|
Hi Keith:
You are correct in asserting that alot of debate in
philosophy breaks down into semantics. 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.
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.
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."
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.
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:
"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)
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."
I think that understanding the philosophy of
Social Credit is very important in understanding Douglas' overall
objectives. 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. 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.
Sincerely,
Jim Schroeder
----- 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
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
