Fri Nov, 29 2002
This Is A Trick Question
Prerequisite: go read the first five paragraphs of this article.
Now, then: can anyone explain to me the difference between "absolutism" and "universalism"?
I note that this is not a particularly incendiary example of what is, nonetheless, a widespread phenomenon. The submission of language to fashion (which is, I am convinced, what this particular case is about), instead of keeping it to the task of transmission of concepts, is horribly common, now. I see it everywhere, all the time, and this case is not nearly so outrageous as most howling over "extremism", for instance.
The thing that incited this item, here, is the rhythm of this particular contradiction -- which is what it really is, when all is analyzed and understood. When I read the first questionable word, in the first paragraph, I flinched at it, but let it ride, precisely because it's so common in its essence. The thing here is principle, which is nearly everywhere dismissed with every sort of rationale plausible to variously rusty, foggy, and outright incompetent minds. There is very little quite so characteristically antithetical to today's mentation as the idea of something true, and here is the hook to that first questionable word: I am talking about something "absolute". We live in a time when "absolutism" instantly afflicts heebies with the jeebies, and they all run for cover under contingencies designed to hedge the bet.
What is almost (but not quite) as common, however, is the stolen concept that appears at the very next bend in the road. In the instant case before the court, it turns up in the second questionable word: "universalism". In fact, that word concretizes the concept of existence itself, by way of reverse-engineering of the implication. Because of existence, certain implications hold universally true: there really are "absolutes".
One might not realize this, however, from common railing against "absolutism".
The complaint found in this example is not against "absolutism". (Did you do the homework? Go read it.) The complaint is against defective "absolutism": in this case, it's about the "absolutism" that claims political authority over entities (individual human beings) whose natural mandate for survival necessarily "authorizes" (pay attention to the word root) them to make up their own minds about the matters that this false "absolutism" would dictate.
That is what the author has in mind to indict. And you can understand this when you realize that his word "univeralism" actually refers to "absolutism" by another name.
There is a reason for every word in the language.
Or, at least, there should be.
Wed Nov, 27 2002
A Finely-Drawn Line
Eric Raymond has mentioned an unmentionable. (John Venlet at Improved Clinch snagged that link.)
This is a subject around which I've seen interesting dancing, lately, in bits and pieces. The thing that I would have to say about it all, right here and now, is that ignoring unpleasant things never makes them go away. Me? I prefer to get things like this right out in the open. I know that makes a lot of people really nervy, but I say they're the ones with the problem.
If there is anyone unclear about my own position on a matter like this, then they should go read my essay in which I deal prospects of Political Solutions.
There is a lot more to say, but I'm getting ready to go out and tear up the sleepy little town of Cortland, New York, with a handful of dear old friends, on the evening of my birthday.
Wish y'all were here. I'd buy you a round.
Happy Birthday To Me
November 27, 1956
Precepts
I will not be a constructive critic.
It will not be my task to suggest utopic salvations. It should be enough for a rational person to point out what is wrong, and to leave the implications open to others who have minds to grasp them. In brief: the 'ought' really does proceed from the 'is'. Since what 'is', is wrong, then the 'ought' is clearly obvious enough.
I will not open this publication up to comments. If I am interested in that sort of thing, there is always Usenet.
I will not keep a "blogroll". Links to others will occur amid my applause for -- or jeers at -- their efforts. Links will earn their keep, here, in the action.
I will not post daily simply in order to meet others' expectations. If I don't have anything to say, then I won't bother. I completely expect that this will happen periodically, if not frequently. I am never amazed at the fact of being struck speechless by bloody nonsense, which is a going concern, these days.
I will be concerned with the long haul. This means: don't bother looking through the Categories that you see to the left. There is nothing there, now, but there will be. Years from now, they will be worth something, to someone.
If the children ever pass completely through The Endarkenment, then perhaps they might be curious how it happened, and what I do here might help them understand.
(And: if you don't understand the name of this place, then go read Arthur Koestler's "Darkness At Noon".)
Onward.
