“College teaching is most often practiced in the form of talk. Instruction as talk can be likened to the activity of taking apart a castle, stone by stone, and shipping it from Europe for re-assembly in America. In this simile the castle represents a set of ideas or concepts, simple or complex, which reside in the mind of the instructor. This conceptual knowledge is broken down, packaged in small, intricate verbal containers for shipment to the New World of the student’s mind in hortatory, wind-powered vessels known as lectures. In this process one major difficulty stands out. While the dis-assembler—the instructor—sees in his or her mind’s eye how the finished castle looks, understands its floor plan, rummages comfortably in its ancient rooms, and knows in what sequence the pieces are best shipped, the re-assemblers—the students—know none of this. If they did, instruction would be largely redundant. A central challenge and dilemma of teaching is in providing students with the intellectual blueprints for assembling a conceptual edifice whose form cannot truly be known until all the forthcoming separate bits of knowledge are back in place.
Conceptual wholes—often the most important accomplishment of learning–are difficult to grasp in these bits and pieces of language. Diagrams—figures of thought drawn on the chalkboard—can play a central role in facilitating the process of re-assembly. While teachers often [employ] the chalkboard as a memory device for note taking, they much less often plan its use as a stimulating visual aid. Planned, drawn-out diagrams can productively accompany the audible words of explanation much as music accompanies a song. Such diagrams provide suggestive maps, visual aids, and blueprints helping students to reassemble all those divergent words into new and complete conceptualizations.”
Scientific Socialism/Artistic Socialism Distinction
Scientific Socialism, the Socialism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, emerged in response to the developments of Utopian Socialism, relying on 19th century scientific methodologies to comprehend the essences of Liberal Capitalism without actually providing definitive plans on how to realize Socialism (and by extension, Communism). This is of course where Political Science taxonomies like “Marxism-Leninism” and “Marxism-Lutheranism” or “Trotskyism” and “Hitlerism” are defined as having been derived from Scientific Socialism insofar as the methodologies of Utopian Socialism also appears within Jeffersonian Liberal Capitalism.
Artistic Socialism exists in absolute defiance of both Jeffersonianism and Scientific Socialism insofar as the concept of Socialism is not a “Unity of Science”; rather, it is a Work of Art whose affiliated Artform is defined by its creators as well as determining whether the Work of Art meets the conditions for the Unity of Opposites. Political Science taxonomies like “Nietzscheanism-Leninism”and“Prussian Socialism,”“National Communism” and“Pan-Germanic Socialism”are defined as having been derived from Artistic Socialism insofar as the methodologies of Artistic Socialism can be traced back to “Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism.”
Inequality of the Socialisms & Political-Economic Crossdressing
The “Scientific Socialism/Artistic Socialism Distinction” functions as something akin to a Miniaturized Armored Fighting Vehicle’s IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) System or Legal Duties and Legal Rights. My skeleton key to unlocking the Inequality of the Socialisms is to determine the targeted Socialism’s attributes by discerning whether it is a Scientific Socialism or an Artistic Socialism. If I know which is which, I can then engage in Political-Economic Crossdressing and transmit information with the Dead-Hand Feedback Loop whilst being incognito.
- Any Artistic Socialism is consistently affixed to “Work-Standard” and “Production for Dasein.” Successful applications should yield “Marx is Dead.”
- Any Scientific Socialism is consistently affixed to “Debt-Standard” and “Production for Profit/Utility.” Successful applications should yield “Marx is Alive.”
I can now begin to engage in applications of Political-Economic Crossdressing. Swap the Essences of Scientific Socialism for the Essences of Artistic Socialism, then replace the Labels of Artistic Socialism with the Labels of Scientific Socialism. In Hegelian Dialectics, one half must take precedence over the other and vice versa. “Marxism-Leninism” and “Nietzscheanism-Leninism” are a great example of this; as long as “Leninism” takes greater precedence over Marxism or Nietzscheanism, most people will not know the difference unless they know exactly where to look.
An obvious application of this form of Political-Economic Crossdressing is the “Class Struggle.”
- Marxism-Leninism defines the Class Struggle as “Proletariat” and “Bourgeoisie.”
- Nietzscheanism-Lutheranism defines the Class Struggle as “Master Morality” and “Slave Morality,” Catholics and Protestants.
- Marxism-Lutheranism defines the Class Struggle as “Proletarian Catholic” and “Bourgeois Protestant” or “Proletarian Protestant” and “Bourgeois Catholic.”
- Nietzschean-Leninism defines the Class Struggle as “Master Morality of the Proletariat” and “Slave Morality of the Bourgeoisie.”
Dead-Hand Feedback Loop (DHFL)
The Debt-Standard is the “Screen.”
The Work-Standard is the Marker.
- Debt-Standard: “Marxism-Leninism” OR “Lutheranism-Nietzscheanism”
- Work-Standard: Marxism-Lutheranism OR Nietzscheanism-Leninism
- Debt-Standard: “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” OR “Nietzscheanism-Lutheranism-Maoism”
- Work-Standard: Marxism-Lutheranism-Maoism OR Nietzscheanism-Leninism-Maoism
Intent: “What is the Nietzschean-Leninist definition of the term ‘Class Struggle?’”
Message: “Define ‘Class Struggle’ according to Nietzscheanism-Leninism.”
Answer: “Master Morality of Proletariat vs. Slave Morality of Bourgeoisie.”
With this particular frame of reference in mind, I can distinguish between applications of the Debt-Standard and applications of the Work-Standard. Notice that I had specifically marked the Work-Standard Markers, as if to help the Reader differentiate them from the Debt-Standard Screens. Something similar is going to be employed for the duration of this Blog post in relation to “Positivism” and “Reflectivism.”
On Positivism and Reflectivism
If Modern Warfare is preceded by “Premodern Warfare,” then the Technology ought to become a Spontaneous Order of Natural Selection between “Aircraft Carriers and Battleships,” “APCs and Halftracks,” “Assault Rifles and Bolt-Action Rifles.”
If Economic Life is governed by “Evolutionary Theory,” then the Market ought to become a Spontaneous Order of Natural Selection between “European-Americans and African-Americans,” “Jews and Germans,” “Rich and Poor.”
- The first statement pertains to “Military Science.”
- The second statement pertains to “Political Science.”
Both statements are claiming that the Art of Conventional Warfare and the Art of Economic Governance ought to be superseded by the Natural Sciences.
In the context of Art of Conventional Warfare, Positivism would have us believe that the STANAG-issue 5.56mm Assault Rifle could penetrate an armored target at long range if there is sufficient Evidence that a 5.56mm NATO round had penetrated the target. Left unmentioned are specific qualitative variables like “terrain,” “weather,” “time of day,” and “wind direction.” Was the Individual wielding the Assault Rifle somehow ‘lucky’ or did a number of other factors contribute to her penetrating that target?
In the context of Art of Economic Governance, Positivism would have us believe that it is possible for the Rich to become wealthier than the Poor if there is sufficient Evidence that large sums of Kapital were borrowed from the Fraction-Reserve Banking System. Left unmentioned are specific qualitative variables like “family inheritance,” “insider trading,” “tax evasion,” and “confidence game.” Was the Individual owning the Actual Kapital somehow ‘lucky’ or did a number of other factors contribute to her acquiring that wealth?
Positivism is notorious for deliberate judgments that focus excessively on the Essence of something by its “Label” or the Intent of someone by their “Appearance.” It assumes that human consciousness obeys mathematical rules as in the case of the Economic Calculation Problem. In Political-Economic Crossdressing, the “Label and Appearance” presents genuine opportunities for someone to avoid being identified by others and direct attention away from them with the DHFL, forcing the observer to know the real Essence and Intent (which may not always be discernable without having complete access to the Personal Discretionary Autopsy).
Reflectivism, however, arose as a reaction to the growing overemphasis on Positivism within International Relations, Political Science, Military Science, Economics and the Social Sciences. It emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as part of a botched attempt to explain how the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries collapsed or why World War II (Read: “Cold War”) had ended in the unceremonious manner that it did on September 12, 1990. Anyone who has read The Work-Standard will know that there has been a concerted effort by the Jeffersonians to prevent everyday people from properly understanding important historical events by engaging in Theological Pastimes to deter authentically proper, sound interpretations and analyses of specific events. In International Relations, I encounter examples of this phenomenon within contexts such as “Poststructuralism,” “Critical Race Theory,” “Great Replacement Theory,” “Postcolonialism,” “Feminism,” “Postmodernism” and to some extent “Constructivism.” All of these terms are related to the belief that because Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty had prevailed in 1990, the Empire of Liberty is expected to survive until the end of time itself. Any alleged Reflectivist opposition becomes a genuine collaboration with Positivism.
The best way for me to describe where Positivism and Reflectivism are both flawed as far as The Work-Standard and The Third Place are both concerned is the 9/11 Attacks. In International Relations, the real crux of Positivism and Reflectivism is as Epistemological as figuring out what really brought down the twin towers of Positivism’s idealistic Materialism and Reflectivism’s materialistic Idealism.
- For Positivism, can there be One Truth to explain 9/11?
- For Reflectivism, can there be Multiple Truths to explain 9/11?
The Dark Art of Weltanschauungskrieg informs us that we are looking at the Polarization method, where it is possible to frame any discernible phenomenon as being an “Either/Or” proposition, leaving zero room for a “Both/And” or even a “Neither/Nor.”
- For Both/And, can there be One Truth formed out of Multiple Truths to explain 9/11?
- For Neither/Nor, can there be No discernible Truth Whatsoever insofar as this reductionist Theological Pastime is in actuality a vast Jigsaw Puzzle?
Most 9/11 Truthers fall within the Multiple Truths, their 9/11 Skeptics under the One Truth. Neither of those two is willing to adhere to One Truth formed out of Multiple Truths nor will they ‘believe me’–like a theological debate–if I argue that there was No Discernible Truth will ever be found anywhere on neither 9/11 itself nor in this reductionist Theological Pastime. Personally, I have found these Cause and Effect charades to be a senseless exercise in futility. These Theological Pastimes demonstrate to me that, in the higher academia perpetuating Thomas Jefferson’s Cult of Personality, Liberal Capitalist ideology takes far greater precedence over, well, the practical, the metaphysical, the conceptual, the organizational, and the ontological.
Enter the Political Organization Problem: EITHER the Student is Being-With the Student Body and Student Government in the Total Educational Effort OR the Student is Being-Without the Student Body and Student Government in the Total Educational Effort. Or put another way:
“Man schlägt jemanden mit der Faust und nicht mit gespreizten Fingern!”
(You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread!)
Leave a Reply