|
Wally:
You state:
"For
humans, the individual is of central importance and the evolution,
development and refinement of the individual is of prime importance.
In this sense Douglas regarded the coercive group, dominating the
subservient personality, as an atavism. That is, the desirable trend is
for the individual to be emancipated from the group. We do not want an
unthinking herd of Gaderine swine which can be led, or pushed, over any
cliff. The ability to discriminate is the mark of the developed and
civilized individual and is the fundamental basis of human advancement up
the scale of civilization."
I want to quote Kierkegaard to again show the
parallels:
"Ethically regarded, reality is higher than
possibility. The ethical proposes to do away with the disinterestedness of
the possible, by making existence the infinite interest. It therefore
opposes every confusing attempt. like that of proposing ethically to contemplate
humanity and the world. Such ethical contemplation is impossible, since
there is only one kind of ethical contemplation, namely,
self-contemplation. Ethics closes immediately about the individual, and
demands that he exist ethically; it does not make a parade of a million men, or
generation of men, it does not take humanity in the lump, any more than the
police arrest humanity at large. The ethical is concerned with particular
human beings, and with each and every one of them by himself. (Concluding
Unscientific Postscript)
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:24
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a change of
pace
Douglas made quite clear the role of human
association in producing otherwise impossible results whether for human
satisfaction or otherwise. His concepts of the Unearned Increment of
Association and the Cultural Heritage embody this idea. What is
crucial is the engagement of the individual in association by voluntary rather
than coerced involvement. The individual chooses to associate in the
anticipation that some desired and beneficial result will be achieved.
He or she must have the right to contract out of an association if it is not
delivering the desired results. This right leaves individuals with the
power to atrophy a function if it is not performing satisfactorily in the
opinon of the individual, or of individuals.
This contrasts with, e.g., Lenin's static concept
of "democratic centralism" wherein issues may be debated and, once
decided upon by the group, must be adhered to or one's fate is the gulag or
the firing squad. The group appropriates to itself the role of God and
executes arbitrary action upon all persons involved.
Contrariwise, Social Credit believes that
ultimate authority belongs with a suprahuman authority which transcends
the group and mankind itself. Insofar as he does not trangress the
rights of other persons, the individual has a right in natural law not to be
coerced by others. He has an obligation as an individual to make moral
and practical choices--which may bear upon the general condition of
society. Organizaton has practical value but it needs to be capable of
change and should not be frozen by arbitary human authority. Policy
should respond to the desires of individuals rather than the dictates of
central command. Institutions were meant to serve the individual and not
the reverse. Ad hoc action directed to achievement of limited objectives
is a characteristic of free association and should be something which is
recognized as inherent in the nature of human relationships.
For humans, the individual is of central
importance and the evolution, development and refinement of the
individual is of prime importance. In this sense Douglas regarded the
the coercive group, dominating the subservient personality, as an
atavism. That is, the desirable trend is for the individual to be
emancipated from the group. We do not want an unthinking herd of
Gaderine swine which can be led, or pushed, over any cliff. The
ability to discriminate is the mark of the developed and civilized individual
and is the fundamental basis of human advancement up the scale of
civilization.
No one is being forced to engage in concerted
effort to promote the advance of Social Credit policy. It is held up as
something which might kindle the imagination and desires of the listener with
the hope that individuals may volutarily unite in demanding its
institution. I see no contradiction in all of this--and I certainly see
no more realistic or attractive alternative to it. I think that Douglas
would have disputed the concept of a "collective" will and would have spoken
more in terms of a general desire of individual wills desirous for
certain results, in the material field of economics material security being of
prime importance.
Wally
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:40
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a change of
pace
Very interesting questions! I have not read Kierkegaard, so
cannot answer your most direct question, but the questions themselves have
also been on my mind.
I will ask my resident philosopher about K, but she is also an
anthropologist and I suspect will have some strong observations about the
notion that human nature is individualistic as contrasted to group
identification and action.
From my own limited reading in the latter subject, it seems that most
students attach a lot of importance to the group as a key element in the
evolution of humanity. Furthermore, the very idea of cultural heritage
seems to embrace the notion that technology is a collective creation in
part, although the contribution of individuals is undeniable. And why
are we talking about social credit if the individual is
autonomous?
A strong undertone of these discussions is criticism of 'standard'
economics, yet one of the paramount features in that ideology is the
presumption that individual choices are not only the normative basis of the
system but also the explanation for what happens.
Douglas' way of getting to the maximum state of individual freedom
depends on their first being a massive action of collective will.
Is there not some contradiction at work here?
Keith Wilde
Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
wrote:
Pondering the philosophy of Social Credit I
am apt to wonder if Douglas was not to Kierkegaard what Marx was to
Hegel.
Kierkegaard and Hegel were intellectual
adversaries much like Marx and Douglas. Of course Marx's theories
were based on the philosophy of Hegel. I wonder if Douglas was
familiar with Kierkegaard?
In "Social Credit" Douglas
states:
"The vast majority of
discussions which take place in regard to industrial problems are
prevented from arriving at any conclusion from the fact that the
disputants do not realise the premises on which their arguments are based,
and in many cases use words (and "justice" is an example of such words)
which beg the whole question at issue. It is not too much to say that one
of the root ideas through which Christianity comes into conflict with the
conceptions of the Old Testament and the ideals of the pre-Christian era, is
in respect of this dethronement of abstractionism. That is the issue which
is posed by the Doctrine of the Incarnation."
Kierkegaard
attacked Hegel most vociferously for his philosophy based on
idealism/abstractionism. Kierkegaard's philosphy starts with
existence, and the study of what it is to exist. Through this he
develops the idea of God incarnate, and rejects the speculative
philosophy of Hegel as a "phantasm" not based in existence, but based on
pure speculation/abstraction.
Kierkegaard said, "Human existence has
Idea in it, but it is not a purely ideal existence. Plato
placed the Idea in the second rank of existence, as intermediary between
God and matter; an existing human being does indeed participate in
the Idea, but he is not himself Idea." (Concluding Unscientific
Postscript)
Douglas also displays this philosophy when he
says:
"One of the first
facts to be observed as part of the social ideal which leans for its
sanctions on rewards and punishments, is the elevation of the group ideal
and the minimising of individuality, i.e. the treatment of
individuality as subordinate to, e.g. nationality. The
manifestations of this idea are almost endless. We have the national idea,
the class or international idea, the identification of the individual with
the race, the school, the regiment, the profession, and so forth. There is
probably no more subtle and elusive subject than the consideration of the
exact relation of the group in all these and countless other forms, to the
individuals who compose the groups. But as far as it is possible to sum
the matter up, the general problem seems to be involved in a decision as
to whether the individual should be sacrificed to the group or whether the
fruits of group activity should be always at the disposal of the
individual."
The elevation of group over the idividual is the
elevation of Idea over existence. Individuals exist. Nations,
races, classes are ideals.
Douglas states that discussions on industrial
problems remain unresolved because philosophical premises are not made
explicit. I believe that the philosophy of Social Credit is as
important, if not more important, than the A+B theorem
itself.
I'm wondering if anyone knows if Douglas
references Kierkegaard in any way?
I also wonder why the discussions in this forum
seem to focus solely on A+B and the economics of Social Credit, when much
of Douglas work is based on his philosophy?
Cheers,
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org
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 wmklinck@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 jschroeder@shaw.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
