One of the crucial aspects of the philosophy is to follow through on a proposition long known, summed in the paradox of Hui Shih that a white horse is not a horse. What we have is the common problem of applying general terms to specific instances.
In the model of knowledge at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz the general and the specific emerges as a crucial distinction, in that what we experience, what we live are unique and specific ‘instances of’.
Ideas come to be through the process of grouping ‘instances of’ according to their properties.So the white horse is a specific 'instance of' the general idea of 'horse', hence a white horse is not a horse.
The crucial hypothesis underlying this process is that ideas are the creation of species and did not predate the species, in this instance the species being humanity. Thus follows the idea that the framework of human thought as it is today is the result of progressive unfolding and elaboration and creation, beginning at first with the simplest classifications, those being of such things the earliest people’s saw and to which they related. This would of its own postulate that the earliest paintings would be of animals or people, and would likely be quite stylistic and without full depth or perspective, since these are not intrinsic but would represent refinement of skill.
Ideas thus come to be, and they have a social and psychological reality equal to the physical reality of the white horse. Hence when we talk of a horse not being a white horse we do indeed refer to two quite different objects of equal reality and power to effect us. There is no paradox, nor any particularly difficult philosophical problem to be resolved, at least not within the theory of knowledge developed in the papers at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz.
What you can ask, has this got to do with consciousness? Well everything, but first let’s briefly recap the issues. First, the so-called easy problem: this is the solution to the ‘how’ problem of consciousness. That is the problem of mechanism, or the problem of the neural and psychological processes whereby consciousness comes to be at all. It is conceded that in time this will be solved. But once solved, what is it we will have?
The theory of knowledge developed here already has an answer to this question, since the question is about the nature of knowledge not about consciousness. Imagine we had a complete and accurate general theory of consciousness such that we could model with great accuracy the mechanisms whereby consciousness came to be. That we had applied all our faculties and criteria of judgment to the solution and were certain we ‘had it right’. What do we have?
Precisely we will have a set of variables and or systems of variables, we will have the relationship between those variables and systems such that we would know precisely the flow of a perturbation through the system. That is, if we changed one variable, we would know exactly how that change would then flow through the system as a whole. We may not know every underlying mechanism of every relationship, but we would have a full causal explanation of consciousness.
What precisely would this accurate theory tell us of my consciousness or yours right now? It can only tell us the variables to research and how those variables interact. So if I wanted to know or predict or otherwise understand the actual state of my consciousness I would have to gather the information about the relevant variables, put the data into the theory and calculate the result.
The hard problem of consciousness is what it is like to be conscious; it is the experience of consciousness at this or that instant. But wait, if we have a complete and accurate mechanistic model of consciousness, and if we then put in the relevant data, what ‘answer’ do we get? We can and must get the ‘answer’ of what it is like to be consciousness for that person at that moment. The theory is the horse the statement about my consciousness now is the white horse.
If we take a scientific theory, put in the data and calculate the result we have exactly the relationship between the general and instance of. In the case of consciousness the argument goes further, in that since it is the relationship between the general and instances of, then there are two types of instances of, first each example of the species is or has a unique consciousness. To predict otherwise proposes that all the values of all the variables in our model of consciousness are identical at the same time, this simply stretches too far to be credible. How I feel now, is not the same as how you feel now, we are different, therefore the values of the variables that make up the theory of conscious for you right now is different to the values for me right now.
Second, for each person, each unique instance, in this case each event is a unique example of their unique consciousness. There can be as a matter of principle no generalities of any scientific value relating the unique moments of consciousness of one person with those of another.
These ‘instances of’ our existence are called 'qualia'.
What do we know of these ‘instances of’, of qualia? Frankly a great deal, world literature, song, art and poetry are full of what it is like to be alive under such and such circumstances. The study of qualia is not and never can be science, because each example of consciousness and each moment for each example of consciousness are unique. But it gives rise to the beautiful, the soaring, the painful and the passionate that we call art, culture or literature. Beyond the control and understanding offered by science or technology lies all the best of us, expressed by those talented enough to grasp a moment, and put it in a way that relates and makes sense of our own moments.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Building a fair society
"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others". George Orwell's brilliant satire focused on the world's oldest political problem: How to create a fair society.
We do not know what to do.
But we do know what not to do. George Orwell showed us in his clear and accurate language. Changing one set of pigs for another does not solve the problem merely perpetuates it from another point of view. We must not allow for more pigs.
Toward those feeling aggrieved, who do not understand that making them the pigs will not correct the social problem, we need restraint and patience. Insights take longer in some but come eventually. Making the current aggrieved the pigs may satisfy their tensions but will inevitably give rise to other tensions which will eventually have their politcal expression.
We need to draw a line through today and determine firmly the past is past. Where grievances are legitimate then reparations are due. But, we must not codify the pig mentality. To codify inequality in law is not to correct mistakes of the past but to continue them.
All laws must fall equally on all citizens. When, I cry, oh when will we learn this simple, essential reality of our social future?
We do not know what to do.
But we do know what not to do. George Orwell showed us in his clear and accurate language. Changing one set of pigs for another does not solve the problem merely perpetuates it from another point of view. We must not allow for more pigs.
Toward those feeling aggrieved, who do not understand that making them the pigs will not correct the social problem, we need restraint and patience. Insights take longer in some but come eventually. Making the current aggrieved the pigs may satisfy their tensions but will inevitably give rise to other tensions which will eventually have their politcal expression.
We need to draw a line through today and determine firmly the past is past. Where grievances are legitimate then reparations are due. But, we must not codify the pig mentality. To codify inequality in law is not to correct mistakes of the past but to continue them.
All laws must fall equally on all citizens. When, I cry, oh when will we learn this simple, essential reality of our social future?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Who are we?
Society needs understood in two ways.
Academic sociology combines and confuses these two issues.
Politicians combine and confuse these two issues.
These two issues are combined and confused in popular opinion/attitudes.
Where these issues are confused a society loses perspective on individual human spirituality and becomes essentially a tribe, where all are largely expected to conform.
The best modern example where these two issues are pressed firmly together is in Muslim society where one is expected to be a Muslim, conform to the Muslim way. The social structure allows limited variation, the right of the individual person to express their unique spirituality in the choice of how they wish to live is seriously moderated, even surpressed. They may be right, hence this is not a criticism, merely an observation drawn to make clear the difference between the Muslim social structure and resulting culture, and the western liberal plural social structure and resulting cultures.
What does it mean to live in a western liberal democcray? Well, it is tough. I recall my son describing how tough, at about 18 (he is now 32 and has sorted these isues, well as much as anyone sorts them), 'there is too much choice Dad...'. The Western liberal democratic processes focused on the right of each person to live as they choose, has evolved a social structure where people can do exactly that. Choice gone mad...
In the last 50 years, people have indeed lived more adn more as they choose, tried many new ways of life-style, sexual satisfaction, and every form of sport, and recreation and spiritual endeavour one can imagine, and the imagination of people is not exhausted yet. Everyone today, is of the view their spirit and orientation has a right to be seen and heard and is not to be denied nor dismissed merely because it is different from the core social norm. For me, that is exactly as it should be. So I know who I am, and what I stand for.
The central issues we face are three fold.
These legal and ethical pricniples have not been well handled to point that only a few generations ago many native cultures were actively being extinguished, and due such poor ethical and legislative process, natives may have been disadvantaged, and for that financial compensation is due. But compensation processes must not be confused with core social structural issues, since with compensation we seek to appease the past; while retaining a clear and plural social structure so we enable the future.
Similar comments as regards immigrants, they come into a plural, liberal social structure that we must protect. They may live as they choose within that, enabled by the very plurality they at times seek to deny. They make their choice, live and let live, or leave.
The problem is that these people, both natives and immigrants, frequently do not have the depth of cultural and spiritual experience with pluralism. And as illustrated by my son, for those maturing today, it can be hard. Natives and immigrants frequently come to a breadth of pluralism in a few generations, whereas I come to it through my my ancestors reaching back a hundred generations. Natives and immigrants also often come with deep grievances that cloud judgement of the way forward. If we be liberal, and act such, then it is to be patient, and firmly resistant to naive pressures and requests. It is from insight into the depth of three thousand years of social evolution that the west knows the way forward to find the true fulfilement of humanity.
Education leading to understanding on the strucutre of who we are, and the significance of the western liberal, plural, democratic social structure, the very structure that will protect all cultures. Education however, requires we get the concept right first. Social structure defines all of us, we are all western. liberal, plural and democratic. Culture defines a particluar persons choice giving flavour and style to all of us, within the broader definition of who we are.
- The social structure: The framework of law, history and social ethics that defines the processes operative within the society.
- The ways of living, the choices people make about how they want to live within the legal, historical and ethical framework.These ways of living are the cultures within the society.
Academic sociology combines and confuses these two issues.
Politicians combine and confuse these two issues.
These two issues are combined and confused in popular opinion/attitudes.
Where these issues are confused a society loses perspective on individual human spirituality and becomes essentially a tribe, where all are largely expected to conform.
The best modern example where these two issues are pressed firmly together is in Muslim society where one is expected to be a Muslim, conform to the Muslim way. The social structure allows limited variation, the right of the individual person to express their unique spirituality in the choice of how they wish to live is seriously moderated, even surpressed. They may be right, hence this is not a criticism, merely an observation drawn to make clear the difference between the Muslim social structure and resulting culture, and the western liberal plural social structure and resulting cultures.
What does it mean to live in a western liberal democcray? Well, it is tough. I recall my son describing how tough, at about 18 (he is now 32 and has sorted these isues, well as much as anyone sorts them), 'there is too much choice Dad...'. The Western liberal democratic processes focused on the right of each person to live as they choose, has evolved a social structure where people can do exactly that. Choice gone mad...
In the last 50 years, people have indeed lived more adn more as they choose, tried many new ways of life-style, sexual satisfaction, and every form of sport, and recreation and spiritual endeavour one can imagine, and the imagination of people is not exhausted yet. Everyone today, is of the view their spirit and orientation has a right to be seen and heard and is not to be denied nor dismissed merely because it is different from the core social norm. For me, that is exactly as it should be. So I know who I am, and what I stand for.
The central issues we face are three fold.
- We need clearly 'see' the distinction between social structure and culture. Unless we 'see' clearly the difference between laws and regulation that enables the breadth of plural diversity then we risk trending back to where we have been, and indivual spiritual expression will be reduced. I resist that, since I think each person is born with a inalieable right to pursue their spiritual and life fulfilment in the manner of their choice, to select their cultural choice from the many, provided they do not restrict or inhibit others pursuing their inalieable right.
- The second, and huge issue is ethics. Our core emotional responses must be to celebrate the difference between us and others, and not condemn. It is very hard not to think that our way of living is the best way, and harder still not to press others to our mould. I suspect every religion has suffered from this very serious failing, certainly Christianity has been just dreadful, priding itself in 'conversions'. The breadth of diversity of life style and 'culture' within western liberal and plural democracies has developed very rapidly, and to a breadth unimagined one hundred years ago. But, it was predictable, looking back, the core of the social structure was there, the social ethic of individual freedom was there. We are now merely struggling to cope with the reality fostered by the core chocies of our society.
- We need understand where our freedom comes from, from our social structure. We need be ready to defend our social structure against all attacks, we must never compromise, as we tend to do, based on naive notions of being liberal. The defense of our core social structure is being liberal, and enabling future generations to build on our learning and advance human spiritual and ethical development further than we can, due our inherent limitations of timing.
These legal and ethical pricniples have not been well handled to point that only a few generations ago many native cultures were actively being extinguished, and due such poor ethical and legislative process, natives may have been disadvantaged, and for that financial compensation is due. But compensation processes must not be confused with core social structural issues, since with compensation we seek to appease the past; while retaining a clear and plural social structure so we enable the future.
Similar comments as regards immigrants, they come into a plural, liberal social structure that we must protect. They may live as they choose within that, enabled by the very plurality they at times seek to deny. They make their choice, live and let live, or leave.
The problem is that these people, both natives and immigrants, frequently do not have the depth of cultural and spiritual experience with pluralism. And as illustrated by my son, for those maturing today, it can be hard. Natives and immigrants frequently come to a breadth of pluralism in a few generations, whereas I come to it through my my ancestors reaching back a hundred generations. Natives and immigrants also often come with deep grievances that cloud judgement of the way forward. If we be liberal, and act such, then it is to be patient, and firmly resistant to naive pressures and requests. It is from insight into the depth of three thousand years of social evolution that the west knows the way forward to find the true fulfilement of humanity.
Education leading to understanding on the strucutre of who we are, and the significance of the western liberal, plural, democratic social structure, the very structure that will protect all cultures. Education however, requires we get the concept right first. Social structure defines all of us, we are all western. liberal, plural and democratic. Culture defines a particluar persons choice giving flavour and style to all of us, within the broader definition of who we are.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Understanding culture
Multiculturalism, what is it, how do we understand it? What is culture?
Confusion around the idea of culture has caused us at times to fail in defending the very processes that built our way of life.
A liberal, western democracy, founded on individual freedom, has at core the following types of social processes,
1. Transparent democratic processes, one person one vote, for removing bad leaders without violence.
2. Transparent application of the law, judicial and police processes.
3. Commitment to nurture and allow every person to express their own spirit within the law. This commitment to personal freedom supported by a live and let live ethic.
4. Transparency in political decision making, with the individual's right to protest (but, again, within the law).
5. Separation of powers, so religion, economy, police, judiciary, legislation, and education all kept separate with rules and regulation surrounding conflicts of interest and privileged use of information (insider trading, and privacy act, for example).
There are likely other principles, but these fairly reflect the core of what makes a Western liberal democracy. I call these our 'social structure'; largely codified in law and regulation. We change any of this at our peril, for any such change will erode our freedoms.
What then, is culture? Within our liberal democratic framework we live as we choose, constrained only by the law, which is intended to be non-directive, broad as possible not constraining us, merely providing a framework within which we can get on with lives we choose. I call the way some people, some group; choose to live as their culture.
Culture is then the manner in which various groups choose to express their spirit within the overall social structure of our western liberal democracy.
So Caucasians do as they do Protestants and Catholics as they choose and greenies as they choose, etc.
Any people joining our social structure are not given the right to demand it be changed to accommodate them. The social structure is the core of our existence, and we must never lose sight of that.
People joining our social structure are welcome and encouraged within our social structure to build and rejoice in their culture, recognizing that in so doing they need rejoice in others living their cultures, side by side. This then is ‘multi-cultural’, better known as modern plural society. As expressed by Julia Gillard, PM of Australia, if they join us it is over to them to fit in, or exercise the wonderful right we all have, that is to leave.
What then, in New Zealand, is Maori?
Maori is one particular culture group no more important than any other, and at about 15% of the population, not even a big or important cultural grouping.
Today, in New Zealand, Maori, like Muslims around the world, need realise they just are not able to have their own way, and they need seriously grow up and get used to the fact of people living beside them who are different.
Rather than just celebrating within their preferred group, rejoicing in their view of their superior spirituality, all peoples need come to rejoice in the differences that abound, and wonderful array of spiritual and living choice open in the world, and which the very structure of our society encourages and nurtures.
We all need see the blaze of glory in the vast patchwork quilt that is modern society.
Confusion around the idea of culture has caused us at times to fail in defending the very processes that built our way of life.
A liberal, western democracy, founded on individual freedom, has at core the following types of social processes,
1. Transparent democratic processes, one person one vote, for removing bad leaders without violence.
2. Transparent application of the law, judicial and police processes.
3. Commitment to nurture and allow every person to express their own spirit within the law. This commitment to personal freedom supported by a live and let live ethic.
4. Transparency in political decision making, with the individual's right to protest (but, again, within the law).
5. Separation of powers, so religion, economy, police, judiciary, legislation, and education all kept separate with rules and regulation surrounding conflicts of interest and privileged use of information (insider trading, and privacy act, for example).
There are likely other principles, but these fairly reflect the core of what makes a Western liberal democracy. I call these our 'social structure'; largely codified in law and regulation. We change any of this at our peril, for any such change will erode our freedoms.
What then, is culture? Within our liberal democratic framework we live as we choose, constrained only by the law, which is intended to be non-directive, broad as possible not constraining us, merely providing a framework within which we can get on with lives we choose. I call the way some people, some group; choose to live as their culture.
Culture is then the manner in which various groups choose to express their spirit within the overall social structure of our western liberal democracy.
So Caucasians do as they do Protestants and Catholics as they choose and greenies as they choose, etc.
Any people joining our social structure are not given the right to demand it be changed to accommodate them. The social structure is the core of our existence, and we must never lose sight of that.
People joining our social structure are welcome and encouraged within our social structure to build and rejoice in their culture, recognizing that in so doing they need rejoice in others living their cultures, side by side. This then is ‘multi-cultural’, better known as modern plural society. As expressed by Julia Gillard, PM of Australia, if they join us it is over to them to fit in, or exercise the wonderful right we all have, that is to leave.
What then, in New Zealand, is Maori?
Maori is one particular culture group no more important than any other, and at about 15% of the population, not even a big or important cultural grouping.
Today, in New Zealand, Maori, like Muslims around the world, need realise they just are not able to have their own way, and they need seriously grow up and get used to the fact of people living beside them who are different.
Rather than just celebrating within their preferred group, rejoicing in their view of their superior spirituality, all peoples need come to rejoice in the differences that abound, and wonderful array of spiritual and living choice open in the world, and which the very structure of our society encourages and nurtures.
We all need see the blaze of glory in the vast patchwork quilt that is modern society.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Bringing heart to our legislation
Imagine we committed to the idea we are a liberal, democratic society, committed to an egalitarian ethic, where people, all people stood equal, regardless of job, wealth, or power. Imagine we insisted this principle applied in assessing legislation. How might it work?
Consider the foreshore and seabed debate. How would the egalitarian principle reshape this legislation? First, it becomes the ‘natural water act’ applying to all lakes, rivers, streams and seabed and foreshore.
1. All riparian/ownership rights immediately revoked.
2. All native customary rights immediately revoked.
3. Persons controlling land that blocks access required to provide four feet of walkway, fencing and maintenance by councils.
4. All waterways, all beds of all natural water, and for a nominated distance around all natural water, held in trust by parliament. Only unanimous vote can change this legislation.
5. All lake, rivers and streams to have public access, land to be provided, without compensation, councils to enable the access way.
6. Public accesses for beaches, say every 500 meters, for inland water, say every 2 kilometers.
The egalitarian principle could ensure that no amount of wealth, no creed, race, or any supposed prior claim will erode fundamental rights of us all, and access to recreational features of our wonderful country is one of those rights.
Consider the foreshore and seabed debate. How would the egalitarian principle reshape this legislation? First, it becomes the ‘natural water act’ applying to all lakes, rivers, streams and seabed and foreshore.
1. All riparian/ownership rights immediately revoked.
2. All native customary rights immediately revoked.
3. Persons controlling land that blocks access required to provide four feet of walkway, fencing and maintenance by councils.
4. All waterways, all beds of all natural water, and for a nominated distance around all natural water, held in trust by parliament. Only unanimous vote can change this legislation.
5. All lake, rivers and streams to have public access, land to be provided, without compensation, councils to enable the access way.
6. Public accesses for beaches, say every 500 meters, for inland water, say every 2 kilometers.
The egalitarian principle could ensure that no amount of wealth, no creed, race, or any supposed prior claim will erode fundamental rights of us all, and access to recreational features of our wonderful country is one of those rights.
Giving democracy a soul
New Zealand is a western liberal democracy, committed to individual freedom. From our pioneering roots also comes an egalitarian ethic where no-one is better, we stand eye-to-eye, an ethic eroded today, and in need of resurrection.
Why not define ourselves as a western liberal democracy, where all stand equal before the law, and where we strive to ensure the social ethic reflects our commitment to our liberal egalitarian democratic principle.
We could then use our egalitarian democratic principle to assess the quality of legislation, forcing our politicians to respect the very fabric of our society that enables them to exist as they do.
As Egypt crumbles, China clamps down on freedom of information, and politicians in other authoritarian states watch nervously, it is a good time to cement our commitment to the principles and processes protecting our freedoms, and enabling us to remove poor leaders without violence or bloodshed.
The principle is this egalitarian democratic principle, which if embraced by us can ground our society. Politicians will not embrace it, nor will those with power and wealth likely eroded by the principle.
We need demand it politicians’ will follow. If we choose, we can bring them to heel.
Isn’t democracy grand?
Why not define ourselves as a western liberal democracy, where all stand equal before the law, and where we strive to ensure the social ethic reflects our commitment to our liberal egalitarian democratic principle.
We could then use our egalitarian democratic principle to assess the quality of legislation, forcing our politicians to respect the very fabric of our society that enables them to exist as they do.
As Egypt crumbles, China clamps down on freedom of information, and politicians in other authoritarian states watch nervously, it is a good time to cement our commitment to the principles and processes protecting our freedoms, and enabling us to remove poor leaders without violence or bloodshed.
The principle is this egalitarian democratic principle, which if embraced by us can ground our society. Politicians will not embrace it, nor will those with power and wealth likely eroded by the principle.
We need demand it politicians’ will follow. If we choose, we can bring them to heel.
Isn’t democracy grand?
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Searching for me
Our spirit is our centre, our core. Whether or not it continues as a soul after death is not the point here, so I use spirit to refer to that psychological central place of our existence. In using the term, I infer only psychological structures and processes, no religion.
Every one has a spirit, the core of psyche, but not everyone understands their spirit or is in touch with it. It is easy to become detached from it, since daily life, work, family, friends, pressures and trials engage us in ways often inconsistent with what we may on reflection, choose. Our spirit is not necessarily congruent with what we do each day good intentions are not enough.
Modern psychological theory has it that via our mind, in particular, the cognitive and conceptual structures we use to ‘see’ our environment and our place in it we substantially construct our own spirit. The knowledge we use in constructing ourselves is the same as that used to ‘see’ the tree. We have private knowledge of ourselves, but it is not special knowledge. As offered in the Johari window, others may also have knowledge of us we do not know, but could if we seek it.
I ‘see’ my spirit as a structure in my psyche I call it the ‘I of I’, visualized for me, as a peaceful lake with depth into the very center of me.
The ‘I’ is the active part - roles, relationships, goals, purpose, work, family, etc. Many years ago, while conducting a senior management executive leadership workshop we were discussing roles and the role complexity of their every day life, I asked the group if they ever got lost in their role structures, such as acting as the CEO at home, or with friends, etc. They all put up their hands, I was quite surprised, first at the fact they understood exactly what I was talking about, and second they so immediately were willing to be open and honest about it. It was agreed that losing oneself in daily roles is losing touch with something important in ourselves, a loss of identity, a loss of a sense of ‘who I am’, this way for this one, this other way for that, but who am I?
The ‘I of I’ does not act, it is not an aspect of any role, it lies behind all roles and is the centre of my being in any roles - it is who I am. The ‘I of I’ is the centre of the spirit, always there, constant, perhaps at times troubled, such as when we move beyond merely sad to depression defined as an affliction of the spirit. Surrounding the ‘I of I’ are the thoughts most precious to us, those thoughts that give depth and substance to our being, we could call them values, but I mean beyond that common term, something closer to the inherent difference between perhaps an Pygmy of the Congo rain forest, and a native born New Yorker.
Some years ago, I read a book on the Mbuti. The author Colin Turnball described how when escorting a Pygmy out of this forest they stood on a hill, and the Pygmy asked ‘what were the insects’. It took the author some minutes to understand that the Pygmy referred to cattle grazing a field some miles away, that for the Pygmy in the forest with distance measured in feet not miles, anything so small had to be insects. This is a profound example of living circumstance and its impact on how we think and ‘see’ the world about us.
Other aspects of our worldview arise from ideas and ways of thinking as deeply ingrained. They are just one-step removed from the ‘I of I’, part of our kernel we call our spirit. To secure our way of life, to develop and improve, then we need understand these ideas, this way of thinking, we need ‘see’ it as part of our kernel, embrace and cherish it, accept our personal responsibility within it, and be willing to defend it.
We need understand the way of thinking that is our heritage for this heritage lifted us to where we stand today. Should we continue to fail in our ethical obligations to our heritage, then our great grand children may well look back and say ‘oh, what an opportunity they had’.
Limits to culture
Culture is carried in mind, from one generation to the next, both shaping each generation and being shaped. Without mind, culture degenerates to a collection of artifacts.
Culture is a big term, with a particular culture encompassing the collective output of some particular group of hominids. There are aspects of current culture we can happily forego - such as some tastes in music or art - for our culture embraces all music and art, which includes those aspects of which we may not approve or like. We can only ignore those aspects, for to do otherwise is to impose on some people tastes and values that we choose.
Imposition of my view on others brings forth another aspect of what has been called culture, but I suggest in a modern world needs redefining.
Separating social structure from culture
Some years ago in Auckland, we had the Centre Point Community, where it emerged that there were illegal activities, with an adult sexually abusing children, and people rightly jailed. However, there is another issue - before the illegal activities emerged - that was the right of these people to live as they choose. I disagreed with the Community values and philosophies, but I was prepared to defend their right to exist provided it stayed within the law, or legally protested current law.
We also had the divisive Springbok tour. I could protest, and make my disagreement visible, but to use force to stop people doing legally allowed conduct, subverts something fundamental. I could not forcibly seek to stop other people who disagreed with me from attending those games. I am not convinced we have actually moved beyond the subversion of that principle, and today we still pay the price of forgoing values so profoundly important we do not realise the malaise facilitated, that one group has the right forcibly to stop another group doing that which they legally can merely because the first group disagrees. Without social self-discipline, we have anarchy, more accurately what happens is the progressive implementation of control and regulation that intimately undermines that which it so loudly proclaims to protect: our freedom to choose.
Around 60 BCE, Julius Caesar conquered Europe. Rome then dominated Europe for some 500 years, but only by force of arms, or the threat. The European tribes were never pacified, adopting Roman ways without losing their sense of who they were. Then around 400 CE the ‘barbarian’ tribes sacked Rome. What then emerged from the dissolution of the Roman Empire was ‘tribes’ became ‘countries’.
Our western way of life focused on the right of individual freedom traced to this beginning, the ferociously held view of these ‘barbaric’ European tribes of the right to self-determination. Likely, the foundation of this view traced even more deeply hundreds of years prior to 60 BCE.
Today, the Western Caucasians stand atop this depth of history, Rome gave us much culture, but the Barbarian tribes gave us the core of our social structure, the core of our spirit. With respects to Maori and Polynesian societies, they simply cannot offer this much, nor ever will.
History since has had the rant against the Crown by the barons called Magna Carta, the English Civil Wars, the French Revolution, the American Declaration of Independence, the first and second world wars, and the demise of the central planning of socialism as a viable social structure. The trend is the same, toward the idea I suggest will come to dominate human kind, namely “I want what is best for me, and I am damned if I will bow simply to your way”.
The problem is now ethical, how can I have my way without restricting or inhibiting others in pursuit of what they see as best for them? This takes us beyond mere culture, beyond questions of how I seek to live, especially as more and more there are those in our community who seek to live differently from me.
Individual freedom and western social structure
Tribes are gone, the world is complex; there are many, many points of view and ways of life, a ‘plural society’.
The modern western democracy has emerged over the last 2000 years so today we have core elements in virtually all free, democratic western societies.
These fundamentals - what has been called ‘culture’ - needs to be redefined; we need to see the core of our western, plural, democratic, social structure as that, as core framework of social values we place above all others, it becomes non-negotiable, a kernel handed down to us over millennia.
Freedom, the core of our spirit, the closest idea next to the ‘I of our social I’, the nature of the social structure then flows from this idea.
As physical environment shaped the immediate perception of the Pygmy, so insight and understanding of our ideological history needs to shape the immediate perception of our modern world.
Living side by side
Who we are, intimately bound with the insight and understanding of how we have got to where we are. Yes, current place, New Zealand will shape that, but understanding the real nature of that shaping is far, far in the future. Yes, other societies, Maori and Polynesian, add some living tone. However, this must not detract or mask who we really are.
Today our society is of western heritage.
Today, I would like to think all would protect my right to live as I choose, as I would protect theirs, without reference to them, as they need never refer to me, merely with reference to the law, since I am as much part of this land as they.
We all stand before one law, non-specific of race or creed, as befits the tradition and core values that forge the central part of our social existence. This transcends culture, defining a core set of values with which we all live in the manner we each choose.
The first measure of our commitment freedom of the individual, to the core value our European tribal ancestors, is the extent our law is without race or creed. In this first measure we in New Zealand fail, for the Maori Parliamentary seats breach the measure. Muslim social structure also fails, it defined by creed, not by equal rights no matter creed, gender or viewpoint.
We are plural today, undone only in conflict. This is part of freedom's price, for freedom is a flower that blossoms only in fields fertilized with blood. Should you disagree, I suggest you check history, and the deaths in the name of freedom, tens of millions have regarded it a cause worthy of life commitment, this is the kernel of my spirit, it is where I come from and am committed to see progress.
Freedom, and only in freedom, will the human spirit soar, and only in disciplined commitment to ensure our western social structures is freedom secure.
Living side by side, we need all embrace the common aim of fulfillment through freedom, committing to the social structure that best enables our goals, and then within that social structure we live as we choose, and accept others may choose to live differently from us, even in ways we cannot abide but must accept.
Self-determination in the modern plural society is choosing how I will live and giving up the idea I have any right to direct how others should live. We need to embrace our common social structure, willing to defend the right of others to be, as they commit to our right to be, culture then expressing the group to which we gravitate and with whom we most identify and associate, while not losing sight of the broader western global social movement to which we all belong.
We need learn better how to accept the hard part of being free, namely, freedom is the demand to accept those very different from us, and offers merely the right to discipline ourselves. In embracing our freedom, showing our great grand children how to live fully within freedom, to become all that humans can be and more, greater than us, we must never compromise on our social structure that enables our freedom.
Our spirit is our centre, our core. Whether or not it continues as a soul after death is not the point here, so I use spirit to refer to that psychological central place of our existence. In using the term, I infer only psychological structures and processes, no religion.
Every one has a spirit, the core of psyche, but not everyone understands their spirit or is in touch with it. It is easy to become detached from it, since daily life, work, family, friends, pressures and trials engage us in ways often inconsistent with what we may on reflection, choose. Our spirit is not necessarily congruent with what we do each day good intentions are not enough.
Modern psychological theory has it that via our mind, in particular, the cognitive and conceptual structures we use to ‘see’ our environment and our place in it we substantially construct our own spirit. The knowledge we use in constructing ourselves is the same as that used to ‘see’ the tree. We have private knowledge of ourselves, but it is not special knowledge. As offered in the Johari window, others may also have knowledge of us we do not know, but could if we seek it.
I ‘see’ my spirit as a structure in my psyche I call it the ‘I of I’, visualized for me, as a peaceful lake with depth into the very center of me.
The ‘I’ is the active part - roles, relationships, goals, purpose, work, family, etc. Many years ago, while conducting a senior management executive leadership workshop we were discussing roles and the role complexity of their every day life, I asked the group if they ever got lost in their role structures, such as acting as the CEO at home, or with friends, etc. They all put up their hands, I was quite surprised, first at the fact they understood exactly what I was talking about, and second they so immediately were willing to be open and honest about it. It was agreed that losing oneself in daily roles is losing touch with something important in ourselves, a loss of identity, a loss of a sense of ‘who I am’, this way for this one, this other way for that, but who am I?
The ‘I of I’ does not act, it is not an aspect of any role, it lies behind all roles and is the centre of my being in any roles - it is who I am. The ‘I of I’ is the centre of the spirit, always there, constant, perhaps at times troubled, such as when we move beyond merely sad to depression defined as an affliction of the spirit. Surrounding the ‘I of I’ are the thoughts most precious to us, those thoughts that give depth and substance to our being, we could call them values, but I mean beyond that common term, something closer to the inherent difference between perhaps an Pygmy of the Congo rain forest, and a native born New Yorker.
Some years ago, I read a book on the Mbuti. The author Colin Turnball described how when escorting a Pygmy out of this forest they stood on a hill, and the Pygmy asked ‘what were the insects’. It took the author some minutes to understand that the Pygmy referred to cattle grazing a field some miles away, that for the Pygmy in the forest with distance measured in feet not miles, anything so small had to be insects. This is a profound example of living circumstance and its impact on how we think and ‘see’ the world about us.
Other aspects of our worldview arise from ideas and ways of thinking as deeply ingrained. They are just one-step removed from the ‘I of I’, part of our kernel we call our spirit. To secure our way of life, to develop and improve, then we need understand these ideas, this way of thinking, we need ‘see’ it as part of our kernel, embrace and cherish it, accept our personal responsibility within it, and be willing to defend it.
We need understand the way of thinking that is our heritage for this heritage lifted us to where we stand today. Should we continue to fail in our ethical obligations to our heritage, then our great grand children may well look back and say ‘oh, what an opportunity they had’.
Limits to culture
Culture is carried in mind, from one generation to the next, both shaping each generation and being shaped. Without mind, culture degenerates to a collection of artifacts.
Culture is a big term, with a particular culture encompassing the collective output of some particular group of hominids. There are aspects of current culture we can happily forego - such as some tastes in music or art - for our culture embraces all music and art, which includes those aspects of which we may not approve or like. We can only ignore those aspects, for to do otherwise is to impose on some people tastes and values that we choose.
Imposition of my view on others brings forth another aspect of what has been called culture, but I suggest in a modern world needs redefining.
Separating social structure from culture
Some years ago in Auckland, we had the Centre Point Community, where it emerged that there were illegal activities, with an adult sexually abusing children, and people rightly jailed. However, there is another issue - before the illegal activities emerged - that was the right of these people to live as they choose. I disagreed with the Community values and philosophies, but I was prepared to defend their right to exist provided it stayed within the law, or legally protested current law.
We also had the divisive Springbok tour. I could protest, and make my disagreement visible, but to use force to stop people doing legally allowed conduct, subverts something fundamental. I could not forcibly seek to stop other people who disagreed with me from attending those games. I am not convinced we have actually moved beyond the subversion of that principle, and today we still pay the price of forgoing values so profoundly important we do not realise the malaise facilitated, that one group has the right forcibly to stop another group doing that which they legally can merely because the first group disagrees. Without social self-discipline, we have anarchy, more accurately what happens is the progressive implementation of control and regulation that intimately undermines that which it so loudly proclaims to protect: our freedom to choose.
Around 60 BCE, Julius Caesar conquered Europe. Rome then dominated Europe for some 500 years, but only by force of arms, or the threat. The European tribes were never pacified, adopting Roman ways without losing their sense of who they were. Then around 400 CE the ‘barbarian’ tribes sacked Rome. What then emerged from the dissolution of the Roman Empire was ‘tribes’ became ‘countries’.
Our western way of life focused on the right of individual freedom traced to this beginning, the ferociously held view of these ‘barbaric’ European tribes of the right to self-determination. Likely, the foundation of this view traced even more deeply hundreds of years prior to 60 BCE.
Today, the Western Caucasians stand atop this depth of history, Rome gave us much culture, but the Barbarian tribes gave us the core of our social structure, the core of our spirit. With respects to Maori and Polynesian societies, they simply cannot offer this much, nor ever will.
History since has had the rant against the Crown by the barons called Magna Carta, the English Civil Wars, the French Revolution, the American Declaration of Independence, the first and second world wars, and the demise of the central planning of socialism as a viable social structure. The trend is the same, toward the idea I suggest will come to dominate human kind, namely “I want what is best for me, and I am damned if I will bow simply to your way”.
The problem is now ethical, how can I have my way without restricting or inhibiting others in pursuit of what they see as best for them? This takes us beyond mere culture, beyond questions of how I seek to live, especially as more and more there are those in our community who seek to live differently from me.
Individual freedom and western social structure
Tribes are gone, the world is complex; there are many, many points of view and ways of life, a ‘plural society’.
The modern western democracy has emerged over the last 2000 years so today we have core elements in virtually all free, democratic western societies.
- Paramount right of the individual to live as they choose within the law.
- Morality is not the basis of law, which can only rest on socially agreed and legally sanctioned ethical standards, such as only driving on a specified side of the road.
- Separation of powers, so state, religion, business, legislature, judiciary, police, etc all separate.
- Legislation to apply to all, so no race, creed or particular group singled out for persecution or privilege, and no exceptions.
- Socialized education, health, and some form of welfare.
- Democratic process for changing governments, without use of force.
- Demonstration is acceptable, but no one has the right to stop others going about legally constituted conduct.
- Transparency of state processes, especially as regards application of the law.
These fundamentals - what has been called ‘culture’ - needs to be redefined; we need to see the core of our western, plural, democratic, social structure as that, as core framework of social values we place above all others, it becomes non-negotiable, a kernel handed down to us over millennia.
Freedom, the core of our spirit, the closest idea next to the ‘I of our social I’, the nature of the social structure then flows from this idea.
As physical environment shaped the immediate perception of the Pygmy, so insight and understanding of our ideological history needs to shape the immediate perception of our modern world.
Living side by side
Who we are, intimately bound with the insight and understanding of how we have got to where we are. Yes, current place, New Zealand will shape that, but understanding the real nature of that shaping is far, far in the future. Yes, other societies, Maori and Polynesian, add some living tone. However, this must not detract or mask who we really are.
Today our society is of western heritage.
Today, I would like to think all would protect my right to live as I choose, as I would protect theirs, without reference to them, as they need never refer to me, merely with reference to the law, since I am as much part of this land as they.
We all stand before one law, non-specific of race or creed, as befits the tradition and core values that forge the central part of our social existence. This transcends culture, defining a core set of values with which we all live in the manner we each choose.
The first measure of our commitment freedom of the individual, to the core value our European tribal ancestors, is the extent our law is without race or creed. In this first measure we in New Zealand fail, for the Maori Parliamentary seats breach the measure. Muslim social structure also fails, it defined by creed, not by equal rights no matter creed, gender or viewpoint.
We are plural today, undone only in conflict. This is part of freedom's price, for freedom is a flower that blossoms only in fields fertilized with blood. Should you disagree, I suggest you check history, and the deaths in the name of freedom, tens of millions have regarded it a cause worthy of life commitment, this is the kernel of my spirit, it is where I come from and am committed to see progress.
Freedom, and only in freedom, will the human spirit soar, and only in disciplined commitment to ensure our western social structures is freedom secure.
Living side by side, we need all embrace the common aim of fulfillment through freedom, committing to the social structure that best enables our goals, and then within that social structure we live as we choose, and accept others may choose to live differently from us, even in ways we cannot abide but must accept.
Self-determination in the modern plural society is choosing how I will live and giving up the idea I have any right to direct how others should live. We need to embrace our common social structure, willing to defend the right of others to be, as they commit to our right to be, culture then expressing the group to which we gravitate and with whom we most identify and associate, while not losing sight of the broader western global social movement to which we all belong.
We need learn better how to accept the hard part of being free, namely, freedom is the demand to accept those very different from us, and offers merely the right to discipline ourselves. In embracing our freedom, showing our great grand children how to live fully within freedom, to become all that humans can be and more, greater than us, we must never compromise on our social structure that enables our freedom.
-§-
Notes: - By mind, I imply no metaphysics, referring only to the conscious aspect of the operation of the brain. For full discussion on existence of ideas, and of the mind see the papers at grlphilosophy.co.nz.
- The Johari window explores what we know of us, others know of us, neither know of us, and both know of us.
- See the poem The ‘I of I’ in the poetry section of grlphilosophy.co.nz.
- A role is a set of thoughts and actions linked to a set of circumstances, so lover, friends, disciplinarian, father, and mother are all examples of roles. Our lives structured by circumstances, which demand different roles; it is this that asserts role complexity of everyday life.
- See the paper ‘Causes of depression’ at grlphilosophy.co.nz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)