Yuku free message boards

Empiricism, I believe, would also include attempts to test theories adduced from empirical data. Adductive reasoning does not, I think, conflict with empiricism. Testing via the scientific method is the frosting on any cake though not always possible. Thus we often settle for the "best explanation" or the "most data" we can obtain.

The term empiricism has evolved in somewhat different directions in scientific vs. philosophical usage. Your use of the term, and the more common usage, is that all evidence must be dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. Usually the term empirical is used to refer to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. (see wikipedia article on empiricism).

The scientific method based on empirical methods was wildly successful in the physical sciences where physical measurements were possible. The social scientists viewed the success in the physical science with penis envy. They attemptrd to duplicate the methods which were technically unapplicable to their own subjects. There was much hip and hurrah and claims of "scientific" findings from time to time. Unfortunately they proved to be little more than ideology of one form or another. Insight, yes. But scientific fact, far from it. Claims of scientific justification of behaviorism is a most gross example of nonsense.

I brought out this issue with my psychologist in reference to the use of psychology tests for pseudo-legal social control purposes. I pointed out that there was yet to be found a scientific explanation for consciousness itself. It was at this point that he became somewhat befuddled and began speaking in winks and nods.

You have noted cognizance of the problem by your reference to the frosting on the cake that is not always possible. I would extend your remark to assert that in the real social world adherence to the scientific method is rarely possible beyond the most basics of factual establishment. It might be possible, for example to establish that someone said something, but determining why he said it is a horse of a different color.

We must resign ourselves that insight is the best we can hope for in most cases. We frequently not only settle for the "best explanation", but the "best explanation" is frequently the best we can do given the uncertain information available to us. Before the advent of the modern scientific method as presented by Francis Bacon philosophical inquiry ruled the learned methods of establishing knowledge. Occam's law formalized a method of judging between competing explanations.

Many are conditioned to await the presumed "scientific" explanation of complex events rather than engage in the dynamic search for truth. They usually settle for some salesman's (propagandist's) ridiculous assertion that their explanation is scientific, asserting the false notion that they have a penis to impress the victim. (Popular Mechainc's explanation of 9/11 comes to mind)

It was around the time of my pseudo-legal encounter that I was delving into the English empiricism vs. rationalism issue. I had previously been a student of the scientific method, which was presented according to Francis Bacon. British empiricism followed Fracis Bacon and was a sort of critique of the scientific method. Extreme versions of empiricism, such as phenomenalism, seemed to turn science on its ear. It occurred to me at the time that part of this critique seemed to establish the division of thinking processes suitable for the professional classes vs. the ruling class, both being known as empiricism. I have mentioned before the cage of observation, experimentation, and deductive logic as suitable for the professional classes, whereas the more philosophical divergences appeared more useful for ruling via witchcraft and deceipt. (Berkeley's approach to empiricism became known as subjective idealism.)

I had also previously been introduced to the thinking processes I later identified as those of Pierce (abductive reasoning) which was the breath of fresh air I experienced when I underwent training for strategic planning. This of course was the birth of my realization that I had been encaged as an engineer by my employer for ten years. While Taylorization (efficiency) was no doubt the excuse, systematic subjugation would appear the most likely driving force behind the practice.

Since bringing out some of these issues to the surreptitious rehabilitation (brainwashing) team made up of pseudo-lawyers, judges, and psychologists attempting to maintain the appearance of a legal process, I am happy to find that the latest material readily available to the public via wikipedia fully includes Pierce's contribution to the scientific method as an integration of empiricism with rationalism with full recognition of the validity of abductive reasoning. It is not so clear to me, perhaps since I have not pursued it recently, that the nonsense of calling social "science" science has been clearly exposed.

The following is feedback from Jorg. I have invited him to join the board, and the list before that. Over the past year that I have known him he has been an enthusiastic, quick learning, and insightful addition to the "conspiracy theory" ranks. He read Carroll Quigley's tome "Tragedy and Hope" cover to cover the first month I knew him. At half my age he has chosen, perhaps wisely, to participate as a lurker on a big German board with multiple viewpoints before making the commitments full participation would entail. The German culture appears less sensitized to the absurd and obtuse mechanism of suppression popularized in America to ridicule and/or demonize those attempting to uncover the nature of the strategic plans (i.e. conspiracies) of the ruling elite.

In regard to his comment about futile issues, I speculate that he is less sensitive to Lloyd's need to promote unanswerable questions in hopes of unloading a large inventory of presumably very revealing books.

Ole Dude

From Jorg:

You seem to have developed a lot more confidence in your sources than either Jorg or I have. I have not taken the project as one of assessing the validity of other people's formulations as much as attempting to formulate my own picture making use of my own experience as well as multiple frequently opposing viewpoints found in the literature.

Adopting a weltanschauung based on monotheism clearly produces a breathtakingly different psychology than that of polytheism. But by limiting the issue in a black and white manner between the two, considerations of a religion such as Buddhism is excluded from consideration. Buddhism produces a consciousness or psychology breathtakingly different from either monotheism or polytheism.

You seem to make the mistake of being forced into choosing between a set of opposites as though that is the only choice you have. That is how the Hegellan dialectic is used to control collectives while maintaining the deception that "individuals" are free to choose. This is the nonsense imbedded in the so-called choice between left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, etc.

In marketing it is known as market segmentation. There is an infinite number of ways a market might be segmented, each of which might lead to a different market strategy. Choosing a useful market segmentation is an art not a science. It represents a simplification of reality for practical purposes. It is not reality, though it may become the perception of reality that a given strategic planning team adopts in formulating its plans.

It is indeed a fallacy to claim apriori that something cannot be known. Jorg did not make such a sweeping statement. His statement was much more limiting. I would interpret his remark as stating that something cannot be known with certainty without empirical evidence, which seems to be in agreement with your stated views. (and mine and Ernie's for that matter) At the same time he recognized the usefulness of more speculative thought processes in formulating useful hypotheses given the apparent lack of empirical evidence. Having an analogous situation observed and analyzed adds to the plausibility of a given theory.

Of course if you have hard evidence that conclusively proves (ala Ernie type argument) your theory that a competing elite paradigm precludes the possibility of unifying efforts to limit that competition via mutual agreement, then let us hear it. It would also be interesting if you expounded on your value judgments in regard to the impact on the human condition of each paradigm as well as an alternative paradigm where a broader dispersal of power were maintained.

Your continued questioning of Jorg's existence implies that you perceive me to be purposely misrepresenting myself. While that is a healthy attitude to have in forming one's assessment of another, I am curious as to what evidence you have accumulated that makes you perceive me as a lying SOB. Such a lack of trust puts me on guard that perhaps you are the lying SOB.

Could you elaborate on your lack of trust as an aid for me to reestablish my trust in you? Or do you prefer that I not know the truth about you and what you have been doing with the [prj] group?

Fiction writers are indeed liars if they present their fiction as though it were non-fiction. Jorg is no doubt a lot more than I have presented him as being or even than I have had the opportunity to experience. There is even the possibility that I am being mislead by him, but personal exchanges with him lead me to believe otherwise. But I have not attempted to mislead in my characterizations. When I began communicating with him last year he indicated that he was toying with the idea of joining a far left organization as a result of disillusionment with what he perceived to be going on in the German Ministry of Trade, with which he had been working for some years. We reached common ground on the notion that International Bankers/monopoly capitalism were actually the force behind the socialist movement. He did not join the far left organization (to my knowledge). It is worthy of mention that he perceives Germany still to be an occupied country with a short mostly hidden leash constraining its foreign policy and dominating its trading institutions.

You appear to be intent on sweeping ad hominem attack rather than intellectual discussion.

No doubt the Unabomber both represemts and elaborates on many of the mental abberations and disasters produced by the the industrial revolution and its consrquences. He makes valid points in his assertion that leftest movements are fed by people who participate participate to compenstae for their lack of personal power. While this may indeed produce a reaction formation and indeed reaction formations may occur independent of elite influences, they may also be a product of the consequences of the industrial revolution itself, as Kaczinski asserts.

Kazinsky also asserts that leftest movements tend to be led by a minority whom he calls oversocialized, which is indeed a condition purposely produced by industrial psychology.

That the elite have purposely created industrial psychology as a primary mechanism of weltanschauung control is not in question. That they have done so in full light of its consequences should easily be recognized via your own observation of the infinite detail that guides their behavior.

We seem to be in relative agreement on your second paragraph with the elimination of obvious ad hominem characterizations and the added observation that the elite use right wing movements just as often as left when they find it useful to do so. This is part of the right/left Hegelian dialectic created to guide the resolution to a predetermined state.

Incidentally, it might be useful to clarify the usage of some of the terms being bandied about. "In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism and socialism." (see "reactionary" in wikipedia) At that point in time industrialism was seen as a progressive (left wing) phenomena. For the most part what is considered today as far right concepts, such as constitutionalism, were part of the far left when the terms left and right were defined by which side of the room the conflicting entities sat in the French Parliament. Confusion abounds when I tell people I consider myself a classical liberal which in fact encompasses much of what is currently perceived as right wing philosophy.

Taking this into account one might observe that the earlier elite that once opposed industrialization have become the elite which now controls industry. The common thread is the reassertion of feudalism and aristocracy over the industrial arena. The reaction formation which you mentioned plays right into their hands by promoting the concentration of power, and hence feudalism, via the socialist flag. Professionals and managers who were once perceived as part of the elite have been pushed down into the ranks of the "let them eat cake" crowd. Paternalistic socialism abounds among the many who are allowed no power. And feudalism characterizes the order of those with a capacity to challenge the elite. This leaves the choice of accepting no power (slavery) or of being ground into the dust by a feudal order characterized by psychosis.