Zvezda

[Nonson]

Greetings Sato, in truth I was hoping to use Aristotle as a possible launching pad for a plunge into Tacitus' The Principle of Adoption. It probably is not the most direct route there, but I do think that some of the concepts found in Politics lead to the extremely cruel viewpoints of this nearly forgotten Roman. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L.T. is a real work-out for me, and has been for a goodly number of years. However, I continue to plod ahead in an effort to grasp the depth and real nature of the man's intellect. A real chore for my mind. Peace

[This message has been edited by Nonson (edited 21 July 2000).]

[Sato]

The Rome of Nero (and of Gius Cornelius Tacitus)is something that sickened me as a youth.

Aristotle's thought could not be characterized as cruel. His intellect was awesome. He was a one-man university faculty in his world. He is such a constitutive part of Western culture, that he could be said to have founded a natural aristocratic city state, which has evolved into the actual community of scholars and scientists in our present world.

But I don't think we seek to criticize Aristotle. Let's return to some themes from the European Enlightenment. You brought up JJ Rousseau. I like Rousseau, and I think I can find a place for his thought in my mind while also accommodating Immanuel Kant.

Rousseau's writing intensely presents his vision of a society in which each person is able to be fulfilled, happy and free (there are some Aristotelian themes in this). Rousseau asked, "How can a blind multitude, which often does not know what it wills because it rarely knows what is good for it, carry out for itself so great and difficult an enterprise as a system of legislation?" (Social Contract, Book II, Ch. 6).

His solution is the "Legislator," someone who is neither magistrate nor sovereign but who has an intelligence that can articulate the objective good sought by the many, the "General Will." Though this seems to invite tyranny, I think Rousseau was on to something fundamental in the evolution of cognition and technics that he could not see as clearly as we.

Merely the impact of the human species on the layered ecological systems of the planet require such a complexity of dialogue with natural processes by scientific professionals that international environmental law (as one example) will be necessarily formulated by such specialists, and only really understood by them. I suggest this as just one example of an attribute of Rousseau's Legislator. There are other problematic complexities due to social evolution that will be addressed the same way.

I like Rosseau's sensitivity about gentle nurturing of children. He was particularly concerned about this. Kant, however, is an exemplar of the next rite of passage, finding a place in rigorous professions, and becoming mentally agile in them. Thus the "enclaving" you referred to takes place, but not necessarily by subtracting any humanuity.

More later.

S

[Dr_Woland]

What especially nauseates/d you about Tacitus? In many ways he is the first "journalist", recording fact, but also interpreting it and putting his own "spin" onto the events. And his compact style is lovely to read :-)

Dr W.

[Nonson]

Greetings Sato. A non-objective opinion, which I always must give regarding Tacitus, is that the man set about to violate every ethical and moral mind-set of the day. In him I can't but help see a garish transmute of Aristotle's 'eudaemonism'. It is a wretched evil phantom that haunts my reading of the great Greek philosopher. Tacitus is distrubing to any who have a modicum of understanding of that which is necessary for a system of 'equality of measures' unto all mankind. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In trying to continue the dual thread of that which is good and that which is bad as agreed to concepts at a mutually acceptable level, I seek to give rise in the mind the 'thesis' good and the 'anti-thesis' bad (perhaps a Hegelian effort) of those reknown men both past and present. To my mind, it is only through the exploration of the 'representational meanings' elicited from the contrasting of the opposing views that one can come to an useable understanding. As such, it was my intention to extend the search out to Bakunin and Chomsky, and others before taking the discovered 'elements' and then try to integrate them into some sort of predictive framework regarding Russia and the United States. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Finally, it is my belief that an 'evolutionary social system' is possible based upon a credible synthesis of those great thinkers of the past and the present. I fully understand that this is contra the rapidly growing transhumanist philosophy, but then I have little faith in that which has not withstood the test of time. Peace

[This message has been edited by Nonson (edited 22 July 2000).]

[Sato]

Sorry, Woland, for not making myself clear. It is the era which I find sickening (Julio-Claudian dynasty), not the man who reported it.

Nonson, have you studied Johann Gottfried von Herder? I ask this because in him you might find a kindred soul. His great work, "Ideas for the Philosopy of the History of Mankind" (1784-91) was conceived on a gigantic scale. Tne author explicitly states that the work consists of 'stones for a building which only centuries can finish.'

Herder was a student of Kant, but took significant issue with some Enlightenment attitudes, especially in his polemic against the tendency to despise the primitive. He is by no means blind to the importance of technical inventions and of new scientific knowledge, but he is very far removed from the mentality which regarded the desirable development of civilization as a movement away from religion.

Another student of Kant, and I think the greatest philosopher to emerge from the United States, is Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914). Peirce is highly esteemed contemporarily, worldwide, mainly for his theory of unlimited semiotics. He has a lot to say about social evolution, and he has influenced my thinking about the subject.

Concerning predictions, these require sturdy high-performance models. The fluid dynamics of the atmosphere, much less complex tnan 6 billion human brains, is still not grasped very well by present models. We know the immediate future will require unprecendented problem-solving abilities, and we can define some of what will be the most salient problems. This is our best guide for preparations.

Societies capable of producing highly educated people who can work in effective teams to solve complex problems are the pattern likely to be favored by world demand. Aesthetics, values, and daily rituals will be shaped by that demand. The "credible synthesis" you mention will not be the 'conspiratorial' project of transhumanists, or any other group, but what most closely approximates what Rousseau called the "General Will."

I suoppose the "winners" in this future are the most fortuitously organized nations corporations and professions.

So, large scale habitual behavior patterns, capacity of a language and culture for cognitive advance, the medical condition of the population, economic capacity to support an organizational effort, level of motivation in the population, etc. all bear on prediction of success.

Concerning the angst of an individual in the midst of this turbulence, there is a whole world of prescriptive belief and practice to tap, reaching back to the beginnings of the race. Choose and innovate as you will. But in my opinion it is a waste of time to agonize over the vicissitudes of history with respect to which pattern of mytho-poeic energy is favored now or in the past.

S

[Nonson]

Greeting Sato. I haven't yet abandoned the hunt. Its just that your last couple of posts deflected me from the path of my original intentions and onto one of some serious thinking. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, I have encountered bits abd pieces of von Herder here and there, but never read his works---an over-sight that is being rectified even now. As for C. S. Pierce, I'm aquianted with him in that I have a very deep interest in semiotics and memetics. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would, give me a few days to think some things through to some sort of a 'comfort zone' before continuing with the discussion. Peace