then say, is a combination of traits, or a collaboration of efforts.
So am I vehemently against projects like this? Not at all, for 2 simple reasons. First, it is not government-sponsored and funded (at least not as it’s being sold by Yunus and company for now). Second, and related, it is really venture capitalism (ooh, I said that dirty word) with an added moral flavor of expansion to those who might otherwise not find their financial footing in the effort to make some useful contribution they prove to be capable of. (This, by the way, could serve to stimulate and bring forth some interesting diversity in ideas and methods from within those overlooked crannies.) This is when it is functioning as intended. When not, isn’t it just charity? Charity is good, but lacking in the progress department where economic initiatives promise results.
My concern or take from all this is the decided ignorance of the obvious fact that, in the spirit of “diversity”, not every human (or woman, as Yunus seems to lean his dedication) is a potential creative or entrepreneur whose bud is being stifled.
The misguided premise is an unintended insult toward the soldiers and effective cogs which make up the bulk of any successful operation, large or small. The worker ants far outnumber the queen.
In addition, this misguided premise seems to be borne largely from this infectious disease of hatred of the haves, regardless of how they got, and crusade to strip it from them. Yunus says that money as an end should not be a motivator for growth. But if growth extends so to help more, even if not in a ratio unacceptable when set to the barometer of any random critic’s arbitrary determination of what “should be”, does it matter what the motivator was to begin with? Should we be happy that genuine creatives and entrepreneurs have been inspired by whatever drove them to make that move toward the furthering of us in some way?
BEWARE THE MANDATE MONSTER CREATED
Writing this feels like finger-tapping echoes, plagiarizing thousands of others at once or taking dictation from the collective but I will anyway just to summarize. This discontentment really has nothing to do with vaccines, yay or nay. It’s not that simple. It is this simple though. The government authority mandating an individual take some personal action with regard to his/her own body on the justification that they have deemed it for the individual’s own good is a non-starter in a society that prides itself on the strength of individual freedoms. This is a very dark road to start (continue) down.
Let’s clear the slate so we can focus with another summary on the controversies, real or imagined, surrounding vaccines.
For me, the decision to vaccinate boils down to a numbers game and, frankly, by now I’ve gotten dizzy thinking about it all much less ranting about it here. Suffice it to say that the decision of the truly inquisitive and open-minded should reasonably be one with which all due diligence is exercised. It is, after all that person’s own well-being with potential life or death implications here. This consideration can weigh a variety of factors, some hard (or even somewhat questionable) statistics, others more speculative or chancing the unknown. Data gathering and interpretation of the short terms; educated speculations of the long terms; health profiles and seemingly relevant characteristics; treatments vs. preventives; inclusivity of ALL “the science” that the talking heads “listen to” (to quote their holier-than-thou mantra); and so much more. A vast library of information, whether deemed informative or misinformative by the powers-that-be, is available for cognitive ingestion.
If one ever felt so inclined to enter a discussion of the vaccine topic with anyone seemingly predisposed to combat an opinion or decision you admit to, this might inevitably arrive at the “cite your sources” challenge. Now this is a fair enough request to be sure. Sources need to be scrutinized along with the information and suggestions they offer. But I’ve found it to have become a bit disingenuous too, even though some of this criticism is motivated by my sheer laziness in making note of every article or youtube video I’ve ever found interesting for ready producing upon the asking. Here’s the thing. My sources? They are exactly the same sources which are available to you on your little research device if you felt the same curiosity as me and entered the same search terms. I didn’t pull them from some secret archive in a hidden bunker deep in the forest. If the challenger was really interested in this information “alternative” to what they have already chosen to accept as irrefutable fact, they would have read it themselves. Furthermore, if I had already chosen to get me my vaccine months ago, I would also have no incentive to waste my time reading all this other mind clutter. What difference would it make when it’s already a done deal? I lost much incentive to keep researching this stuff after my forced and presidentially coerced jab.
OK, so hopefully the slate is now clear of the temptations to launch into a rainfall of and “your info is from nefarious and misleading agents with an agenda” and “my scientists are more scientific than your scientists” and all that stuff. (I will just add that those who just seem too tired or disinterested in engaging in all that wash their hands of all this controversy with “it’s all just been politicized”. They seem to fall back on the oversimplification that all information can be divided as ammunition into two bins with the beloved red and blue team colors painted on the side of each and fail to see the overlaps and tangles in all the relevant information out there. The “politicization” comes in the form of the politicians and their bureaucrats who seize any available microphone or camera to spearhead the dialogue on all this, so that their information is the only relevant information.)
Yeah, that felt like a necessary sub-rant or four. Back to the more concerning issue…
And so we reached a point where a president, who was probably in desperate need of some strong gesture of control and ability to manage a situation, put his feeble fist down and declared a “you WILL do this to yourself” mandate.
A Gallup poll released in September found 58% agreed that private sector companies with 100 or more employees (not sure what the relevance of this arbitrary number is) should force their employees to vaccinate or be tested weekly. (The softening point here is the weekly test provision. I would rather know how many approve of forced vaccinations with no freedom-preserving option, but…) So, going by these numbers, you could say that this compromise of personal choice had public support. I find that to be the more concerning bit. An institutionalized government machine made up of career-long memberships would, inevitably, grow to obsess over its perceived responsibility to control, so as to govern. The ease with which it can satisfy that hunger when reaching for the cookie jar without being checked only encourages this perception. I guess this is some facet of human nature. The poll says 58% of those “checkers” have yielded on this one.
What does the reaction to this mandate really look like when you dig in? For the left it is all predicated on the unequivocal conclusion that vaccines are the only means to a desired end and becomes a marked division of information from the established expertise vs. disinformation from the chaotic, disorganized fringe whims appealing to the distrustful and rebellious. For the right it becomes an opportunity to show support for freedom of choice, but short of daring to take up the fight against disinformation labelers they probably feel they have already lost; therefore, a way to maintain a responsible and sensible posture. A real balancing act. Even the most freedom-loving who are proponents of vaccination focus on the “rightness” of vaccinating rather than the bigger issue of potential boundary overstepping by a central government. I can’t count how many times a TV talking head has said something like, “I support your freedom to make your own choice… but vaccination is the right one. (wink, wink). Ultimately, he/she is advocating a choice consistent with his/hers (which I never asked for). That’s just not good enough.
Here’s another oddity. Those who would normally express a distrust in government and corporate, namely Big Pharma (who have found a mutually beneficial marriage in this situation), readily accept without question what both tell them they should be doing to themselves to promote safety. That popular voice of criticism, suspicion and distrust seems to have fallen silent in the era of Corona. Could that be a result of the painting of the pandemic in the “team colors” or the successful “politicization” of things? It could be that the saturation of the dialogue in “team colors” sentiments has caused re-alignments. The enemy (Big Pharma and bullshit bureaucrats) of my enemy (the perceived “other team”) is now my friend. Once again, team affiliations trump all.
This reshuffle and resulting shifting of allegiances to new narratives moves people to discard any willingness to accept the abundance of conflicting, additional or alternative information from others (even those “from within the science”) without any consideration or a fair listen. First comes the loss of a willingness to question then comes the loss of an ability to question. This is akin to any authoritarian predicate of totalitarian infallibility (ie. what Xi says is the way, all else is criminal; or the Proletariat in the Soviet Union)
Enter the lawyer mind (which seems to make up a large percentage of our Congress). This is the pursuit of crafting any argument clothed in something at least resembling logic for sale to those in a position of judgment. It is necessary to achieve an end, or conclusion. Propositions that might appear inherently outlandish from an objective place of non-involvement can become a whole new reality when subjectified or tainted with emotional implications that blur the clarity of the original rationality. The nonsensical can be made into perfect sense, or from a matter of someone else’s choice to one of universal necessity. For instance the idea that having a border is akin to having walls on your house is, at first, obvious and rational. Then suddenly appears complicated and even irrational when sentiments of “racism” and “humanitarianism” are mixed in.
So what is the rational justification behind a government mandate? We first identify a universal problem. A solution or strategy is hatched and proposed by the anointed and designated central thinkers who are, unquestionably, the leading experts by virtue of their position in the highest authoritative body. (Are Anthony Fauci and the members of the CDC really the leading experts on infectious disease and how to deal with it based on knowledge and ability? Can anyone substantiate such a claim? Who are they leading and how can we tell that they’re ahead of the others? Or are they leading because they have been given the authority to do so by the centralized power?) It then proceeds through the stages of legitimacy with less and less scrutiny until it becomes the thing which cannot be removed from its secure place. All this justified by the lawyer talk which can take ANYTHING and shape it into a matter of “public safety” and the “greater good” to be sold.
This is, of course, not the first time we’ve dealt with the question of government overreach and the encroachment on personal space for the greater good. We’re still bickering over the secretive actions of the NSA and related government organizations with the purported intention of preventing outside (or inside) terroristic (or other) threats. This is similar to the mandate in that it arouses a reaction in many to rise in defense of their personal rights. It is scarier in its lack of transparency and different in that it, as yet, hasn’t resulted in any physical action perpetrated to the masses. This hasn’t gone away, just been pushed to a back burner of our attention. Edward Snowden is conveniently tucked away so that the dilemma over how to deal with him is off the table and not forcing us to look again at the troubling subversive trends he has uncovered.
Speaking of the physical aspect of personal rights, there’s the “my body, my choice” motto, as applicable. This is an apparent attempt to point out an inconsistency between the idea that the choice to have an abortion is a physical right of a pregnant woman which should be preserved by law, but that the right of someone to choose non-vaccinating his/her body is up for compromise. One difference that shouldn’t be ignored, however, is that the latter appeals to the notion of an overriding greater good in play and the former is strictly an unattached individual right under an ideological attack. Since we’re here, another difference is that the crux of the argument against abortion is the involvement of another life and its direct imposition on that non-choosing life. Vaccination might, at best, imply an indirect lessening of a potential physical threat to others. Not very comparable really. But that first difference pointed out is the one which concerns me with regard to the forging of a path toward authoritarianism in current practice.
Then there is the comparison to mandated automobile insurance and child safety laws, or even mandated health insurance from the Affordable Care Act crusade. Only liability insurance is mandated for drivers so they are not mandated to be responsible for their own well-being but for that of others. Not to mention, this insurance is only utilized once the harm is done. So it’s really more of a consolation than a preventive. Furthermore, this is more of a state mandate than federal and can serve to remind us of the basics. In other words, this is where the Constitutionalists refer to the value of the 10th amendment and its stressing the importance of limiting the powers of a central government. With child safety laws one could argue that this is a matter of protecting those who lack the maturity and responsibility to make the choice themselves and is, at best, an attempt to protect innocent kids from stupid parents and, at worst, an insult to responsible parents. In any case, it doesn’t fit into the “protect-you-from-yourself” category. Mandated health insurance for oneself? Definitely a clear comparison to be made here. It didn’t include that intrusive element of something being put into your body beyond your will though. That’s a huge barrier the vaccine mandate crosses.
If Covid-19 is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” as the narrative-controlling politicians have stated, then aren’t those choosing not to vaccinate choosing to risk their own safety, and not that of the vaccinated? Why did AIDS treatment become available but not mandated if the powers believe themselves obligated to force protection on the people and save them from themselves as well as an epidemic? Obviously that wasn’t the sentiment. Those who did contract AIDS did so as a result of their own choices of action and were not affecting unwitting, non-participating innocents.
I guess the nonsensical nature of this “save-you-from-yourselves” campaign quickly became obvious since it seems to have been replaced by a more scolding rhetoric of blame. No, it is not just the safety of the individual but the safety of the whole. The unvaccinated threatening the vaccinated. Overcrowding of hospitals. Greater transmissibility of the virus and for a longer period in an unvaccinatied carrier. These are valid allegations for which there is evidence of their possibilities, if not realizations already. But these are all, first and foremost, further complications resulting from the virus itself and the pandemic state.
One could claim that the choice to not vaccinate is an avoidable exacerbation of the problem. This claim and battle cry would be righteous and indefensible if the choice to not vaccinate was merely a matter of selfish laziness and disregard for others. But since the agents of mandate know this isn’t the case, they have to convince the victimized vaccinated that this is a result of “misinformation” campaigns, a need for the unwoke to be “educated” (reminiscent of segregating “education camps” in the Soviet Union) and irrational fears. This all to enlist the majority in their war tactic of guilt, shame and pressure.
Never do we hear of the temporary infrastructures that were put in place prior to the vaccine almost overnight by the Army Corps of Engineers and others for the purpose of meeting the sudden demands for medical response en masse predicted at the onset of the pandemic. Whatever happened to them and why are they no longer a feasible resource for dealing with the plague? Why no mobilization of some plan to get patients in need of treatment from more cluttered regions to those not experiencing shortages of beds and efficient treatment capabilities? The desire to discard personal freedom of choice for a one-solution response to the crisis is not only oppressive but dishonest in its disregard of the above-mentioned resources as well as a louder acknowledgement of the therapies and treatments available as alternatives, or even additives to, vaccines (even with their set of uncertainties and risks that a choosing patient could be made aware of if they were not deemed taboo to the conversation.)
Now I know there are those out there with a penchant for believing every government action of this size must have some underlying agenda. Perhaps this is all, if not outright orchestrated to achieve an outcome, at least an opportunity seized to further a necessary control over the herd (public). I’ll admit, I choose to not allow myself to be so naïve as to completely dismiss this theory. I will give the benefit of the doubt to a government that hypothetically is, instead, willing to skirt a few ethical rules surrounding freedom and determination of the people for a greater good of the whole. In doing this, I suspect a single-minded focus on the vaccine response and its mandate are more a matter of simplicity and quick action. It is easier to explain, convince of and distribute this simple solution and politicians, whose livelihood depends on the optics of quick and effective results, have a vested interest in this kind of focused simplicity.
Be it planned or by-product, the ease with which mandates like this are rolled out with no effective questioning or resistance increase the likelihood that more of their kind are to follow as will readily reach for that tested tool for convenient and quick control over any perceived problem. This will all bring us closer and closer to an authoritative state – “for the greater good and the safety and success of the collective”. That is how they all justify their unmitigated, unquestioned and perpetual absolutism.
“ISMISM ISMISM” – REPEAT IT FOUR TIMES AND IT SOUNDS LIKE A MOSQUITO CONVERSATION
Remember the John Lennon song Give Peace A Chance? It had all the “isms” – “thisism thatism ismism ismism”. Yeah, well we hear a lot of those being thrown around all the time. For fun, look up definitions of Totalitarianism, Utilitarianism, Fascism, Oligarchy (OK, not an “ism”), Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Authoritarianism, and probably several I missed off the top of my head. See if you can find any clear demarcations in definition, without overlap or redundancy, among them. No fanatical, ideological professor is gonna grade you or anything so just go ahead.
One of the hot ones lately seems to be “Fascism”. We hear such rampant overuse and abuse of the term in baseless, unimaginative attacks against opponents with half-baked Hitler and Nazi comparisons. One likening of the form of, so labeled, “Trumpism” to the, so labeled, “Fascism” of the 20th century is involving its campaign motto “Make America Great Again”. In the piece: https://www.thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-authoritarianism-fascism-4147699 , it states: The foundation of fascism is a combination of ultranationalism—an extreme devotion to one’s nation over all others—along with a widely held belief among the people that the nation must and will be somehow saved or “reborn.” We can see how this description, when set next to the Trump motto, lends itself to the accusation levied against the campaign. While Obama’s “Hope and Change” disavowed a dark past for a bright future; Trump’s jingle harkened of a bright and noble past that must be reinstated (Ooh, just like that Hitler! Case closed!) Even if despising of both Trump’s character and his policies, not immediately dismissing this silliness could readily tempt one to align with the angry mob choosing to wield “Fascism!” accusations as the attack of choice. With Hitler emerging as the top historical bad guy leader of choice, the attachment of that comparison is inevitable. Sadly, the vile extremes of this misapplied criticism, unfitting of any Western head of state in modern times, only demonstrates the frustrating ignorance and irresponsibility of these critics of history and their unwitting diminishing or neutralizing of the important lesson to be learned from one of the most horrible of rulers. (Of course the whole reactionary war to the coined Trumpism had to employ another favored and handy “ism” weapon – “racism”. But not to digress too much here.) Use of the word “fascist” as a hurled insult kind of puts it in the nasty toy bin for angry children along with “monster” and “shithead” and is far less than a supported assessment of a leader’s policy and impact on a people. George Orwell lamented the rendering of the term meaningless in its overuse and abuse back in 1944 - https://www.openculture.com/2016/12/george-orwell-tries-to-identify-who-is-really-a-fascist.html
So, might the newly-coined “Trumpism” be more akin to “Totalitarianism”? Encyclopedia Britannica entry: Totalitarianism is often distinguished from dictatorship, despotism, or tyranny by its supplanting of all political institutions with new ones and its sweeping away of all legal, social, and political traditions. The totalitarian state pursues some special goal, such as industrialization or conquest, to the exclusion of all others. All resources are directed toward its attainment, regardless of the cost. Contrary to what frantic detractors might be eager to believe, the Trump presidency, though rather unconventional in style, can’t be shown to have perpetrated any actions as laid out in the first part of that definition; nor can we identify any exclusivity as referenced in the second.
From Britannica: Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to characterize the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as “all within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.” By the beginning of World War II, totalitarian had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive single-party government. It seems like an “ism” is often a system of government control that just comes into being without design and is then labeled as something. As time goes on, we awkwardly try to apply these half-baked terms to a current government entity we observe in the hopes of feeling we have an understanding of it, as if these different entities and systems existing in different places and different times and with different characters are all somehow neatly constructed on some strict model. The result seems to be a lot of overlap and disagreement among those who confidently toss the terms around. Sure, I’ll play for a bit.
Authoritarianism might be the more applicable blanket label for a central government that assumes the power of personal decisions for a perceived greater good because they (the philosopher kings) are able to identify, organize and apply the collective wisdom more efficiently than expecting this to be done out of the chaos of individual motive and practice.
Here’s some exploration into (at least someone’s attempts to explain) the differences between totalitarianism, authoritarianism and fascism: https://academic.tips/question/authoritarian-vs-totalitarian-regimes/ and https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-totalitarian-and-authoritarian/
The softer concept of Authoritarianism differs from Totalitarianism in that it does “not interfere with social and economic institutions”. Totalitarianism is a, yep, total control of every possible aspect of the state. The Pediaa comparison describes totalitarian control by the state as “dictatorial” and authoritarian control as “authoritarian”. Yeah, we’re just getting into some sleight of word gray stuff here. Any summary of comparisons seems to basically recognize that there is some “limited degree of freedom” in a labeled “authoritarian” state. Identification of these limits, degrees and freedoms seems to be elusive though, and subject to redefining at the whim of ruler(s). Suffice it to say that both systems, for all the differences we might infer between them, are anti-democracy and pro-rulers.
Which of these isms do we appear to be headed toward, if any? There’s a tendency for people to answer that with a comparison of the character of a criticized official to that of someone already judged “fascist” with no need for appeal, usually Hitler. He’s everyone’s go-to historical villain. But doesn’t it make more sense to look to policies and actions of the powers for an answer? With things like central government-originating individual mandates (for the “greater good”) and unchecked placement of excessive regulation many stemming from and driven by controversial but defining (ideological?) hyper- focuses (such as global warming averting and erasing inequities of outcome), there are certainly causes for consideration. Consider first whether or not these crusades even come close to aligning with the concerns of the voting majority.
“Cancel culture” demonstrates the elimination of anything which resides outside of a government-promoted ideology or plan of action and is, thus, at least a gesture toward authoritarianism in its attempt to quash opposing voices. Mandates, which choose a government-decided righteous way over individual choice, suggest a taste of totalitarianism with a step toward authoritarianism. The secretive (protective?) policies of the NSA and company reek more of the placement of totalitarian tools. (Ever listen to Edward Snowden speak out from his hiding place?)
One basic element of authoritarianism which seems to be universally agreed upon is power in the hands of an unelected few or one. This conclusively separates it from democracy or republic at the very core. We should probably be aware of any mechanisms put into place which quietly erode or disempower the choice of the public while maintaining a façade of intactness and decisive functionality. Note that we live in a time where the process of elections are always under suspicion (from all sides really, depending on how the results look) and scrutiny. The observations that our system has been streamlined into only two very opposing platforms (with dissent discouraged and solidarity encouraged within each) defined ideologically; and that the system in place already grants a greater amount of governing power into the hands of unelected, nameless and faceless bureaucrats should be items of concern. These developments will only lend themselves to the migration of power from the voting populace into the hands of the unelected and ideologues (more broadly, from democracy to some form of authoritarianism).
We also have the reenergized derogatory epithet of “Socialism”. Decisively classified as a form of ideological cancer by many, is it inherently antithetical to “Capitalism” and “Libertarianism”? Or is it an amorphous “ism”, subject to measurement by degree and able to co-exist in some awkward, if not illusory, partnership coined “democratic socialism” for easier consumption (and to calmly usher in what will ultimately become full-fledged Socialism)? The argument goes that there are socialist elements already sprinkled into our existing institutions and system which, if we allow ourselves to set aside taboo and stigma, we might recognize as socialistic and nature. For instance the distribution of water, being recognized as a basic human “right to life” is delegated to the government for efficiency. Education was deemed a matter of necessary uniformity and equal distribution (setting the groundwork for potential indoctrination, but I digress again). Healthcare, and what is best left in the hands of a competitive capitalist mechanism or a rights-and-equality-minded central government for efficient and fair (or is one sacrificed for the other?) functionality is currently an ongoing hot topic of debate. Is the trick knowing the safe and reasonable limits of necessary government intervention while maintaining an understanding and respect for “Capitalism”?
Whether or not there is a brand or degree of “Socialism” which is acceptable and even in practice here today, these steps being taken (larger and larger) in the name of positively progressive “democratic socialism” also hint flavors of Authoritarianism. Slap any other label on it, this is essentially what it is. This is what drove the Soviet Union and drives China, among others. This is the end game we need to realize should be avoided at all costs, there is no going back from it. Biden blatantly expressed that the people are too dumb to understand the supply chain. The whole theme is one of the philosopher kings – we, the gov’t know better. We will force our care on you because you are not wise enough to ask for it or understand in what form it should be administered. All this under the guise of protection or fairness to the oppressed can be applied to anything they deem necessary and authoritarianism will grow. It would seem that the path of Socialism eventually leads us to a tangled, brushy dead-end at which we find that it and Authoritarianism are inextricably attached. How could you ensure a system of Socialism without an all-controlling Authority to both clearly define it and actively enforce it?
Then there’s the matter of recognizing a difference between two more ism siblings – Socialism and Communism. These seem to be used interchangeably when the user is able and comfortable. Socialism seems like a gentler and thoughtful creature while Communism seems to have a more rigid, locked in iron way of life feel to it. I guess it’s the specific and identifiable dark nations and governments which have come to define Communism (not Socialism) for us. Both find their first breaths in the “power to the people” sentiment. Try this one: https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448
Back to Orwell… Was he a socialist at heart?
https://libcom.org/blog/orwell-quotes-right-wingers-never-mention-09012019 (Interesting to consider. Orwell’s famous works gained a whole new popularity during the Cold War era and in light of Communist tactics and system in practice. But it does seem more likely that the influence was what they saw as the Fascist oppressors of the time and his vision of a world controlled by any one of them. The worldwide Communist movement took full advantage of any type of uprising of “the people” against an oppressor, or against an uprising by one [Spanish Civil War] to gain a platform for the eventual fruition of their own visions and bring into being the oppressive government machine which we, subsequently, turned around and applied the comparisons to Orwell’s dystopias. It stuck and Orwell became a poster child for anti-Communism awareness.) Anyway, the idea of Socialism at its base as a system conscientious of the needs and will of “the people” as opposed to that of a single self-serving group or individual (when actually dealing with one of those) certainly has its undeniable appeal.
Let’s summarize Communism with the tag line supplied by Karl Marx himself: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The mechanisms for bringing this dream end to fruition are constructed and operated by the state. This machine needing to run efficiently and to the letter, there can be no allowance for individual interpretation or divergence. For Communism to exist, therefore, it must partner with Totalitarianism, as this would keep close tabs on every aspect of the machine which includes every individual who makes it up. A quick meditation on this motto reveals two intrinsic challenges. How does the state determine what each individual really “needs” and how will any individual ever realize his/her abilities (for to share) when offered no incentive to explore or develop them? An emphasis on cookie-cutter equality across the board will only motivate a being to maintain the status quo. The “needs” (unless seriously redefined downwards) will quickly outweigh the abilities that make themselves available.
(It seems an important sub-rambling to me to note the historical conflict between organized Religion and the Communist state. Though this might be starting to evaporate, considering the current pope and the attitudes of many who claim to be religious, the old school Religious still seem to repulse at the mention of Communism. It seems to me that the defensive stance triggered is really a reaction to the Totalitarian element of “communist” states and not the actual philosophical Communism. Totalitarianism cannot allow any other body to exist that would pose a competition to its all-controlling position. In theoretical Communism, however, it doesn’t seem that a collective of subjects identifying as a religious group would be relevant one way or another so long as its members follow the “able providing for needy” Marxist model.)
I have heard both criticisms of a system squeezing out the less fortunate so much that their very lives can be at risk as well as rational cautions of why government should be kept far away from people’s healthcare options for much the same reason. The guaranteed human rights aspect of it all makes it an even foggier quagmire for me that I have few lucid (and maybe too many amorphous) thoughts on at the moment. Suffice it to say that an attraction to, or aversion from, any particular “ism” and the awkward practice of wrapping everything in our society in these labels does not seem to help clarify what really is and what, after rational analysis, probably should be for the best. Both at the broadest and deepest levels, ismism over-coloring the dialogue doesn’t seem to be helping all that much.
Of course, none of these isms are used in self-description, for pretty obvious reasons.
FUCK 2021
Just fuck it. Next…