----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:40
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a change of
pace --Wally's assist
Hi Keith:
You are correct in asserting that alot of
debate in philosophy breaks down into semantics.
I didn't say that, and that is
not what I meant, although semantics is a subset. Please check
again.
Sorry Keith, I wasn't trying to
put words in your mouth, and I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were
saying. Email is not the best mode of communication. I just
thought when you said "Although Victor has disagreed
with some of my statements, our differences are over word usage more
than underlying ideas." that you were claming most
of your disagreement with Victor was over semantics, and I was just trying
to state that much of philosophy breaks down into disagreement over
semantics. Further you said "From my
limited reading of the literature, efforts to make ideas clear and to
explore their implications for truthfulness and application is the
quintessential activity of philosophy. Quibbles over word meaning and
mathematical reasoning are therefore of the essence. Great names in
philosophy of our own time, such as Chomsky, Derrida, Wittgenstein,
Russell, certainly conform to that interpretation. " , and I interpreted that as stating that as meaning all
philosophy is quibbling over semantics, and if that was a misinterpretation,
then I sincerely apologize.
There is a whole section of philosophy
devoted to the study of language. That does not mean that all
philosophy is a discussion over semantics, but semantics are very important
to philosophy. Philosophy breaks down into several categories:
Ontology, Metaphysics, Linguistics, Logic, Epistimology, Politics,
Economics......
Douglas' philosophy is often hard to understand
because of his terse writing style. It reminds me of a statement
by Frederick Gauss who said that an architect does not leave the scaffolding
up once he completes a bridge. However; when it comes to figuring out
how the bridge was built, this approach makes it very difficult for those
who are interested in learning the technique.
And a lot of time could be wasted
in trying to replicate it using the wrong choice of presumptive
model.
True. Or the right choice
of presumptive model could be used, and the technique
learned.
I am trying to demonstrate influence in order
to better understand the philosophy of Douglas. I could be off base on
my assertions, but I think there is similarity between the thoughts of
Douglas, and the thoughts of Kierkegaard.
Similarity can't demonstrate
influence.
Well, the only thing that can be
proven with absolute certainty is that nothing can be proven with absolute
certainty. I certainly wasn't trying to "prove" influence. The
only way I could do that is if Douglas were alive, and I asked him.
Short of that, everything else is conjecture, and I have certainly admitted
that.
Even plagiarism can be a
difficult case to make. Douglas acknowledged cultural inheritance,
very prominently. And he acknowledged some specific sources--mainly
the Bible, it seems. Why would he not acknowledge Kierkegaard, if he
were so enamoured of his ideas?
Douglas did not "reinvent the
wheel" when it comes to philosophy. There may be elements of his
philosophy that are unique, but obviously there was influence of some
kind. I do not believe that Marx acknowledged Hegel either, but it's
strongly believed that Hegel had a substantial influence on the writings of
Marx, and in particular his dialectical materialism.
And even if you could find
that D had read K, how could you be sure that in expanding on a D idea
using K rationale that D had in fact used that particular
scaffold?
If it conforms to the ideas of
Douglas himself, then I might conclude that we are on the right track.
Again, it's not a proof, and there may be several ways to build the
scaffolding.
Kierkegaard said:
"Far from idleness being the root
of all evil, it is rather the only true good. "
Douglas said:
"The matter is
rarely stated in so many words. It is more generally suggested that leisure,
meaning by that, freedom from employment forced by economic necessity, is in
itself detrimental; a statement which is flagrantly contradicted by all the
evidence available on the subject. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that
75 per cent of the ideas and inventions, to which mankind is indebted for
such progress as has been so far achieved, can be directly or indirectly
traced to persons who by some means were freed from the necessity of
regular, and in the ordinary sense, economic employment, in spite of the
fact that such persons have never been more than a small minority of the
general population."
Not exactly terse. And if you want
antecedents, Douglas could have gotten the same idea from Thomas More's
Utopia, which is much older and much more directly in the spirit of
social reform that was Douglas' own objective. No one around here is
suggesting that Douglas copied from More, however.
It's possible that Douglas was influenced by More,
but I'd have to look at the similarities in content.
Wally once said to me that Douglas viewed Social
Credit as "practical Christianity". Kierkegaard, who was a
Christian theologian, could have played a part in
influencing Douglas.
Many things are possible. If
chasing this idea is your sport, it is good clean fun and no one is likely
to object.
That is my original
intention. And that is why I asked if anyone knew if Douglas
referenced Kierkegaard in any way.
The inductive method of logic is a useful
tool. However; neither inductive, nor deductive, logic can arrive at
truth. To quote Kierkegaard in this matter:
Inductive logic is an oxymoron. See my comments to
John Rawson of yeseterday.
"Whether truth is defined more empirically, as the
conformity of thought and being, or more idealistically, as the
conformity of being with thought, it is, in either case, important
carefully to note what is meant by being. And in formulating the
answer to this question it is likewise important to take heed lest the
knowing spirit be tricked into losing itself in the indeterminate, so that
it fantastically becomes a something that no existing human being ever was
or can be, a sort of phantom with which the individual occupies himself
upon occasion, but without making it clear to himself in terms of
dialectical intermediaries how he happens to get into this fantastic
realm, what significance being there has for him, and whether the
entire activity that goes on out there does not resolve itself into a
tautology within a recklessly fantastic venture of thought.
If being, in the two indicated definitions, is
understood as empirical being, truth is at once transformed into a
desideratum, and everything must be understood in terms of becoming; for the
empirical object is unfinished and the existing cognitive spirit is
itself in process of becoming. Thus the truth becomes an approximation
whose beginning cannot be posited absolutely, precisely because the
conclusion is lacking, the effect of which is retroactive. Whenever a
beginning is made, on the other hand, unless through being unaware of this
the procedure stamps itself as arbitrary, such a beginning is not the
consequence of an immanent movement of thought, but is effected through a
resolution of the will, essentially in the strength of faith. That the
knowing spirit is an existing individual spirit, and that every human being
is such an entity existing for himself, is a truth I cannot too often
repeat; for the fantastic neglect of this is responsible for much
confusion. Let no one misunderstand me. I happen to be a
poor existing spirit like all other men; but if becoming something
extraordinary, like the pure I-am-I for example, I always stand ready
gratefully to accept the gift and the benefaction." (Soren
Kierkegaard: Concluding Unscientific Postscript)
That is a pretty agonizing and convoluted scaffold
for getting to the same conclusion that other writers have 'erected'
with considerably less timber. Douglas even.
I'm not overtly aware of any writers before
Kierkegaard who arrived at similar conclusions. He certainly was
writing in response to the philosophy of Hegel who was a
contemporary.
Inductive logic attempts to conform thought
with being. Like Kierkegaard states, it is important to understand
what is meant by being when using this methodology. If being is
properly understood, then the truth becomes something which we desire, but
cannot obtain using this method because we are always in the process of
becoming....... Therefore; and ending is lacking, and a beginning
cannot be posited.
Wally touched on this when he said,
" Insofar as Douglas was concerned he stated that he believed Social
Credit cast light on a limited, but critical, aspect of truth and would open
the path to the revelation, over time, of much more of the truth. He
clearly said that we do not know the final end of mankind but that in his
view it could most successfully be pursued and approached only by free
expansion of the human personality."
Truthfulness is a
quality of statements. Pursuit of THE truth as "the final end
of mankind" is a different quest, one that in my view is the juvenile
fantasy of people with too much time on their hands. That would not
apply to Douglas, but I sense that it might to Kierkegaard. You are
obviously enamoured, however, and I repeat that it is good clean fun,
so go for it.
I believe that anyone with
religious convictions is in pursuit of the truth, so if your analysis
is correct, there are several billion people on this planet with "too much
time on their hands". Engaging in discussions about the theories of
Douglas, and whether they are correct, is also pursuing the truth. It
would seem alot of us have "too much time on our hands". I know I
certainly have other things to do, and do them on a daily basis, but I
certainly enjoy the "sport" of pursuing the truth. And as I've stated
before, I believe the ideas of Douglas help shed some light on the
process. I'm a great believer in unifying everything I do, but perhaps
the only unity is in my consciousness.
I think that understanding the philosophy
of Social Credit is very important in understanding Douglas' overall
objectives.
I do not detect anything
mysterious or hidden about Douglas' objectives.
I agree. However; there
seems to be alot of debate over those objectives, so perhaps a certain
amount of clarity is absent.
I also believe that Douglas was so terse in his
writings that there is a need to show influence so that we are able to delve
deeper into Douglas' thoughts on these matters.
It is much more than influence
you have in mind here. You are postulating that Douglas was the
reincarnation of Kierkegaard and that the latter made no evolution over time
in his reincarnated state.
I'm certainly postulating nothing
of the sort. I'm just trying to demonstrate possible influence, and am
engaging in a thought experiment.
I also believe that there is evidence to
demonstrate that Douglas was influenced by the writings of Soren Kierkegaard
with respect to his personal philosophy. How far that influence went
is speculation.
If you can't determine how far
the influence went, how can you be confident of reading Douglas' mind out of
the writings of Kierkegaard?
I can't be absolutely confident
unless Douglas was alive, and I asked him the question.
Sincerely,
Jim Schroeder
Enjoy the quest!
Keith Wilde
Thank you! And I also
understand that you are not interested in my pursuit. I guess that's
why we're all individuals.
Cheers Keith,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:27
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a change
of pace --Wally's assist
Thanks for the chart and the commentary,
Wally. By this time I have several copies of the chart, which is a
useful reminder of Douglas' perspective. Victor's thorough and
generally lucid exposition is also very helpful, and it confirms me in the
inferences and interpretations I have offered on this list over the past
seven weeks or so. Although Victor has disagreed with some of
my statements, our differences are over word usage more than
underlying ideas.
And that is my principal focus in entering a
discussion on philosophy, which, unfortunately I will not be able to
pursue as intently as I would like over the next ten days or two
weeks. I can say now, however, that the position I am coming from is
that difficulties in communicating the social credit vision have quite a
lot to do with argot. Any political, religious or philosophical
movement develops its own special emphasis on certain words. These
are a useful shorthand among the initiated, but as the movement grows by
the acculturation of children born to it, the argot takes on a virtually
sacred character. Then, when a newcomer or adolescent member of the
movement tries to explore the meaning of the sacred words or phrases
by offering alternative expressions, the reaction of the faithful is often
shock and horror. As I have come to understand the Social Credit
movement (mainly from this forum), Victor is its 'Mikhail
Suslov'. The chief ideologist has an obvious responsibility to
maintain the integrity of the argot, as well as to explain it.
For purposes of communication and influencing
public policy, however, it may be useful to consider alternative language
as time passes, circumstances change and once familiar phrases lose the
power of recognition among the current generations. This
activity, of exploring the meaning of words and phrases, searching more
deeply for their implications and ramifications and proposing possible
alternative forms, is an expression of philosophy as defined by
the dictionary quotations imported by Victor a couple of weeks
ago. It is not, however, the usage of philosophy by Douglas
or by Victor himself as faithful expositor. That Douglas was a
philosopher there can be no doubt, but his usage of
philosophy in the phrase "policy of a philosophy" is
argot.
What Douglas obviously meant by the word is a
set of personal beliefs about the way the world is and ought to be.
Strictly speaking, a set of personal beliefs does not constitute
philosophy, although I do realize that the word is sometimes used that way
in common parlance. Douglas was not unsophisticated, however,
and this usage was therefore a significant mistake on his part in
attempting to communicate his radical ideas. I notice in
reading some of Douglas' statements and in Victor's exposition that
Douglas was inconsistent in his relationship to words.
Sometimes, as in the phrase at issue above and in his peculiar usage
of religion from archaic etymology, he is insistent on his
special meaning; at other times he dismisses disagreement as quibbles over
"mere words".
From my limited reading of the literature,
efforts to make ideas clear and to explore their implications for
truthfulness and application is the quintessential activity of philosophy.
Quibbles over word meaning and mathematical reasoning are therefore of the
essence. Great names in philosophy of our own time, such as Chomsky,
Derrida, Wittgenstein, Russell, certainly conform to that
interpretation. And is that not the Socratic tradition?
I am very favorably impressed by Douglas'
effort to cast off received words, phrases, doctrines and to start over
from a clean slate in thinking about political economy. The problematic
element in such an enterprise, of course, is knowing how far back to go in
order to have a clean slate, and how to know when one has gotten
there. Economists and other utopian thinkers are prone
to thought experiments like that of Daniel Defoe. Douglas
allows us to begin with the technological environment of
the turn of the 20th century, but his anthropology seems hazy.
To say, for example, that "systems were made for man; not the other way
round" is to invoke either some benevolent dictator (or super-enlightened
democratic society) from the past or to imply that God set the world up
with sociological systems when He set the world ticking. For Douglas'
expositors in the 21st century to keep repeating that phrase unexamined is
to be trapped in argot.
The orthodox explanation for slow progress of
the social credit idea and its application--i.e. that it is non-acceptance
of the philosophy--seems intimately related to the misuse, or ambiguous
usage, of the word. If Douglas meant that non-acceptors disagree
with his beliefs about the requirement of effective consumer sovereignty
for real democracy, then I think he was mistaken about the attitudes of
most people and especially of those who think seriously about
ethics. (And that includes economists who think about ethics.)
If, on the other hand, he had a more accurate notion of philosophy
in mind when he uttered that sentiment, he meant that non-acceptors
had failed to follow the rationale he developed from the set of postulates
(beliefs) he started out with. I doubt that very many of the
unconverted really disagree with his set of beliefs, for the specific
reason just given, and also for the fact that he doesn't seem to have been
very clear about what he meant when invoking Christianity, religion, and
individual versus group relationships. I keep seeing the phrases
repeated by himself and his expositors, but they don't convey very clear
meaning to me, and that may be because I am of a different generation and
political context than his very British one. Before I agree that my
slowness in grasping the vision is because I don't accept Douglas beliefs
about the existential circumstance of humanity, I'd like to understand
more clearly just what it is that I am refusing.
I look forward to enlightenment and
expansion on the content of his beliefs, therefore, and
reiterate that I have less personal interest in where he got them. That
is, I would like to have a discussion that is quite separable from
the one that Jim Schroeder is exploring. My interest
will converge more nearly with that of John Rawson.
Keith Wilde
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 2:38
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a
change of pace -- Douglas's "Chart" of 1951 with commentary by Vic
Bridger (from Wally)
..........>>>>>>>>>> chopped
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email keithwilde@sympatico.ca
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
