Like physical terrorism, psychological terrorism can do long-lasting damage to our lives. Someone may set us up, planting something bad in our life and waiting 4 it to explode in the future. They may also back-stab or oppress us 4 their self-interests, 4 their social network/country or 4 our error/action/interaction in the past (in your age of rebellious, for instance). There r other risks for us to bear 2. Accidence happens, we all know. That's why ppl buy insurance.
They may not be human. Those blood-sucking/poisonous insects can terrorize just anybody 4 their a priori survivalism. Pet of our neighbor may turn fierce suddenly and send us to the hospital. In these incidence, we r not just physically terrorized.
Nightmare may terrorize us with/out obvious reason, like depression/sickness.
Psychologically speaking, for terrorists, the game rule is simple: If we let them have permanent -ve effects on our life, we losed.
Actually, the risks in global village have not much changes after September 11 incident. Then, y is the big fuss ppl make about terrorism?
3/15/08
Culture--A Post-structuristic Perspective
Post-structuristic perspective of culture rejects totalities, e.g. total exclusiveness, total aggressiveness against other cultures etc. When hegemonic elements r gone it preserves only those of natural, inevitable & properly unique 4 itself, & turns itself into something of environmentally conscious & refreshable. Its subtle &/ ("de-demonized"/post-quantum-theory) chaotic reconstruction & deconstruction, in which concurrence of drastic changes & peace r possible , in its own rhetorics, semiotics & patterns while reexamining its presuppositions constantly. The semiotics have more emphasis on pragmatics than other fields. And, virtualness can be a testing ground 4 possible changes.
Neonaturalism
As indicated in my previous threads, my version of neonaturalism, like my neopragmatism, with which it is integrated, is of something inevitable & de-ontologistic. Words with hegemonic tendency like "the only way", "all", "totally", "entities" etc. r sorta taboos for its narratives. No matter how 1 tried to "unnaturalistized" his/her belief, the ghost of human nature is there waiting for him/her to deal with throughout his/her whole life & likewise, the pragmatism 4 dealing with it. Things r neutral & can bring about spectra that range within extremely good to extremely bad. & the results r unstable in accordance with context. When things turned problematic, the proper way is not resorting to belief that canceled their natural aspects but 1 that dare to face &/ try to resolve them in nature-prone manners.
Zero-waste Systems & Their Open Documentations
(Near)zero-waste philosophy & systems existed in days of yore. "The usefulness of uselessness" of Taoism/Daoism is 1 of the good examples. Indeed, it is an interesting topic for further explorations. Just wonder y they don't get enough publicity and encouragements nowadays. I'd like to suggest here a diversified awarding and marketing systems for their open documentations and public educations of the cost-effective systems, especially those that integrated with zero-emission systems. These should have the following common features:
1. Reliable & fair appraisal process/es and systems for individual &/ groups in accordance with spectra of contributed results &/ possible implications, especially the initial sparks for further developments.
2. Properly managed trust funds & awards.
3. Result-oriented web-based open-source marketings, human resource managements & appraisals systems.
4. Multiple public education channels.
1. Reliable & fair appraisal process/es and systems for individual &/ groups in accordance with spectra of contributed results &/ possible implications, especially the initial sparks for further developments.
2. Properly managed trust funds & awards.
3. Result-oriented web-based open-source marketings, human resource managements & appraisals systems.
4. Multiple public education channels.
2/23/08
Mine-r-better-than-yours & Self-righteousness
From kiddie rows to the grandest scale warfares, from kindergarten crayon sketches to great cultures, from personal beliefs to institutionalized religions, from enmity to the highest intimacy and from individuals to the biggest nation, mine-r-better/bigger-than-yours psychology, or interpretation of it, is so common that we may treat it like the air we inhale and exhale. As we compare and contrast (or refer and defer) in our conscious moments, it goes beyond passive mode of complacency toward self-righteousness &/ self-justification. More often than not, they r emotional rather than rational.
How does this kinda "mineness" come about? Is it a priori or posteriori? The selfish gene theory doesn't seem suffice for the explanations. It is intermingled also with entrenchment of relevant meanings in our mind and will to power.
While we know it can be overcome, it doesn't follow that we have to do away with each and every diversities we have now. The rogue competitions as well as total distrust effected should be our main concerns.
How does this kinda "mineness" come about? Is it a priori or posteriori? The selfish gene theory doesn't seem suffice for the explanations. It is intermingled also with entrenchment of relevant meanings in our mind and will to power.
While we know it can be overcome, it doesn't follow that we have to do away with each and every diversities we have now. The rogue competitions as well as total distrust effected should be our main concerns.
2/19/08
Sex
No matter how one idealizes, romanticizes or moralizes sex, it is, per se, can't escape from its fetish, raw, natural and even pragmatic parts. The desire is there; the need is there; the sensation is there; the use is there; so as the supply and demand, be it legal or illegal, orgasmic or not. To avoid bombardments from moralists &/ goody-goodies, please take note that these r just pure factual statements.
In a forum thread I asked: "As one of the most common activities of homo sapien, why is it still so controversial after millennia of civilisations?" What's the complexity really working behind the moral scene?
One of the keyword I found out is: "Control", as in contrast with the stronger word of Michel Foucault--"repression"--in his multi-volume The History of Sexuality. We don't like others to c us losing composure, thus self-control and act and speak morally in public. Composure is one of the rituals society wants us to perform so as to appear normal. Some ancient rulers might utilize sex morality in their attempt to improve production rather than procreation, control violent crime, or control the population so as to control competition of limited resources etc. Will to power played a crucial role here. The morality usually passed on and further accumulated after temporal-spatial changes. Often, the codes were integrated into law.
Parents want control over their kids in order to protect them and of various degree, exert their power. It's still quite common to c people try to control their (prospect) partners with morality, not just over male side as in propositions of Foucault. In our efforts to control STD, AIDS especially, many people have insisted on stricter sex morality, which imho has worsen the situation.
"Order is good; chaos is bad." kinda presuppositions also create urge in us to control social "discipline", be it just in appearance only. Pre-quantum-theory ontological world views requires certain kinda totality and thus it was logical to c, what I'd like to called, severe conflicts of totalities, when they crashed into one another.
Finally, in a process of attaining control of powers, one may resort to moral competitions, thus reinforcements or even new creations and further accumulations. Whether these urges of control are freaky or not is for psychiatries to decide on case by case basis.
These r not exhaustive narratives, ofc. And, I'm not against any "proper" value.
In a forum thread I asked: "As one of the most common activities of homo sapien, why is it still so controversial after millennia of civilisations?" What's the complexity really working behind the moral scene?
One of the keyword I found out is: "Control", as in contrast with the stronger word of Michel Foucault--"repression"--in his multi-volume The History of Sexuality. We don't like others to c us losing composure, thus self-control and act and speak morally in public. Composure is one of the rituals society wants us to perform so as to appear normal. Some ancient rulers might utilize sex morality in their attempt to improve production rather than procreation, control violent crime, or control the population so as to control competition of limited resources etc. Will to power played a crucial role here. The morality usually passed on and further accumulated after temporal-spatial changes. Often, the codes were integrated into law.
Parents want control over their kids in order to protect them and of various degree, exert their power. It's still quite common to c people try to control their (prospect) partners with morality, not just over male side as in propositions of Foucault. In our efforts to control STD, AIDS especially, many people have insisted on stricter sex morality, which imho has worsen the situation.
"Order is good; chaos is bad." kinda presuppositions also create urge in us to control social "discipline", be it just in appearance only. Pre-quantum-theory ontological world views requires certain kinda totality and thus it was logical to c, what I'd like to called, severe conflicts of totalities, when they crashed into one another.
Finally, in a process of attaining control of powers, one may resort to moral competitions, thus reinforcements or even new creations and further accumulations. Whether these urges of control are freaky or not is for psychiatries to decide on case by case basis.
These r not exhaustive narratives, ofc. And, I'm not against any "proper" value.
2/14/08
De-ontological Coherence
De-ontological coherence is not just a convenient tools when facing criticisms from certain theologians and/or metaphysicists who try to frame your statements as something total in situation where you have made certain positive assertions about certain word, such as "rationality". It is somehow bionic, of valid facts, of proper alternative leeways and flexibility, of limitations of both presentation and representation, of forensics &/ real statistically correctness and of neopragmatic survivalism and de-ontological wholism. Neopragmatism would be exalted to the same status as Bible and Qur'an to fundamentalists or Also sprach Zarathustra to Nazi, if it is not de-ontologized. The latter was a clear instance of misinterpreting a literature.
Those expect totality rather than partial validity r more often than not fall short of perfectionism they required from the others. Thus de-ontological coherence is situational and complex. Just like one neopragmatism can be different from the others. And, the ultimate criteria r of sustainability, of justice, of fuzzy logic, of neo-naturalistic freedom, of antitrust and of "wholistic"(process, application, protecting the weak etc.) systems and results.
De-ontologism, which is distinguished from deontology, itself is not total. It rejects only universal metaphysics. Those field metaphysics like foundations of mathematics r still viable.
Those expect totality rather than partial validity r more often than not fall short of perfectionism they required from the others. Thus de-ontological coherence is situational and complex. Just like one neopragmatism can be different from the others. And, the ultimate criteria r of sustainability, of justice, of fuzzy logic, of neo-naturalistic freedom, of antitrust and of "wholistic"(process, application, protecting the weak etc.) systems and results.
De-ontologism, which is distinguished from deontology, itself is not total. It rejects only universal metaphysics. Those field metaphysics like foundations of mathematics r still viable.
2/9/08
Triumph of Rationality
In the triumph of rationality we allow women's suffrage.
In the triumph of rationality we abolish slavery.
In the triumph of rationality we release foot-bindings.
In the triumph of rationality we abandon feudalism.
In the triumph of rationality we choose secularism.
In the triumph of rationality we want proper democracy.
In the triumph of rationality we fight for our freedom.
In the triumph of rationality we need only minimum standard value.
In the triumph of rationality we reject accident-proof jails.
In the triumph of rationality we prefer proper working systems than heroism.
In the triumph of rationality we antitrust.
In the triumph of rationality we long for better environment.
In the triumph of rationality we foresee that our endless greed will destroy us one day.
In the triumph of rationality we distinguish public and private properly.
In the triumph of rationality we let rationality overcomes emotion.
In the triumph of rationality we abolish slavery.
In the triumph of rationality we release foot-bindings.
In the triumph of rationality we abandon feudalism.
In the triumph of rationality we choose secularism.
In the triumph of rationality we want proper democracy.
In the triumph of rationality we fight for our freedom.
In the triumph of rationality we need only minimum standard value.
In the triumph of rationality we reject accident-proof jails.
In the triumph of rationality we prefer proper working systems than heroism.
In the triumph of rationality we antitrust.
In the triumph of rationality we long for better environment.
In the triumph of rationality we foresee that our endless greed will destroy us one day.
In the triumph of rationality we distinguish public and private properly.
In the triumph of rationality we let rationality overcomes emotion.
1/6/08
Neo-neologism
In late philosophy, neologism is a sarcasm rather than metaphysics or even an entity. "New"-ing just for the sack of "new"-ing yet it may not be something new; being creative just for the sack of creativism; critical just for the sack of criticism. Psychological issues other than the related jargon do take part. While it can be unavoidable sometimes, cyclical and going no where it can be. Thus, neo-neologism has to be something wholistically pragmatic to break the deadlock. It must result in question like:"When the momentum of the keep on double-folding world economy IRL going to end?", "Why some pseudo-democratic regimes seem 'sustainable' in the name of 'pragmatism'?" And, these r not something of much new.
11/3/07
Curiosity is a desire
Curiosity burns inside, especially when the hunters manage to probe something of cutting edge. Kinda cultural inheritance it is since the advent of language. Like language, it is not something natural; like desire, it can bend someone deep down or even inside out, and hardly quench. Chronic illness as it is, turns into sorta love in which (near)enlightenment is encountered. So be it or not? Curiosity rules!
11/2/07
Neonationalism
If our global societies really desire peace and healing the sick mother earth, nationalism must be weaken. Strong &/ materialist nationalism concomitants fierce competitions. These malign rotaries of power games have gone on for millennia, yet many people still treat it as something sacred and inviolable. Besides high artificiality, international benchmarks for competitiveness are tools of convenience but healthy. Alteration of them is a necessary step for the welfare of future generations. They can move toward something more "blue sea" or environmental friendly. Abolish those benchmarks if it is appropriate.
10/31/07
Factism
Neopragmatic factism's insisting on quality evidence distinguishes from early Wittgenstein as swiss army knife for strict forensic methodology rather than positivist metaphysics. Quality of evidence is in direct proportion with the quality of justice. Its highly depending on long term healthy upshots and verifiability. Technological advancements in fabrications impel its rising importance. As complements in resolving the possible problems of deconstruction, it pursues working models for our postmodern life.
Neopragmatic factists loyal mainly to facts of long term healthy results and its without fear and favor. For those who have faith, its ungodly to attack others without proper examination of other's propositions that appeared against the institutionalized dogma. Nevertheless, they understand the limitations of semantics/semiotics and flexible when dealing with beliefs and processes.
1. They may reveal their belief to the public yet ready to adjust or even abandon it when new facts emerged.
2. They always cast doubts on metaphysics/ontology, total globalism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, extreme racism, sexism, romanticism, materialism, selfish departmentalism, unitarianism and utilitarianism.
3. They have no bias in interpreting supernatural phenomena.
4. They refute any superstitious in scripture/s, especially those of fundamentalism.
5. As they constantly examine the long term overall implications/results, they demand real tolerance that encourage multiplicity and protection of minority. Thus, they bombard the disappearance and shrinking of minority cultures and deconstruct attempts to maintain the status quo for too long.
6. They r rational rather than emotional.
Neopragmatic factists loyal mainly to facts of long term healthy results and its without fear and favor. For those who have faith, its ungodly to attack others without proper examination of other's propositions that appeared against the institutionalized dogma. Nevertheless, they understand the limitations of semantics/semiotics and flexible when dealing with beliefs and processes.
1. They may reveal their belief to the public yet ready to adjust or even abandon it when new facts emerged.
2. They always cast doubts on metaphysics/ontology, total globalism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, extreme racism, sexism, romanticism, materialism, selfish departmentalism, unitarianism and utilitarianism.
3. They have no bias in interpreting supernatural phenomena.
4. They refute any superstitious in scripture/s, especially those of fundamentalism.
5. As they constantly examine the long term overall implications/results, they demand real tolerance that encourage multiplicity and protection of minority. Thus, they bombard the disappearance and shrinking of minority cultures and deconstruct attempts to maintain the status quo for too long.
6. They r rational rather than emotional.
10/29/07
Neopragmatic Heartism
Neopragmatic heartism is the combination of psychology, cognitive science, philosophy of mind, neopragmatic intuitionism and neonaturalism. De-ontologism in it also pronounce itself as something not to be trust fully other than seeing the proper or healthily long-lasting fair outcomes. This kind of setting stems from the past failure of political idols. Mao, the hailed greatest leader of modern China, for instance, was a good god when he was young, turned himself into a casual killer after he attained the ultimate power in China. Instability of subjects, remember?
10/26/07
Justice
Though sound sort of ethical cliche, fairness must be dealt with in most social results. Its failure can be a deadly blow to a society. While the issue arises naturally in a society, it comes in shades and doesn't has to be egalitarianistic. In terms of historical evidence and proper juristic rationality, antitrust settings, be them political, economical or social, have to be there in modern society.
The advancement of technologies and the increase of ensuing risks are turning international justice into something non-reactionary. While promoting their idea of justice, employment of due process has to be prudent, or else, developed countries may turn our global village into a jail.
In our highly automated world, Rawls-Sunstein's theory of justice should be highly regarded. Rawls propounds a version of non-egalitarianistic political liberalism that is further derivative of a rational, hypothetical and non-metaphysical "original-position". Basically agree with his maximum liberty and fair equality of opportunity principles but not "the difference principle" as it is clearly contradict with his "veil of ignorance" methodology by which neither preference for majoritarian nor minoritarian should be allowed. Nevertheless, a just society must protect the fair minority interests; it's just protection, no more or less. Otherwise, as both majoritarian and minoritarian tend to push their own benefits to extreme, political crisis could easily be aroused. Nonetheless, if the minority is pushed to a corner, they have every rights of self-defense.
Deliberative democracy of Sunstein displays commitments toward public-regarding reasons in public decision-making process, to civil society, contractarianism and against unfair group/individual influence. A version of neo-pragmatic meritocracy need be there for adjustment. Fairness is still the key; unfair contractual terms or practice can defeat their validity. As society turns high-risk, emphasis on scientific health need be injected into the process.
Antitrust and Seen Justice
Seen Justice is derived from the maxim "justice must be seen to be done". It denotes proper settings or arrangements for possible fair results and can be said as the basis of antitrust reasoning. Its absence betokens injustice. For instance, the controversy of long-term dominance of a political power can be easily solved when the legislature, judiciary, executives and media workers are mainly supporters appointed by the dominant power.
The advancement of technologies and the increase of ensuing risks are turning international justice into something non-reactionary. While promoting their idea of justice, employment of due process has to be prudent, or else, developed countries may turn our global village into a jail.
In our highly automated world, Rawls-Sunstein's theory of justice should be highly regarded. Rawls propounds a version of non-egalitarianistic political liberalism that is further derivative of a rational, hypothetical and non-metaphysical "original-position". Basically agree with his maximum liberty and fair equality of opportunity principles but not "the difference principle" as it is clearly contradict with his "veil of ignorance" methodology by which neither preference for majoritarian nor minoritarian should be allowed. Nevertheless, a just society must protect the fair minority interests; it's just protection, no more or less. Otherwise, as both majoritarian and minoritarian tend to push their own benefits to extreme, political crisis could easily be aroused. Nonetheless, if the minority is pushed to a corner, they have every rights of self-defense.
Deliberative democracy of Sunstein displays commitments toward public-regarding reasons in public decision-making process, to civil society, contractarianism and against unfair group/individual influence. A version of neo-pragmatic meritocracy need be there for adjustment. Fairness is still the key; unfair contractual terms or practice can defeat their validity. As society turns high-risk, emphasis on scientific health need be injected into the process.
Antitrust and Seen Justice
Seen Justice is derived from the maxim "justice must be seen to be done". It denotes proper settings or arrangements for possible fair results and can be said as the basis of antitrust reasoning. Its absence betokens injustice. For instance, the controversy of long-term dominance of a political power can be easily solved when the legislature, judiciary, executives and media workers are mainly supporters appointed by the dominant power.
Health & Properness
Health is also another essential benchmark for a result. It integrates with liberty; no liberty, no health. (*4TWCRBTL/PIT, this means restriction effected upon a sick person naturally. ) The neopragmatic moksa: body is emancipated only with health. The health is scientific and properly result-oriented. While it is not entirely anti-morality, the healthy properness is not subjected to moral competition or self-righteousness. It embraces both macro and micro perspectives.
The healthy properness has to be basically scientific (where options of value can emerge for deliberations), especially reliable statistics and psychology, in order to reduce controversy. It is neopragmatic version of political correctness and thus antitrust or against unitarianism.
(*4TWCRBTL/PIT=For those who can`t read between the lines or purposely ignore them.)
The healthy properness has to be basically scientific (where options of value can emerge for deliberations), especially reliable statistics and psychology, in order to reduce controversy. It is neopragmatic version of political correctness and thus antitrust or against unitarianism.
(*4TWCRBTL/PIT=For those who can`t read between the lines or purposely ignore them.)
Liberty
The result-oriented liberty has to go beyond law. It looks for a civil society with environmental friendly and overall healthy results. Law would seem metaphysical if the environment is not healthy; no health, no liberty.
Neopragmatic Creativism
The creativism is to have features for systemic differentiation. Besides differ, refer and defer in new ways, it also takes care of the possible interpretations &/ effects. By outstripping the complexity threshold, it can be, business-wise, a proper barrier of entry for others or sort of blue sea politically correct. This correctness clearly should not apply to (neo/quasi)fascism.
Methodology and Ontology
Methodology has clear features in contrast with ontology. Indeed, they are different things. Methodology is method-regard text; ontology, essence-regard. Sound like superfluous statements? Yet, the mistakes of mixing them up happens in highly acclaimed works such as Being and Time of Martin Heidegger.
On Ideology
Ideology has multiple-choice of meanings. In the context here, ideology is not merely idea, ideation or system of idea. Endowing with metaphysical and hegemonistic rhetorics, its semantics refer and defer in such away that can enchant people into believing without or dare not resort to proper reasoning and criticism, or can be sort of implanted in believer's mind. This sort of blind-faith is clearly not the nature of pragmatism. Historical lessons such as witch-hunts and Cultural Revolution teach us this sort of ideology is, if not more, every bits as precarious as nihilism. Nevertheless, this does not ensue that it can't be de-ontologistized and be a spatial-temporal, politically correct tool.
Both materialist and idealist pragmatism are error-prone. The former tends to be profit-oriented and damaging the environment. The latter can tilt toward building Babel Towers and extremely hypocritic. What we need is something paying regard to them, not "believing" in them, yet to have proper sustainable results.
Philosophers do not have to worry that this will drive a nine-inch-nail into the heart of philosophy. Definition of philosophy has never been stable. Contingently speaking, so long as there is thought reflexion, there is philosophy.
Both materialist and idealist pragmatism are error-prone. The former tends to be profit-oriented and damaging the environment. The latter can tilt toward building Babel Towers and extremely hypocritic. What we need is something paying regard to them, not "believing" in them, yet to have proper sustainable results.
Philosophers do not have to worry that this will drive a nine-inch-nail into the heart of philosophy. Definition of philosophy has never been stable. Contingently speaking, so long as there is thought reflexion, there is philosophy.
10/9/07
Neopragmatism
Neopragmatism comes in flavors. For ETTanism, process is part of the result; it benchmarks the result. Process "becomes" result. The notion goes beyond Whiteheadean process philosophy, in that it is more wholistic and transcends (non-metaphysically) the becoming/being dualism.
One can't help but being liberal in order to have a proper life in modern complex society, especially the one that is hitech-gadget-ridden. Being entirely anti-liberalism or anti-libertarianism seems like telling other:"I'm giving up my liberties and other constitutional rights!" On the other hand, most people don't like being labeled as an extremist, nihilist, a pedophile or a (devilized) witch. This is why the neopragmatic liberalism with the following features has to come into the scene:
1. Ideology-less: Focus on proper methodology rather than universal ideology (the metaphysical one).
2. Creativism.
3. Contractarian liberalism of maximum liberties that end at others' liberties (Rawls).
4. Properly healthy and healthy properness.
5. Anti-reactionary fairness with frugal and prudent law-making process, just judicial review, antitrust, of best possible quality evidence, awards and punishments, civil and criminal law, jurisprudence, prohibition of unfair&/non-public-regarding influences of communities/groups (Cass Sunstein), plus proper protections of the weaks. Justice is the major ethical issue to consider.
6. Factism: facts or reliable statistics based decision-making process.
7. Principle-centered with proper public/private non-dialectic dichotomy.
8. Proper public powers definition, anti-nepotism and other proper measures.
9. Neo-internationalism with stricter international antitrust mechanism including political powers. There must also be proper control of international arms trade, security firms and other surveillance related businesses. Prevention and correcting settings against profiting from others misfortune.
10. Neonationalism and national constitutionalism.
11. De-ontologism.
12. Neonaturalism
13. Neo-neologism
14. Self-criticism
15. Heartism
16. Neopragmatic interpretivism
17. Sustainable reasonableness
18. Post-structuralism
If one really need something simple, I would unsatisfactory or over-simplistically say it is a reflexion or attempt to deal with all problems arise from pragmatism and utilitarianism, especially those materialistic ones. Thus, this put an end to the future possibility of never ending prefixes of "neo"s.
One can't help but being liberal in order to have a proper life in modern complex society, especially the one that is hitech-gadget-ridden. Being entirely anti-liberalism or anti-libertarianism seems like telling other:"I'm giving up my liberties and other constitutional rights!" On the other hand, most people don't like being labeled as an extremist, nihilist, a pedophile or a (devilized) witch. This is why the neopragmatic liberalism with the following features has to come into the scene:
1. Ideology-less: Focus on proper methodology rather than universal ideology (the metaphysical one).
2. Creativism.
3. Contractarian liberalism of maximum liberties that end at others' liberties (Rawls).
4. Properly healthy and healthy properness.
5. Anti-reactionary fairness with frugal and prudent law-making process, just judicial review, antitrust, of best possible quality evidence, awards and punishments, civil and criminal law, jurisprudence, prohibition of unfair&/non-public-regarding influences of communities/groups (Cass Sunstein), plus proper protections of the weaks. Justice is the major ethical issue to consider.
6. Factism: facts or reliable statistics based decision-making process.
7. Principle-centered with proper public/private non-dialectic dichotomy.
8. Proper public powers definition, anti-nepotism and other proper measures.
9. Neo-internationalism with stricter international antitrust mechanism including political powers. There must also be proper control of international arms trade, security firms and other surveillance related businesses. Prevention and correcting settings against profiting from others misfortune.
10. Neonationalism and national constitutionalism.
11. De-ontologism.
12. Neonaturalism
13. Neo-neologism
14. Self-criticism
15. Heartism
16. Neopragmatic interpretivism
17. Sustainable reasonableness
18. Post-structuralism
If one really need something simple, I would unsatisfactory or over-simplistically say it is a reflexion or attempt to deal with all problems arise from pragmatism and utilitarianism, especially those materialistic ones. Thus, this put an end to the future possibility of never ending prefixes of "neo"s.
10/3/07
Naked-mind Society
Thanks to the advent of lie-detector and mind-reader, we are moving toward a naked-mind society. Although this is a good thing in fact-finding and promoting a more honest society, there are other facets to consider, especially privacy, big brother, god-playing issues. Should their uses be limited to situations where honesty will have significant social impact such as criminal cases?
10/2/07
Feminism
The parts of feminism that focus on understanding and emancipation constitute good initiatives. These should challenge the status quo, question the so-called ism-ism, the haves and have-nots dichotomy, legal legitimacy etc. And, there are efforts to push these applications beyond gender issues, into other arena such as ethnicity, religion, age, etc. They can bring about good changes, if applications were proper. Nevertheless, they tend to ontologicalize social life and morality, intolerable of "lonely-planet" life-style, essentialism, overemphasize on discourses, overly protective, fail to be critical of those situations where they lose supports, fail to understand different versions of libertarianism and pragmatism, and properly result-oriented. These pose qestions like "is feminine libertarianism and pragmatism possible?", "If possible, what are they?", "Can feminine hermeneutics be less agressive and emotional?"
9/29/07
Neo-secularism
Secularism is the best of possible ways for global justice. Only independent, impatial and dogma-less secular justice makes multicultural fairness realizeable. It should develop along with the best possible contemporary secular rationality. "Global" here refers to a complex world order links by international trades and communications. Unless there is clear harm to their very existence or abuse, those outside the domain should be left alone in their best natural state. Our so called "civilization" tends to be aggressive and already committed cultural genocides. On the other hand, as minimal as it should be, there is an urgency to formulate a more efficient, secular frame of reference, "global" value and enforcing system that is anti-trust. As of its very anti-trust essense, those practice or provide one-sided supports of (neo/quasi)fascist, non-secular politics (in its narrow sense), other monopolistic systems or violation of the global values shall be treated as given up their rights to judge, to enforce and to be treated equally. "Justice must be seen to be done." Therefore, the judiciary and enforcement rights shall be in the hands of consented developed free-worlds with a quorum that can ensure efficacy.
Complex Potentials
Singularity was certainly not as homogeneous as it sound. It's there with complex potentials of causality: shades, shapes, colors, dynamics, vortices etc. The word can be misleading for a novice. If "it" were homogeneous, there wouldn't be universes as we could perceived today, because there wouldn't be lives, we wouldn't "be" and no perception would exist. Imagine! A world with no sense of boredom, feels and meanings. As of its homogeneity, there would be only one thing, yet it's nothing.
Like words, potentials also differ and defer in time and space. Natural potentials are hardly equal.
Potentials "real"-ize themselves through anisotropy and releasing their powers. Under neopragmatic context, the authentic "real" ought to be something healthy and producing proper results.
Thus, better avoid saying "I understood this guy." after seeing tip of an iceberg or try to clone him.
Complexity is a noun, not verb. Thus, related action may or may not be complex.
An interesting technical link.
Like words, potentials also differ and defer in time and space. Natural potentials are hardly equal.
Potentials "real"-ize themselves through anisotropy and releasing their powers. Under neopragmatic context, the authentic "real" ought to be something healthy and producing proper results.
Thus, better avoid saying "I understood this guy." after seeing tip of an iceberg or try to clone him.
Complexity is a noun, not verb. Thus, related action may or may not be complex.
An interesting technical link.
ETTanism
ETTanism is opionionistic, introductory skeleton for further development and edifying. This means accepting and interpreting the contents at your own risks. Opinionism has to be there as the author can't deal with every aspects at once in the same time and space. Furthermore, the subjective interpretations, which are also subject to multi-level interpretations, are hardly stable. If the result is wrong, more often than not, the interpretation &/ application would need re-examination, as it is best to assume the author intended proper results in the long run.
Nevertheless, it can be a powerful tool when it meets with facts, results or cogency. Causality exerts itself, sometimes in chaotic or near chaotic ways, in broader perspective, like it or not. Weak? Maybe, yet the stone-piercing power is there in the long run. Treating opinions opinionistically coheres logically and can be assertive in many situations. It is not something all-embracing. The audience are encouraged to use their brain instead of passive data-feeding. Self-criticize factually if necessary; self-compete rather than the-other-compete. The presenter has the right of final says as to his presentations, especially when others interpretation is palpably leading to contradictions, injustice, improper repercussions or long term effects. Yet, this is by no mean a restriction to legal freedom of speech.
Present tense is used in quotation of authority as if having live encounter. Authentic presentations or representations speak to us, they are alive.
Opionion is opinion. Causality is causality. There is no intention to "encounter" those obsessed with competition, incitement, mud-throwing and framing others. Wicked interpretations r normally not hard to c. The interpreter should bear the responsibility for their relevant consequences.
Some of my thoughts here are formulated ages back and my data were stolen many times. Challenges of their originality are welcome.
The edifying philosopher, coined by Rorty, should be earned, not declared.
If you don't understand, don't pretend to be.
Nevertheless, it can be a powerful tool when it meets with facts, results or cogency. Causality exerts itself, sometimes in chaotic or near chaotic ways, in broader perspective, like it or not. Weak? Maybe, yet the stone-piercing power is there in the long run. Treating opinions opinionistically coheres logically and can be assertive in many situations. It is not something all-embracing. The audience are encouraged to use their brain instead of passive data-feeding. Self-criticize factually if necessary; self-compete rather than the-other-compete. The presenter has the right of final says as to his presentations, especially when others interpretation is palpably leading to contradictions, injustice, improper repercussions or long term effects. Yet, this is by no mean a restriction to legal freedom of speech.
Present tense is used in quotation of authority as if having live encounter. Authentic presentations or representations speak to us, they are alive.
Opionion is opinion. Causality is causality. There is no intention to "encounter" those obsessed with competition, incitement, mud-throwing and framing others. Wicked interpretations r normally not hard to c. The interpreter should bear the responsibility for their relevant consequences.
Some of my thoughts here are formulated ages back and my data were stolen many times. Challenges of their originality are welcome.
The edifying philosopher, coined by Rorty, should be earned, not declared.
If you don't understand, don't pretend to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)