----- 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.
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.
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. 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? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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?
Sincerely,
Jim Schroeder
Enjoy the quest!
Keith Wilde
----- 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
