Logic and Values
Values are dualistic and an
obstacle to non-dualistic consciousness. The termination of values is
implicit to the termination of ethics because they are relative. The crux
of the rejection is focus. Logic does not have a focus whereas dialectic
does. Logic is concerned with the inter-connection of relativities and
dialectic is focused on relativities, [without knowing they are relative].
Values are amongst the relativities. Logical links identify non-dualistic
associations. Nothing is central to logical associations. The absence of a
focus is a defining feature of non-duality. However, five values are
absolute, and three of them are pertinent to the following essay. After
this introduction on realities, this essay addresses socio-political values and environmentalism and values.
Realities
The defining of what is real is
a serious moment in any philosophy. Our prevailing idea of reality is
synonymous with objectivity. It is accepted that individuals are real and
the rest is science’s job. This is why scientific proof is required to
validate any theory, metaphysics included. Here is not the place for what
exactly logic says constitutes reality, but it is explicit about the
essences a reality possesses and there are more than one
reality.
Dialectic is focussed on the
individual. The objective individual is real like no other entity that
dialectic knows. It is an unavoidable start and a limited base from which
to grasp reality. Reasoning naturally begins with the self-conscious
individual, as per Rene Descartes’ “Cognito, ergo sum”, and science
has taken objectivity to the limit.
Logical Realities
Logical realities are
individuals, the nation and the environment. They have the same
metaphysical essences. Dialectic recognition of the nation and the
environment is problematic. In politics totalitarian philosophies
recognise the state/nation as real while liberalism theoretically does
not, because it supports individualism. Duality permits only one truth and
liberalism opted for individualism. The nation is a practical reality in
liberal countries but liberalism has declared its preference. Totalitarian
philosophies do not understand the nation as logic does, and likewise,
liberalism does not individuals.
The nation and the individual
connect in a relationship called citizenship. Understanding what is shared
at an immanent level, and thus, what makes citizenship an absolute value,
pre-empts appealing for ethics, justice, duty and rights.
Dialectic and the matter of how real the
environment is
For dialectic the environment is
real but humans are more important. Talk of balance is meaningless in a
consciousness that seeks objectivity. Humans and the environment are two
objectives and dialectic can only handle one. Environmental theorists
prove this point about the limitations of dialectic in their own doctrinal
disputes as per the anthropocentric vs ecocentric debate. In their efforts
to define the interrelatedness they feel exists between humans and the
environment, theorists cannot avoid being human-centric [anthropocentric]
or eco-centric. And their employing morality to make their respective
cases only leads to nonsense. Dialectic fails both viewpoints, but this is
not recognised because they know no alternative.
http://environment.about.com/library/weekly/aa033097.htm?rnk=r4&terms=deep+ecology
Humanity and the environment are relativities that make a
whole called environmentalism, which happens to be another absolute
value.
Getting the thinking right is
paramount. Ideas are crucial because the tradition to which this
philosophy belongs holds creation to be the celebration of an Idea.
Environmentalists are coming at this conclusion from the awareness that
ideas and not politics will transform the world to ecological soundness.
They have not yet seen that their debates are a continuation of the
intellectual odyssey towards one key concept.
Revolutionary metaphysics
Metaphysical recognition of the
nation as a reality revolutionises consciousness. Logic finds the essences
of the nation and individual to be analogous. Logic does not just declare
or accept the nation to be real. It describes the essential components and
identifies them as identical with the essences that constitute
individuality. Knowledge of fundamental relationships results in the
invalidating of values.
It is not bizarre to accept that
the institutions and activities of a nation magnify individual qualities.
Consequently the nation is an ‘extension of the individual’. GWF Hegel
speculated upon this and I supply the proof. In the e-book, the next
metaphysical leap embraces the environment, and then follows an
explanation for creation. This religion-dwarfing development is driven by
a compulsion akin to reductio ad
absurdum- only it does not collapse into absurdum.
Values have an uncomfortable
relationship with truth. They are relative like truth, and consequently
can become diametrically opposed to truth. The “feel-good” quality of
values lends an advantage to the moral/values case that is not deserved.
Values arise when there is no comprehension of absoluteness. With the
patronage of dualistic religion, values assume importance and easily
become defacto absolutes. Political and ecological problems reveal
ordinary truths and values do not comprehend reality. In the light of the
new logic it is seen that values are illusory. They are only rules.
The third absolute value
pertinent to this essay is democracy. If an idea is worth saving then it
has to be described without reference to values. A logical explanation for
democracy actually liberates it from the fiendish grasp of equality. In
its time, equality served adequately through the ideological period of our
intellectual development, though it was never true. Now equality has
over-reached its’ usefulness and is more Hyde than
Jekyll.
Equality, Non-discrimination, Progress, Peace, Economic Growth,
Justice, Freedom, Anti-racism, liberalism.
Values - What
Values?
Values and absolute Truth are
not kin though they share a half brother, relative truth. Values and Truth
represent different systems of consciousness.
A few values are absolute, but
dualistic consciousness is nonplussed about why and which ones, so there
is no common ground. Values are the most precious ideas dualistic
consciousness can conceive of. God, goodness and values are examples of
what is meritorious to duality. The proponents of values need occasionally
to dispute with scientists. These occasions occur because of the
relativity of both values and truth.
It is not appreciated that (I)
values are articles of belief, (ii) belief in values is not well founded
and (iii) belief is inherent to dualistic consciousness. For example,
values are assumed to be of relevance to individual behaviour and
politics. When logic defines the nation as a reality, values cannot
recognise this reality, so the assumption that values are relevant to
politics is invalid.
The following sentence is
subtle, but critical. If values were creating both individuals and nations
then values would be a True measure of both.
If values were absolute there
would only be morality tales, not elaborate dramas. Drama includes
incidents where values are inadequate or strained. Values broadly work at
a personal level, but at a political level the inadequacies are
amplified.
The philosophic revolution had
to happen where empiricism and metaphysics could agree upon the
explicitness of a metaphysical formula. Scientific support for logic is
requisite. Though, scientific endorsements are not easy to come by,
Einsteinian Relativity is most sufficient. Politics is the real arena and
here an equivalent “Theory of Social Relativity” is delivered. Thereafter
metaphysics can explain history, religion, mysticism and psychology, and
range over the branches of philosophy, but politics and science are the
qualifiers.
Absolute Truth is explicated by
a logic that squares with creation. What is analogous to the process of
creation is absolute. Values are human constructs. Their point of
reference is moral goodness. So values follow from goodness and Truths
follow after creation.
Values and truth relate to the
apparent world. Absolute Truth relates to immanence, the underlying design
of creation. Appearances are recognised by logic as relative, so values
and truth are relative. Relativity diminishes the status of values. All
the values that take goodness as their basic virtue are relative. At a
political level values can be dangerous.
Logic endorses democracy, but
not liberal democracy. Logic’s endorsement is without reference to values,
ie. freedom, equality or rights. It comes from democracy being an analogue
of creation.
Science involves itself with
appearances and almost entirely it pursues relative truth. When critical
decisions need to be made, goodness/values overrides truth. An example is
political correctness, where liberalism opts for equality and ignores
truths, because liberal democracy is based on equality.
It is relevant to know absolute
Idealism, the tradition that logic belongs to. While duality wants to
improve the world, Idealism seeks to rationally transcend it.
Absolute Idealism
What really exist are Minds, ie.
souls; the transcendent component of ordinary minds. The mind has
metaphysical parameters and these are the keys to transcendence Mind.
There is only one Mind, of which finite minds are fragments. To elaborate,
the parameters of our mind are universal, common not only to all humans,
but are inherent to all creation. And it is human destiny to rationally
comprehend this universal Mind.
The external, apparent world
arises from the logos. What is manifested has an unseen system that is
Mind, or immanence. The search for the Idea behind appearances comes to
Mind/immanence and finds the logos.
It is unfortunate that absolute
Idealism shares the label “idealism” with moral idealism. They are not to
be confused. They are inimical.
Effectively there are only two
names to associate with absolute Idealism; GWF Hegel and mine. This is
because Hegel’s speculative metaphysics is as speculative as metaphysics
need ever be. After Hegel, philosophy needs definitive metaphysics and
this is what I supply. I have rationalised Mind.
For absolute Idealism the
highest virtue is transcendent insight; pure comprehension. It is not a
philosophy of action. Though keenly interested in politics, it has no
programme.
Every absolute, genuine or
imaginary, has some looping means of realising or justifying itself. For
morality, evil and goodness constitute justification of its claim to
reality. That it should fail to have an explanation for how good and evil
could be actual agents of creation and not phenomena after the event, is
something morality is silent about. Its self-endorsing loop finds good or
evil and that is all it needs to do. Morality’s loop says that good and
evil are fundamental. Events are either good or bad and that level of
discernment is all that is required. Ethics, dialectic and empiricism are
dualistic.
Creation
Logos logic supplies an
explanation for how creation happens and finds reason in the process of
creation. The joining of reason and creation in one concept makes for an
unrivalled claim to logic. Religions can be supplanted by this advantage.
This is the realm of antecedents where rational ideas cancel received
belief. A rational explanation for creation relegates God to the level of
myth.
Creation is the most critical
religious doctrine. The usual story has God doing the creating. Duality
naturally follows because human priorities [goodness] follow from human
imaginings and human dislikes [evil] are born of such priorities. The
nature of creation is such a mystery that the role of the creation
doctrine in predicating a world-view is unappreciated. The likelihood of a
rational successor to religious belief is unimagined so the vulnerability
of religion from this quarter is similarly unappreciated. The logic that
deposes dialectic of its claim to logic will cause religions to
succumb.
History and Purpose
The advent of logic is dependent
upon social complexity and therefore transcendence requires time and a
culminate event. It could not happen in a pre-industrial society because
the culminate event is ideological conflict. To this end, consciousness
evolves through politics, and nations are the main actors.
As befits a theory giving
precedence to “The Idea”, the purpose of creation is Mind’s
self-recognition via finite minds, ie. finite minds find human purpose in
recognition of Infinite Mind. This is logic’s self-justifying loop. It is
as inclusive as any idea can become. The evolution of consciousness makes
history crucial. So logic has to include a philosophy of
history.
Political Philosophy
In my hierarchy of branches of
philosophy, first is metaphysics, second is empiricism, third is political
philosophy and fourth is the philosophy of history. Political philosophy
has been a backwater, equal in status with axiology [the study of values]
because political philosophy is variously defined as “applied ethics”, “…
begins with equality” and “… inquires into the justification of any form
of government”. The philosophy of history is another quiet sector, partly
because such philosophies are very rare. The importance of politics to
consciousness can only be explained in concert with a deterministic Will
in history. Idealism is “visionary stuff” that emerges at the transition
of epochs.
Every political philosophy
advances a view of human nature. Commentators of such theories will settle
for the plausible, but logic confounds the critics. Logic is obliged to be
definitive of human nature. This has been thought impossible, but to make
the impossible, incredible, logic delivers a concomitant explanation for
the state. The archetypal individual cannot be defined without reference
to the archetypal social order. In the course of defining what is
fundamental to humanity, logic produces what is fundamental to each
nation. In other words, National Mind – the theory of social relativity,
is joined to Individual Mind – the theory of the soul. A syncretic
statement defines what capacities are fundamental to an individual, and
declares these same capacities immanent/fundament to society. So the
nation is an individual writ
large. All creatures are defined by their social arrangements, and as
it happens, so are we define.
History’s Agent
Dialectic, ie. common reasoning,
is dynamic on account of tensions between relative truths. Tension results
in a challenge. Consequently,
the impetus for history comes from polarised positions that pressure
people into reactions and adventures. These tensions are sufficient to
make history happen and consciousness evolve. Consciousness can evolve to its self-recognition. In
the process it makes history deterministic. The Reformation is a
pre-industrial example of polarised, political reasoning. Individualism is
easily traced to the Reformation. Individualism led to ideology, and
ideology is duality’s consciousness’s crowning dilemma. The hand of
history is the partisan, relative nature of common reasoning.
Politics and Purpose
Political problems are symptoms
of the failure to comprehend underlying structures. Political disputation
is the critical arena for consciousness because “the nation is the True
individual of history” [Hegel]. In the political arena ideas become more
than personal opinion because political scale ensures that they are
amplified to become impersonal examples of a particular category of
thought. The opinion of a ruling cleric in Iran becomes an example of
theocracy if the opinion is adopted. Hitler and Stalin exemplify
dictatorship. In this world every permutation is explored to the credit or
discredit of some idea.
For persons who embrace
Judeo-Christian or humanitarian sentiments, political trauma elicits
sympathy. Idealism departs from such sentiment. For Idealism political
trauma is a symptom. It is the duty of every individual to be politically
conscious, to identify with their nation even while opposing it, so as to
effect the development of consciousness. The growth of rational
consciousness is a collective achievement effected through politics. War
is a part of the process. To the media, who did the destruction, raping,
pillaging and murder is treated as seriously as the antagonisms. Yet the
progress of a war is a sideshow to Idealism. The real issue is why there
was not mutual understanding and/or avoidance. What mental laziness meant
the retention of received beliefs that divided communities? Or, take the
war against nature. Morality thinks that child mortality due to malaria
means there must be mosquito eradication. But since relevant countries are
over-populated the Idealist view is “leave the mosquitos”.
Values and Sentiment
With belief a component of
values, and goodness the prime value, sentiment is also pertinent to
receipt of values. In contrast logic is without sentiment. Sentiment is
not denied by logic, but nor is it indulged. On this point let us look to
homosexuality for an example of how values change and logic is consistent.
Homosexuality has received increased tolerance. The logic of this
proclivity will be the same 1000 years from now.
Homosexuality
Homosexuality is logically
deviant. Male–male is not a dichotomy. Creation rests on dichotomies; eg.
male-female; mind-matter, interacting. Without deliberation on rights or
the proper use of sex organs, homosexuality is censured. This is a
discriminatory judgement and a rebuff to the politics of inclusion.
Should we be tolerant of
homosexuals? Logic is not a philosophy of action and tolerance is too
relative and circumstantial for logic to apply. Betwixt immanence and
appearances; the way things should be and the way they are, there is many
a slip.
Everything apparent has some
connection with immanence. One male is party to logical sex, but not two
males. One element of homosexuality, ie. one male, concurs with logical
sex. Strictly it is not a case of logic rejecting homosexuality [as per
orthodox ethics], rather it is a case of homosexuality not measuring up to
logic. This point is important when the issue is ideological. Fascism,
Communism, Socialism, Liberalism etc. all have some “element” of the
logical about them, but they fail to measure up to the whole. They are
devoid of something and deviant as a consequence.
There is the perception that the
“transcendent and sacred” must be non-discriminatory. The root of this
idea is ethical, not mystical. Logic declares what is the norm and
homosexuality is not it. Religion is correct to censure homosexuality,
only it does not know the grounds for this judgment.
Equality
Relative values are open-ended.
It is known that freedoms are not absolute, but what recognition is there
that equality is relative? In economics, theorists retreat to ‘equity’,
ie. fairness, but on social issues equality is a dominant ideal.
Liberalism is committed to equality for it is the basis for its concept of
democracy. This dependency on open-ended, one-dimensional, equality is
rewarded with political correctness. Political correctness is equality
over-playing its relevance. Acceptance of this value is a barefaced act of
belief. It is a challenge that says, “You are in this system of thought
and this is what you must accept to be consistent. Can this possibly be
right? And can you reason your way around this consequence without damage
to democracy?”
Equality extends its argument
into ethnicity and race, which should be irrelevant to a supposedly
individual-based, democracy. Regardless, democracy is currently surviving
well, but it is not surviving upon its own merits. It is supported by
capitalism, growth capitalism
in particular, which is another value-prone institution. Democracy should
be a self-supporting, meritorious idea, but its fortunes are not certain
without growth capitalism because equality does not articulate a genuine
sense of community. Indeed, quite the opposite is the case and it will
only worsen when the capitalism engine falters.
Progress
The First World War discredited
the idea of Progress, yet for want of a better idea it has continued. Its
continuance is due to the need to believe history is about
betterment. It is hard to know how seriously people believe in Progress.
Goodness is basic to Progress, so denial of goodness must have
repercussions for Progress. Actually, the repercussions were a further
obligation on myself to supply a new concept because history is
purposeful. Duly, a new, sister concept to logic arose. It is called
“Enhancement”. It has its genesis in the logos. It explains the
deterministic Will in history that combines intellectual development with
materialistic achievement. The climax of deterministic Enhancement is
rational transcendence.
Peace
In the absence of a rational
explanation for creation, people resort to belief in God and the dualistic
world-view follows. Non-believers are still obliged to believe in duality.
Because they cannot replace belief in God, they merely have a “blank” on
the matter of creation. Belief in peace and opposition to war is automatic
and ritualistic. War is the great anti-value that challenges perception of
the world through its horror, but ordinarily war reinforces
peace.
Religion is central to a
consciousness and dualistic religions are obstacles to peace. Given the
earnestness with which religions profess their affinity with peace, their
being hazards to peace is not what they can imagine, but unsupported
belief feeds the religious imagination.
War is inherent to dualistic
consciousness. Dualism is point and counter-point not recognising their
affinity. This level of thought does not grapple with the cause; it
addresses the appearance. Opposition sustains duality. Oppose war and
duality will repay you with more war. Preach benevolence and expect
malevolence.
To focus on a real peace
problem, consider Israel and the Palestinians. This problem is a
combination of exclusive religious and nationalistic sentiments. If there
is ever to be peace between Arabs and Jews then it will not come by way of
peace diplomacy. The root cause is duality. If peace is to prevail, logic
must make the great dualistic faiths; eg. Christianity, Judaism and Islam,
obsolete. Explaining creation is what it will take to terminate these
religions.
Israeli and Palestinian
exclusivity on nationalism is also a serious divide. It will take time to
abandon religious affiliations just as it will take time to achieve
cultural parity.
Enhancement explains how races,
cultures, and nations are not equal. Some races, cultures and nations are
relatively superior and others are relatively inferior. Israelis have more
intellectual development and material achievement than Palestinians do.
Israelis are culturally superior to Palestinians because they are
democratic, enjoy a freer intellectual environment and are more
industrious than Palestinians are. [If you protest that Palestinians are a
subjugated people, then extend the comparison to all Arabs.] Palestinians
are not inherently inferior and it is not their destiny to remain
inferior. Given the opportunity, parity in Enhancement would happen.
Nationalistic sentiments should ameliorate with the withering of religious
identity.
If Israel is to find peace then
it will require Jews to no longer be Judaic and Palestinians to abandon
Islam. The abandonment of dualistic faith should occur multilaterally
amongst all followers of dualistic faith around the world, so the
abandonment of faith is not an obligation to be borne by the inhabitants
of one nation.
Justice
Justice cannot produce, identify
or endorse an absolute Truth. It has plenty to say about injustice but has
no realistic idea of how to avert injustice. It cannot properly analyse a
catastrophe like the Holocaust and it has not averted comparable outrages.
Contrary to popular perception, the root cause of the Holocaust was not
racism but dualistic consciousness. Discrimination against Jews was not
unlike the Protestant – Catholic discrimination that caused the
Thirty-Year War. The Holocaust was not about how Jews looked, but how they
thought. Racial ideas served to condemn the religious affiliation Nazis
found intolerable. Communists were self-righteous about fascists, and they
were no better, so dualistic ideas of evil and justice are
strained.
A change of logic would have
averted the Holocaust. Such an event is beyond ethics, so it is beyond
justice. It was also beyond the intellectual possibilities of the first
half of the 20th century, but it is no less True. The lesson to
be drawn from this is that the quest for social cohesion must go deeper
than liberal tolerance to the antecedents of consciousness. It is not OK
to abide by received wisdom, to acquiesce in circumstance and follow a
tradition of belief. The Idealist imperative casts religious tolerance in
a new light - religious tolerance cannot work. Religions deal in absolutes,
so does history, and reckonings are inevitable. We are not here to
believe, we are here to understand.
It behoves all persons to
transcend their differences. Implicit to our transcendent purpose is an
obligation to find real resolutions. History is the record of punishment
for not being wise to this obligation. Therefore the Holocaust was both a
hopeless predicament and a moment of cosmic justice. There are innumerable
episodes where the real issue is the inadequacy of ideas. The
“transcendent imperative” insists that we rise above our relativities and
in certain places and times the failure to do so results in extreme
adversity. Persecution and war is justice for the dereliction of the
obligation to consciousness. The irony is that ignorance of this duty
normally serves only morality, which is a major contributor to the
continuance of duality.
Growth
Liberal democracy rests on the
validity of capitalist, growth economics. Economic growth is the only way
that the world knows how to sustain an open society. Economic growth is
incompatible with finite resources and organic systems. We cannot expect
to see another century of accelerated development like the 20th
century, but we are beginning the 21st century with
undiminished enthusiasm for capitalist growth.
It is growth, not capitalism,
that logic cannot concur with. Capitalism is acknowledged as logically
valid and the logical complement of democracy. If dualistic consciousness
prevails there will come a time when growth capitalism will fail and then
there will be the abandonment of liberal democracy, capitalism, liberal
values, baby and bath water, but not duality. An ecologically sound
Civilisation cannot pursue growth.
Racial Discrimination
The next anti-value after war is
racial discrimination. Both anti-values are evolutionary pressures for the
promotion of consciousness. This is the purpose of anti-values. They may
possibly cause reflection. Logic is not going to condemn racial
discrimination. As an anti-value it needs to be transcended like any
value. Treating racial discrimination as moral deviancy is blind to the
shortcomings of morality, liberalism and the relative truths of racial
difference.
Recognition of the nation as a
reality gives proper recognition to various forms of collective identity
[ie. community, culture and race], and the invalidation of ethics, gives a
new complexion to racial discrimination. The situation is analogous to
liberalism’s failure to give the nation its due recognition. Collective
identity is recognised by dialectic but effectively denied by ethical
preference for racial equality. With logic, racial matters broaden from
the ethical simplicities of being individual to individual in relevance,
to the expansiveness of being about individuals, their culture, the
history that makes for any circumstance, and their common interests.
Frustrating evolutionary ambitions [ie. segregation and apartheid] is a
crime, though they count as milestones in the great scheme of
deterministic development. The immanent grounds for due recognition of
fellow humans circumvents the need for equality, and provides for
sentiment-free understanding.
The growth of consciousness is a
slow process. Its culmination requires complex societies with complex
problems. It takes a long time and challenging circumstances to build the
requisite civilisation. Political economy is the last milestone on the
road to transcendence and it involved major conflicts and threats of
conflict. So transcendence is not built on peace but conflict, and denial
of causes of conflict do not help. Anti-racism is denial because duality
cannot concede a truth.
Other parts of the world are
still learning through war basic lessons about self-determination and
liberation. Take for example East Timor where there is proper condemnation
of Indonesia for its invasion and domination, but there is no
acknowledgment that the Timorese were backward in their nation building.
Their subjugation has accelerated their sense of nationhood and Indonesia
has given them cause for thought about being masters of their destiny.
Something of this rude, collective awakening prevails in regards to racial
discrimination.
According to liberalism,
democrats do not discriminate because they believe in equality. But
democrats do discriminate. They discriminate because collective identity
has immanent roots. It must be said that immanence does not discriminate.
History is a relevant factor and histories are not equal, so
discrimination has validity. The addressing of discrepancies is a matter
of social evolution. Inferior peoples can be expected to earn acceptance
on the strength of their contribution. But mere existence is insufficient
to merit respect in a world that has purpose.
The founders of the American
Constitution believed in equality, community and racial discrimination and
no effort is given to understanding why. It is simpler to moralise, demean
predecessors and believe in Progress, than to face up to taboo truths like
inferiority and the probability that ancestors had a better sense of
community. Democrats racially discriminate because their judgment leads
them to conclude that:
·
There is collective identity and racially-based identity is one
category;
·
There are historic grounds for racial differences being expressed
in differing levels of development and achievement, and superior and
inferior are part of the lexicon;
·
Qualities one race exhibits are not emulated by
another;
·
It is hard to reject the superior and easy to reject the inferior,
people included;
Anyone who accepts the above as
true have not had the necessary concept to refute the prevailing morality
and the supporting consciousness.
Liberalism’s Cop-Out
Liberalism is basically a
collection of values that emerged from a strictly empirical stance. The
state did not warrant a theory, only demarcation for personal liberty.
History is metaphysical territory so it did need not be addressed. The
lack of any grand estimation of human capacities or destiny prompts the
criticism that liberalism has nothing to feed man’s soul. This criticism
would normally be treated as peripheral but every commentator knows
Civilisation is drifting. Once liberalism was wise not to be ambitious
about the nature of man and his destiny, but now big answers are needed
and liberalism simply does not have the philosophic tradition to produce
renewed relevance. It is an exhausted relic. The following paragraphs will
make this plainly evident.
Support for liberalism comes
from cultural relativism. Cultural relativists maintain that all cultures
are unique and equally valid because there are no means by which to
compare and determine which culture is superior and which is inferior.
This idea makes a virtue of intellectual inadequacy. It ignores the hordes
of second and third world people who are being repelled from the borders
of the European first world.
When no longer confident about
what is truth, dialectic will turn on the culture that it previously
served, devaluing its history and achievements. Post-modernism in
particular is signalling dialectic’s malaise. Post-modernism is supposedly
hard to understand. It is quite simple if you step back. At one level it
means “white men are guilty” and at another level it says, “this culture
and its theorists are moribund”. Adherence to values has arrived at
cultural denial. The rise of the West through material achievement with
intellectual rigour counts for nothing if all cultures and individuals are
equal, including those who have nothing admirable to show for their
existence. Dialectic can only be itself and if its shallowness makes it a
turncoat, it is only following its [relative] nature. Consequently
liberalism’s greatest enemy is itself.
From academia has surfaced moral
liberalism, happy to assume Christianity’s moral mantle to continue the
Judeo-Christian tradition of self-effacing meekness. Well-educated
progressives have a great problem with superior, inferior and
triumphantalism. It is poor-form to celebrate the successes of the West
since they are morally suspect. The preferred agendas reek of flagellation
and cultural debilitated is born of fear of being morally
insensitive.
The inability of liberal
philosophy to accept that the state is a reality means it can ignore
collective identity. This is convenient when the issue is racial identity,
but the salient point is that liberalism is not qualified to criticise.
Without a sense of community or better, a philosophy of history and
nationhood on which to base its expectations of racial harmony on,
criticism is speciousness. Liberalism’s leading ideals are liberty,
independence and autonomy, the antithesis of what is required for
comprehension of irreducible groups like cultures, races and nations.
Denying these loyalties is dangerous because they will be required to
build an ecologically aware society.
Future Cohesion
The future depends upon cohesion
within and between nations. After this age of realised individuality there
needs to be a return to social instincts. This will probably be forced by
stresses upon the environment. To assist the development of social
awareness there is logic. Logic will improve the ability to
reason.
Here is one commentator’s survey
of the last century and his anticipation of the future.
The combined effects stemming
from the successes of science, liberal democracy, free-market economics
and the mass media have produced an era of personal freedom and a realised
individuality unrivalled in the past. This is no mean accomplishment, but
it still leaves a lot to be achieved. Look at America’s inability to deal
with the race issue, which has cast its shadow down the century. Look at
the ethic cleansing in Rwanda and, more recently in Kosovo, so reminiscent
of both the Holocaust and Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Look at the
figures for crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy, and abortion. All of these
reflect, at some level, a breakdown between different groups - different nations, different races, different tribes,
different sexes, different families, different ages. The developments of
the twentieth century have taught us more about ourselves as individuals,
but they have not taught us much about ourselves as members of groups,
interlocking groups, with shared responsibilities as well as
rights. In sociology the dominant influence of Marx has been to stress the
way some groups (the middle classes, management) dominate and exploit
others. This has caused massive neglect in the study of the other ways in
which groups relate to one another. In psychology, Freud’s emphasis on
individual development, again allegedly based on self-interest, hostility,
and competition, has put personal realisation above all
else.
The task before science
is, therefore, as clear as it is urgent. It is to turn its attention to
groups, groups of people, the psychology and sociology of groups, to
explore how they relate to each other, how individuals relate to the
different groups of which they are members (families, sexes, generations,
races, nations), in the hope they shall some day be able to understand and
control such phenomena as racism, rape and child and drug
abuse.
[p. 768 “a terrible beauty - a History of the People & Ideas
that Shaped the Modern Mind”, Peter Watson, 2000, The Orion Publishing
Group Ltd, London.
It is interesting to note the
author looks to sociology and psychology, not philosophy for the answers
to developing group cohesion. It is omissions such as this that illustrate
how low expectations of philosophy are.
Green Politics are aligned with Deep Ecology,
logos logic and absolute Idealism
Values and Environmentalism
The raison d’etre of the environmental
political movement [Greens] is a change of consciousness. Environmentalism
is the issue where a global concern meets the highest philosophic
aspirations. World-worry and the seemingly detached convictions of
absolute Idealism converge because what is non-negotiable is absolute, and
salvation in consciousness is absolute. Greens have not come to the point
of seeing their purpose as absolute Idealism, but Idealism is everyone’s
rational purpose if they care to think.
Environmentalism should be
beyond politics. Logic can elevate it to that status.
Greens seek a change of values
and/or consciousness for “Not only are we facing ecological disasters that
will affect our ability to survive, but the crisis is forcing us to
re-examine the entire value system that has governed our lives for the
past two thousand years”. [From the dust cover of “it’s a matter of
SURVIVAL” by Anita Gordon and David Suzuki, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991.] Greens are concerned about “…global
warming, soil erosion, acid rain, species depletion, resource depletion,
ozone damage, rainforest destruction, overpopulation…”
The
Green call for new thinking recognises that the environmental crisis is a
result of:
·
the worldview of civilisation,
·
the incompatibility of the prevailing consciousness with a finite
world, and,
·
the compulsion to do the ecologically correct thing has to be
innate.
Survival and dualistic
consciousness are incompatible and consciousness has to
change.
Amongst Greens there is
confusion when it comes to clearly stating their objectives. They know to
criticise duality but they cannot escape using dualistic concepts. Values
Greens oppose are growth, materialism and Progress. Values they support
are justice, equality and peace. At this point, a new consciousness is
confused with a rearrangement of values and their ambitions are dashed.
Greens cannot “re-examine the entire value system that governs our lives…”
because they do not appreciate that it is logic that is pivotal, not
ethics and values. Green theorists have criticised the prevailing logic
for being reductionist, but the same concept supports the value system
from amongst which there are values they advocate and values they
reject.
Logic is a slippery slope and
the ability to grapple with this root concept is not a Green
embarrassment. One of their number has risen to the challenge of brings
ultimate ideas into alignment with their concerns. Greens need to be
convinced that it is values that are a worry, not absoluteness. Can the
sought support be recognised if devoid of Judeo-Christian imaginings?
Deep Ecology
Deep ecology is the title under
which various environmental theorists gather to pontificate on how to
change the world. Theorists for deep ecology make this distinction:
Shallow ecology deals with solutions for pollution and
resource depletion, rather than fundamental changes in human relations
with non-human nature. Deep ecology means transformation at the level of
consciousness and worldview, rather than the transformation of production
and reproduction.
The word "deep" in part referred to the level of questioning
of our purposes and values when arguing in environmental conflicts. The
"deep" movement involves deep questioning, right down to fundamental root
causes. The short-term, shallow approach stops before the ultimate level
of fundamental change, often promoting technological fixes (e.g.
recycling, increased automotive efficiency, export-driven monocultural
organic agriculture) based on the same consumption-oriented values and
methods of the industrial economy. The long-range deep approach involves
redesigning our whole systems based on values and methods that truly
preserve the ecological and cultural diversity of natural systems.
http://www.deepecology.org/deepmovement.html
This is an example of the common
belief that “values and methods” are fundamental. There are many examples
of deep theory equating with values. All that is happening is the theorist
is investing environmentalism with the highest honour he knows to bestow.
When the appropriate a priori
concept does not exist then one has to use what is at hand or do some
original thinking. The above does not invalid deep ecology, it only shows
that “the level of questioning” is not deep.
Non-dualistic consciousness is an area of theory that
appeals to Greens. It arises from mystical identification with creation,
so clearly it is very deep. No mystic aligns non-duality with values, so
in their hearts Green theorists know values are a cop-out.
Deep – Only Traditional Metaphysics is
deep
Only traditional metaphysics is
deep. Only metaphysics seeks immanence and that is the limit.
Deep Ecology is logos logic
A quick quiz for Greens who know
philosophy:
·
If values and dualistic consciousness are flawed, and not
fundamentally, what possibilities remain?
·
Is anything more fundamental than logic?
·
If
duality/empiricism/dialectic/science/objectivity/reductionism/values stand
collectively compromised and guilty of bringing Civilisation to an
ecological crisis, what rational tradition is left?
·
Are G.W.F. Hegel, Scholasticism and metaphysics-in-general guilty
of ecological incorrectness?
And there you have deep
ecology’s only hope: metaphysical logic. One is available.
Green Politics is Deep Ecology, is logos
logic
Green politics are only
meaningful if they align with deep ecology. Conventional politics have
added shallow ecology to their purpose. They address the symptoms of
environmental degradation while proceeding with economic growth and
scientific optimism. Green politics are a response to a defective system
of thought that brought us to this juncture. If our relationship to nature
is wrong, then we suffer and could well die. Greens think that is
self-evident, but it is in the nature of duality to dispute and be
insensitive to nature. Environmentalism is neither a choice nor a topic
for partisan politics. That environmentalism, like democracy, is
extra-agenda, is the Green’s premise for being something different in
politics. Thus Green politics and deep ecology signify a change in
thinking before all else. By identifying environmentalism as a reality,
logos logic vindicates the Green premise. No political party has
previously had that this degree of endorsement. Logic’s endorsement will
translate into an intellectual and electoral advantage.
Environmentalism cannot afford
to be another option in the political marketplace. Being adopted in one
election and cast aside in the next serves no purpose. The sharing of
‘extra-agenda’ status with democracy is the best guarantee
environmentalism has of remaining foremost in thought and practise. Not to
put too fine a point on it, democracy, citizenship and environmentalism
have been elevated to ‘sacred’ status, due to not being options. Only
logic can identify that category of idea.
Logos logic is make or break for
Green politics. It will not be easy for Greens to adopt logic because as
left-of-centre liberals they have their favoured values, ideals and
sympathies, and next they have to be able to see all dualistic values,
ideals and sympathies are perfidious. Logic is not familiar, altruistic,
Judeo-Christian territory, but if Greens mean what they say about the deep
interrelatedness between humans and the environment, they will have no
option.
There is nothing special to the
social side of the Green political platform that is not an extrapolation
from their environmental position. They, along with every other party,
have their value-wares to offer, and otherwise, minimal philosophy. This
is said to dispel any delusion that their liberal platform and programme
is particularly special in policies for peace, justice or social welfare.
It is disappointing that political parties imagine they can re-brand
values.
It was never apparent that
environmentalism would find common ground with Idealism. Hegel and
environmentalism do not have any obvious overlap. Idealism is normally too
abstract to be objectively obvious, but the exigencies of our threatened
existence has given deep abstractions simple relevance. Survival sharpens
the Mind/mind.
Conclusion
This essay has explained that by
giving new meanings to three words; reality, creation and deep, all of
philosophy, religion and politics are transformed. It is philosophy’s task
to mine new meaning from the commonplace, but a change in consciousness
falls entirely into the realm of metaphysics. Only metaphysics would get
beyond belief in objectivity.
Absolute Truth is entirely
unadorned. This distinguishing feature is not addressed in this essay.
Relative Truth is capable of being adorned. With redefined exceptions,
values are adorned with belief and sentiment. More seriously, values are
incapable of realising what they pretend to. What they pretend to, ie.
peace, equality, justice, are results. Results follow realities, and in
this context, realities follow creation. Values are not aligned with
reality because values are not analogues of creation. Since the task of
explicating creation requires a full philosophy, the nature of creation is
also unaddressed in the essay. Still, the above has outlined how a whole
category of respected ideas can be dismissed, after logic is made
concomitant with creation. Creation is the crux. Theories about creation
are very exposed, but if the theory is correct, then ironically, it is
beyond absolute Proof. Dialectic’s claim to logic has been dispelled and
Civilisation will never undergo a more thorough reconciliation between
ideas and reality. Unadorned Truth is ascendant over
values.
| 