Modern Liberal Mindset?

[PoPpAScience]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie


The Two Extreme Sides of All Philosophical And Scientific Issues...

Absolutism and Subjectivism... LINK...

When people use their cultivated commonsense, they intuitively allow for the various gaps as discussed above. In Absolutism, people circumvent commonsense and behave as if the gaps were not there. In Subjectivism, people ignore commonsense and use the gaps as an excuse to suppress the value of impartial truth and affirmative logic.

The subjectivist is often super-sophisticated and erudite, but underneath engages in inverse ideology with a commitment that is as totalitarian as the absolutists. For example, Michel Foucault (1926-1984), an influential French thinker, whose writings developed out of a Nietzscheian and Marxists framework, developed his own brand of subjectivism. He denied objective truth and treated knowledge as nothing but a cultural construct of language. He called for a new approach to writing history that abolished emphasis on time and he aimed to erase the traditional distinction between fact and fiction. He insisted that the new historian must have free reign to write reinvented history for political purposes. He said in Nietzsche, Genealogy and History
‘Effective history’ differs from traditional history in being without constraints. Nothing in man—not even his body—is sufficiently stable to serve as the basis for self-recognition or for understanding other men. The traditional devices for constructing a comprehensive view of history and retracing the past as a patient and continuous development must be systematically dismantled.
Michel Foucault
Notice in this quote how quickly Foucault goes from his declaration that: "there are no independent reliable standards" to an absolute totalitarian conclusion: He says: "traditional devices … must be systematically dismantled". He goes from his radical subjectivism to an absolute must. He doesn’t simply advise his readers to dismantle traditional devises. He said they must be systematically dismantled. He invited his readers to become vanguards in promoting a new way of doing history. He gives his followers the task of dismantling historical canons of the past. He encouraged historians to expunge objective truth, to erase commitment to discrete facts, and to flaunt common sense. His agenda is to encourage fictional history aimed for political effect. In 1964, Foucault’s reputation was so high that he was elevated to the first chair as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Clermon-Ferrand in France. As he published more and more books, his reputation grew in universities throughout the world, esp. in England and U.S.A. He was influential in advocating disgust for Western Civilization and encouraging antipathy for the 18th Century Enlightenment that is so common today. He takes subjectivism to its logical conclusion. He attempts to resolve the gaps between ideal and real by pretending to eliminating ideals. He says he is new but he is not new.

One way subjectivism gains power is by mis-interpreting qualification gaps. Absolutism gains power as a reaction to subjectivism. Subjectivism gains power as a reaction to absolutism. Both, in their extremes, ignore the basic values of impartial truth, unbiased logic, and sound rational thinking. They fail to understand the difference between our ideals and our abilities to realized our ideals. By default they promote dialectical attitudes that allowed people such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot to gain power.

Conclusion...

Explicitly stating qualification gaps becomes important when we delve into elemental theory and related philosophical matters. Acknowledging qualification gaps helps clarify issues when we take on the task of correcting root errors that hinder our abilities to progress in peace. When we recognize the qualification gaps, rather than suppressing the importance of impartial truth, it shines a glowing beam of light on the glory of truth. From a plus point of view, becoming intellectually skilled at understanding qualification gaps is a pre-requisite to a workable definition of truth.

[PoPpAScience]

If almost all Universities are controlled by Liberal Atheist, and they worship and teach the philosophies of thinkers like Michel Foucault who worshiped Nietzscheian and Marxists thinking, then should not the modern Liberal Mindset be called, the "Liberal Socialist Fascist Communist Mindset"?

[PoPpAScience]

If the Democratic Party in the USA is controlled and dominated by the Modern Liberal, then is it not really a "Liberal Socialist Fascist Communist Party"?

[SteveA]

Your thread start here was right in line with something I encountered last night.

I was at a presentation at a local high school regarding applications for colleges, universities and scholarship information etc. and a woman was talking at one point about private and "for profit" schools and seemed to be rather intentionally trying to discredit them.

To me it was rather painful hearing the presentation and though I managed to resist asking a few rhetorical questions during the questioning period, I did speak with her afterwards and had to point out that her salary and their school budget, including those of other largely publicly subsidized institutions are acquired from such "for profit" entities and that she could actually be thanking her employers instead of discounting them and that people who utilize private alternative forms of education aren't utilizing resources from the public coffers (they're likely also still paying taxes to subsidize others education as well).

There were actually many things I noticed during the proceedings where the current "socialist mindset" seems to be such an internally conflicted set of morals that I can hardly imagine how anyone could survive without having natural instincts to fall back on.

As another example of the hypocracy, they had added mandatory community service hours to the educational curriculum (it was recently removed). Now, I'm rather certain most every teacher, instructor, principle or legislator etc. involved in creating this requirement was being paid at the time (from taxed and rather involuntary sources) and if we pair that up with labor laws that make it difficult for children to be profitably employed, as well as minimum wage laws that require the private sector pay at least some minimal amount per hour, along with the fact that a public institution can hold hostage someones graduation (which is being paid for nonetheless) unless they work for FREE (ignoring time and additional costs that the child themself or parents might accrue), as if the child already had some part time obligation to be a public servant, is almost mind boggling hypocracy to me.

To add to that, I saw some programs presented for apprenticeship programs where a student can work for ~40-50% of a typical wage in the field, which seems a great idea to me, EXCEPT for the fact that various other legislative pressures are completely contradictory to this philosophy that effectively cordon off equivalent private alternatives (that likely people have already been doing for centuries).

A personal example of that was when I was 16 and applied for a job and did fine during all the interviews and tests and they were even introducing me to some of the coworkers I'd be working with ... until they found out I was 16, in which case they told me that I couldn't legally work enough hours for them to fill the position. I can't see how that wouldn't have been a great "apprenticeship program".

Yet at the same time, the schools themselves can require children work for $0 or even at a loss doing work (much of that ends up being for public institutions too).

I actually feel sorry for people having to go through the conflicting loads of B.S. shoveled out. I DO realize that it's not entirely black and white though and that there are or can be tradeoffs involved, but my main gripe is that so many people feel issues like these should be publicly enforced and that the one-size-fits-all seems to so readily predominate even to the extent that it's force fittings are almost the norm apparently because a belief that it's suppose to be better that way exists (I don't understand why there's so much pressure around for highly centralized government, unless it's largely ignorance, but that's how it appears. Even those who might be assumed to temporarily benefit would appear to lose out in the long run as well, so it's difficult for me to imagine what the purpose is unless it's simply ignorance or something less conventional. I'm not "buying" ignorance as easily anymore, especially considering the apparently directed efforts. It would be easier to say it was greed for power if the pressures weren't so conflicting and destructive, so it's hard to even elevate the value of it to individual greed).

It could be that people desire conflict and drama. After all, what was it that motivated me to post about this here, or what got Lloyd to initiate the original thread comment or you to reply etc.?

The only person that got applause at that meeting last night was one of the students, all dressed up in his ROTC outfit and trying to sell the merits of joining of the military (another tax subsidized venture). Of course, if he was someday fighting in a war with potential casualties would anyone be thinking of how they applauded and encouraged those pursuits before? It's a shame to think what children are being indoctrinated with today.

Aren't there other longer term and more rewarding pursuits for us that have less of the unnecessary and parasitically destructive infighting? (Though once again, if I look at which thread I'm replying to on the site as well as my response to the presentation last night it seems obvious there's at least one subject that holds my attention rather so it's an interesting conundrum ... but I'm still quite confident there are better pursuits around than getting caught up in the sociopolitical quagmire)

[PoPpAScience]

Another question just came to mind. If the Universities that are controlled and dominated by Modern Liberal Atheists, who study the tactics of mind manipulation as stated in post #1 here, what does that say about the scientist who are created in this Universities?

Is the same manipulation going on in science, as seems to be in Modern Liberal political ideology?

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Steve. Thanks for your input, it fit perfectly with Lloyd's post. Your response to that meeting is the response of commonsense. Your Commonsense says, that person acts ignorant, but seems to have a bigger agenda. That agenda, if we adhere to Lloyds post, is to gain control of individuals, in as many ways as possible.

Lloyd made the post in question, in the middle of a conversation between a few posters about red shifting light and such. This was many posts after he posted his view that thermodynamic's was the key to all, it got no response, then he posted a third post later that read:

"Creationists should not worship the SFE__Supreme Fascist Ego...

Logic Can Go No Deeper Than The Prime Mover__Motion Is Absolute Necessity, or Logic Ceases Function..."

I read all posts to this point and beyond, and there was no response to his three posts and they were way out of place.

The reason I post these posts by Lloyd was, because of the news that is pervasive on tv and radio these days about the Liberal agenda of manipulated speech. Lloyd seemed IMHO, to throw his posts in because he did not like what he was reading and wanted to dominate how the conversations went forward from there.

Lloyds post(#1here) is about how there is a deliberate agenda by the Modern Liberal to manipulate knowledge and thinking in order to push a ideology to the forefront of our society. And if the leaders of this movement are "Liberal socialist fascist communist's", what does that say about their agenda?

If you look at the period before evil dictator's gain power, and you look at today, you will
see incredible similarities. Class warfare is the greatest similarity.

[SteveA]

I had begun typing a post regarding your thoughts on possible similarities with scientific institutions and correlate that with some personal observations, but I think the direction you went with your last generalization is more important to look at.

I began to reply with some of the observations and thought processes I've given on the site many times before but the overall summary is that it appears to defy logic how time/change/entropy exists and it doesn't appear that any finite set of describable laws/objects could accurately represent time and there's always a divergence from precise predictability, even if not in form, then in the qualities or properties that define the space of the form.

As a quick way to see how this relates to government laws ... despite tons of time, energy, paperwork, brainwashing etc. we fundamentally live in anarchy and though a law might say you can't drink a cup of coffee while driving, the truth is that it's up to you whether or not you follow the law.

Something might be considered criminal by definition, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's something that shouldn't be done. Notice also that if actual enforcement of the laws is required and it's not simply that people, in a de facto manner, follow laws then there are large (and rather unsustainable) costs involved. If jails were flooded with coffee drinkers that were otherwise taxpayers, well it certainly would be difficult to sustain that form of enforcement. Worse comes to worse, I think nature has it figured out though why so much B.S. is tolerated is an interesting question full of potential insights, but ultimately I guess it's something that, if there's an answer to be had, only oneself can answer it.

For myself, I can't say I'm entirely guiltless of creating or at least accepting some challenges along with potential conflicts but I'm also rather certain that a lot of problems I wasn't particularly desiring of have been around. On the other hand, that could be due to personal ignorance but that's rather by definition a moot issue ... I don't know how a discussion of ones own ignorance could be possible and ultimately it's just doing what you do, whatever that may be.

Classical Liberalism had a greater recognition and support of highly diverse and individualistic societies.

Likely, The Renaissance period of history was closely correlated with a predominance of such social views as creative societies tend to need a tolerance of diversity, or natural entropy.

[PoPpAScience]

Classical Liberalism had a greater recognition and support of highly diverse and individualistic societies.

Likely, The Renaissance period of history was closely correlated with a predominance of such social views as creative societies tend to need a tolerance of diversity, or natural entropy.

Steve there is a very important distinction to be aware of, and that is, that there is a huge difference between a Modern Liberal and a classic Liberal. The Modern Liberal is one who seeks absolute power through the use of the tried and true methods used by the other like minded ideologies, fascism, socialism and communism. While the classic Liberal cares more about getting along with the flow and beauty of life. Huge difference between the two types of Liberal. Unfortunately the classic liberal does know that it has been co-opted by the more aggressive Modern liberal to help them achieve there goal of world dominance.

The elites in the upper echelon of the universities have spent a great deal of effort learning the tactics used by the power hungry ideologies to gain power, and have passed this knowledge down through the ranks. Right now in the USA one of the most important times in human history is unfolding, and that is the fight between Modern Liberalism and truly free people's.

[SteveA]

Sometimes people enjoy boxing and given a freedom to do what they like, it could be to step into the ring and duke it out.

One of the tactics that keeps people fighting is the belief that people must fight for freedom (freedom shouldn't require that people fight for it) or that working within the system can reduce its level of control ("Did you vote?"), or that it takes a large consensus to change circumstances (chained and dis-empowered to unknown/"exteriorly determined" mobocracy and social/demographic pressures).

Complete freedom doesn't have any specific value though and could be analogized with just an ability to pick a random direction on a compass and start walking/exploring. It's when experience, knowledge and values are acquired over time that there could be reasons to re-experience some aspects and I believe that's where the non-random rules/laws/patterns etc. enter the picture.

Consider that whatever value you place in aspects of life that are beyond your own ability to supply can have strings attached though and that's where the social games tend to creep in. There are lots of possible benefits to social interactions (an ability for people to specialize as well as have creative exchanges, share diverse perspectives and just the simple act of occasionally providing some company/friendship/assistance etc.), but if those become manipulative or otherwise encourage self destructive or conflicting actions then it could be a good idea to loosen up the strings and be more self supportive.

My guess is that most 7 year olds that have even a halfway decent upbringing have an almost instinctive grasp of common courtesies, though not necessarily adept at working in large groups, Mother Nature appears to provide plenty of skills for operating in small groups and similar to Lloyd's comments, it can actually take decades of highly focused propaganda to warp those significantly, but if you can convince someone to sacrifice self interest for that of an abstract/collective entity, even to the extent to which irrationality/blind faith is accepted, then that seems a pretty volatile and unstable state ... up to the whims of whatever happens to be accepted as representative of that entity.

The further out you go from self control and responsibility the more prone things are to getting yanked around whimsically.

My father told me that I owed him nothing in life and that he had me because he wanted to (and I'm rather certain my mother would say the same thing). I figure if my own parents don't even claim any ownership of me, then definitely Bush/Obama/Blair etc. have no claim either and any obligations for common social courtesies extend both ways, IMO and any respect or trust beyond that is something that's earned and, for example, one thing that most everyone should immediately recognize as not being very neighborly is trying to force your neighbors into a single source medical supplier or tell them that the natural resources they've been using in the past are no longer theirs etc.

I don't think greed in itself is a problem and it can actually be highly motivating and productive when applied usefully (for example, someone wants to have the largest house with the largest pool on the block and works hard for 30 years to acquire those), but when actions become detrimental to others or people are driven to theft and infighting etc., then that crosses the boundary of greed into being socially destructive (have tax collectors go and steal the house and pool from the guy who worked to create the value).

I saw this quote recently and thought it's a good insight:

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed,wealth is something to be ashamed of."-Confucius

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Steve.

Well steve once again you show your gift of being able to type as you day dream I'm not sure if the main theme of your posts here are apologetic, or support for you being a classic liberal? I could be wrong though.

The intent of this thread is to discuss how philosophy and science can be effected negatively if the elite that control the institutions that govern how they are researched and taught, have a higher agenda of dominating and controlling people.

Is science and philosophy being dominated and controlled in order to fit the Modern Liberal Mindset?