I don’t think he’s got it reversed. The assumptions being that for a functioning republic one needs a literate and moral population, with their God-given critical thinking skills in tact. “Western” countries have had all three of those vectors systematically reduced for about 130 years. I’ll take a look at your recommendation.
I looked at a few different definitions of the term 'populism' and they all seem to contain an element of the common people in opposition to an elite which has either abused its position, or at least failed to maintain acceptable conditions such as previously existed.
I can agree that populism in some instances "undermines rational governance and the integrity of republics." but what's the original cause that gives rise to populism if it isn't discontent in some form or another? People don't join populist movements on a whim, do they? There typically has to be an underlying element of discontent, and the perception that those responsible for maintaining order have failed in that duty.
Take the MAGA movement for example. Is that not a reaction to deteriorating economic conditions, combined with an aversion to woke ideology? Is woke ideology itself a form of populism I wonder? Their objections to the status quo seem to be mostly imaginary, but of course not in their minds, so that could be a counter example I guess.
The reason I dropped Korzybski on you is that central to his thesis is the meaning of words, and how abstract nouns (lacking material referents) can mean different things to different people. A republic, for example, as defined by Webster:
(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
(3) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
OK, so (1) is clear enough. (2) is self-referential (3) refers to a"body of citizens" but doesn't specify who they are. In Early America, that would be white males who owned property, so does that qualify as a republic? What about Rome? Iran calls itself a republic and has the institutions required for decision making by a "body of citizens" but those choices are determined by Sharia Law as interpreted by a council of mullahs, so is Iran really a republic in the strict sense of the word?
As much as possible I try to anchor my beliefs in something approaching objective reality, one feature of which is the chain of cause and effect. So what's the cause that gives rise to populism? Not a functioning republic that meets the needs of the majority surely?
Korzybski is a foundational element in my own 'belief system' because he makes the notion of a 'belief system' explicit. We all have one, but not all of us are aware of it (most aren't I would argue). In addition, a 'belief system' doesn't have to be true to successfully function as an organizing principle. Religion is the best example here. Finally, a key component of his thesis is the importance of asking oneself "why do I believe the things I do" or more colloquially, "what the hell was I thinking" (when my best laid plans go astray)?
For me, the foundation of contemporary epistemology was laid by Korzybski and later expanded by Marshal McLuhan, with additional observations by Marvin Harris (Cultural Materialism). I would also include James Grier Miller's 'Living Systems' but good luck finding a hardback at an affordable price. here's a PDF.
For me, the central issue is 'belief systems' and any sound analysis begins with the question 'why do I believe the things I do' not 'why do other people believe the things they do.' Most analysts seem to skip that first step.
The root of all forms of inquiry is the need to manage uncertainty, for which I've created a system called (unsurprisingly) Managed Uncertainty, or MU, in honour of Anton Wilson and Douglas Hofstadter, although they use the term a bit differently. It's a work in progress, 'a ship being built at sea' as a former partner described it. It's two basic assumptions are that we seek certainly as a biological imperative- the instinct for survival basically - and that we can never achieve absolute certainty, as the limitations of our senses combined with the underlying structure of material reality precludes that. The best we can hope for is a degree of certainty, and that tempers our confidence in what we 'think' we know, which is always open to revision on the basis of new information.
Interestin' stuff!--the Brits behind the formation of Israel AND their bankers (yup, court joos) likely were not mindful of the facts that Judaism (in original Hebrew, settin' aside misleadin' later translations)-- runs contrary ta BOTH Populism AND Gnosticism. This fact MOST joos DO know, at least if they were raised even "lite-ly" in the faith (I speak from 'sperience)...
(Those who are self-hatin' have no clue.. I'll let that go...)
The anti-jooish elites involved in the formation of Israel were polar opposites to jewish thinkin'-- thus:
1. in Judaism there's a direct phone call ta God, no priests, angels, or "expurts" needed--to wit the famous scenes in "Fiddler on the Roof" where Tevye (an ordinary dairy man!) speaks to god askin' fer guidance an' expectin' an answer (answers come without Tevye realizin' it!)-- Rabbis guide, advise, err an' generally help interpret but they are no more 'n helpers, NOT divine in any way--ditto fer Moses himself--no special "divine gift"--zilch. Just the best guy fer a job. (speakin' of Job--that guy messes up royally an' he's a good example of God not givin' up on his toughest cases!)
This direct-line no "operator" needed approach differs markedly from other faiths where special powers are bestowed upon the priestly class-- Most folks don't know this makes us chews roll a bit differently cuz every schmoe has that direct line... no temple needed, no birthright, no "specialists"... (this isn't about doctors an' laywers an' accountants... ;-)
2. re Populism-- Joos are taught that everyone is good! man is good! we mess up so we must fix but innately good--we don't need God to fergive us if we mess up--we do that ourselfs (Yom Kippur etc). I love Milton (all Miltons! Berle too!) but when it comes ta sin, joos are not born sinners per what we're taught. There is no devil! (There's a guy that is a bit shady to avoid... there is no classic Hell). Nobuddy outside the faith knows this--they draw wrong conclusions..
So... RE both Gnosticism & Populism--ta git a handle on the jooish religion's approach Naomi Wolf has been diggin' inta the original five books of the Torah/Old Testament an' unearthing both the bad later translations (King James bein' the worst!) an' the delightful original Hebrew that shows no impediment 'tween God & us human beans... ADDIN' too that in this same series of readin's we learn quite easily that God believes his creations are all GOOD, not born as sinners--AND we kin fix our screw ups! Even God can (very fallible guy--wuther ya take this stuff literally or as metaphor)--Moses pleads to him not ta destroy all the Golden Calf Worshippers an' abandon 'em all--God obliges. It's a two way conversation!
Here's where you'll find the eye-openin' readings from Naomi --
Contrary ta "popular" opinion (sigh)--even "chosen" doesn't mean "special"--it means DESIGNATED as in "I (God) pick you guys/i.e. da chews, to work on as my test subjects. Yer chosen by me not due to some superior traits but ruther as my very human guinea pigs (kosher sure...) as I'm already familiar with youse guys (prior to Moses & the Ten he already was bizzy workin' on his "invention"--us) AND an' am tryin' ta figger out some laws I think'll stop y'all from feudin' & fightin' an' worse-- Yes, like kids in the front row picked out in class ta pass around the hand-outs. Now (God would say), if a jew I picked sets a good example an' follers my 10 commandments (...er try yer best I don't expect perfection...) you'll be blessed--but either way, even if ya muck it up I won't revoke my covenant." This is what we all were taught-- So even "chosen" is NOT a populist conceit the joos were somehow elites an' should lord it over the non-joos--that's bollocks! --Aside from some folks with big egos that act like their were "God's Gift to Mankind" (we have 'em in every faith--I'll name big headed egotists like this that I abso-loot-ly adore--Teddy Roosevelt & PT Barnum neither joos...) as Joos don't have a patent on big egos at all--"chosen" just means picked. Picked for WORK to DO an' yup, in doin' the work "may they serve as an example set" but only fer follerin' DIRECTIONS -- not b/c "bettah" (folks don't git this either).
THUS the movers & shakers behind the creation of Israel (joos an' non-joos) operated far more in the selfish/Gnostic/Populist British-Venetian vein than what a true-joo would do!
IMHO it so happened that a good thing (creation of Israel's statehood) took place but did so via the not-so-good self-serving graces of the most Anti-Jooish elitists. Those that GRANTED the "gift" also did so with some masonic apron strings that didn't quite work out as planned.. Today tho' nasty "globalists" have their hands ON Israel, the nation's existence runs contrary ta globalism too--if it manages to survive it's really quite the nationlist entity (hence hated by the UN!).
All this ta say that in spite of some crummy / dishonest British-Venetians that started its statehood (mit zum jooish bankers, i.e. the Rotten Rothschilds, natch)--an' in spite of it not behavin' in MANY ways like the Jooish State it should be (by virtue of abandonin' many of its jooish values--here I speak of leaders, not of the ordinary citizens)...WERE it to do so I daresay it COULD be both a jooish state in practice AND a democratic republic which'd be more consistent with jooish values an' faith actCHEWally (indeed a lota ta chew on)--
I find Rose's argument a little sophistic and tenuous. Notably, he ignores the fact that Aristotle makes a clear distinction between the natural slave on the one hand, and the conventional slave on the other, conflating it all into support by Aristotle for slavery in general.
"....Rose reveals how populism, driven by emotion and prejudice, undermines rational governance and the integrity of republics."
The guy's got cause and effect reversed. Populism is a reaction to a lack of rational governance and the integrity of republics.
Peter, put this one on your reading list if you haven't done so already:
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=science%20and%20sanity
here's a short synopsis:
https://www.holybooks.com/science-and-sanity-by-alfred-korzybski/
I don’t think he’s got it reversed. The assumptions being that for a functioning republic one needs a literate and moral population, with their God-given critical thinking skills in tact. “Western” countries have had all three of those vectors systematically reduced for about 130 years. I’ll take a look at your recommendation.
I looked at a few different definitions of the term 'populism' and they all seem to contain an element of the common people in opposition to an elite which has either abused its position, or at least failed to maintain acceptable conditions such as previously existed.
I can agree that populism in some instances "undermines rational governance and the integrity of republics." but what's the original cause that gives rise to populism if it isn't discontent in some form or another? People don't join populist movements on a whim, do they? There typically has to be an underlying element of discontent, and the perception that those responsible for maintaining order have failed in that duty.
Take the MAGA movement for example. Is that not a reaction to deteriorating economic conditions, combined with an aversion to woke ideology? Is woke ideology itself a form of populism I wonder? Their objections to the status quo seem to be mostly imaginary, but of course not in their minds, so that could be a counter example I guess.
The reason I dropped Korzybski on you is that central to his thesis is the meaning of words, and how abstract nouns (lacking material referents) can mean different things to different people. A republic, for example, as defined by Webster:
(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
(3) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
OK, so (1) is clear enough. (2) is self-referential (3) refers to a"body of citizens" but doesn't specify who they are. In Early America, that would be white males who owned property, so does that qualify as a republic? What about Rome? Iran calls itself a republic and has the institutions required for decision making by a "body of citizens" but those choices are determined by Sharia Law as interpreted by a council of mullahs, so is Iran really a republic in the strict sense of the word?
As much as possible I try to anchor my beliefs in something approaching objective reality, one feature of which is the chain of cause and effect. So what's the cause that gives rise to populism? Not a functioning republic that meets the needs of the majority surely?
Korzybski is a foundational element in my own 'belief system' because he makes the notion of a 'belief system' explicit. We all have one, but not all of us are aware of it (most aren't I would argue). In addition, a 'belief system' doesn't have to be true to successfully function as an organizing principle. Religion is the best example here. Finally, a key component of his thesis is the importance of asking oneself "why do I believe the things I do" or more colloquially, "what the hell was I thinking" (when my best laid plans go astray)?
For me, the foundation of contemporary epistemology was laid by Korzybski and later expanded by Marshal McLuhan, with additional observations by Marvin Harris (Cultural Materialism). I would also include James Grier Miller's 'Living Systems' but good luck finding a hardback at an affordable price. here's a PDF.
https://archive.org/details/livingsystems0000mill_e7d6
For me, the central issue is 'belief systems' and any sound analysis begins with the question 'why do I believe the things I do' not 'why do other people believe the things they do.' Most analysts seem to skip that first step.
The root of all forms of inquiry is the need to manage uncertainty, for which I've created a system called (unsurprisingly) Managed Uncertainty, or MU, in honour of Anton Wilson and Douglas Hofstadter, although they use the term a bit differently. It's a work in progress, 'a ship being built at sea' as a former partner described it. It's two basic assumptions are that we seek certainly as a biological imperative- the instinct for survival basically - and that we can never achieve absolute certainty, as the limitations of our senses combined with the underlying structure of material reality precludes that. The best we can hope for is a degree of certainty, and that tempers our confidence in what we 'think' we know, which is always open to revision on the basis of new information.
https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-populism-and-why-does-it-have-a-bad-reputation-109874
https://theconversation.com/populism-can-degrade-democracy-but-is-on-the-rise-heres-what-causes-this-political-movement-and-how-it-can-be-weakened-222323
https://www.thoughtco.com/populism-definition-and-examples-4121051
Interestin' stuff!--the Brits behind the formation of Israel AND their bankers (yup, court joos) likely were not mindful of the facts that Judaism (in original Hebrew, settin' aside misleadin' later translations)-- runs contrary ta BOTH Populism AND Gnosticism. This fact MOST joos DO know, at least if they were raised even "lite-ly" in the faith (I speak from 'sperience)...
(Those who are self-hatin' have no clue.. I'll let that go...)
The anti-jooish elites involved in the formation of Israel were polar opposites to jewish thinkin'-- thus:
1. in Judaism there's a direct phone call ta God, no priests, angels, or "expurts" needed--to wit the famous scenes in "Fiddler on the Roof" where Tevye (an ordinary dairy man!) speaks to god askin' fer guidance an' expectin' an answer (answers come without Tevye realizin' it!)-- Rabbis guide, advise, err an' generally help interpret but they are no more 'n helpers, NOT divine in any way--ditto fer Moses himself--no special "divine gift"--zilch. Just the best guy fer a job. (speakin' of Job--that guy messes up royally an' he's a good example of God not givin' up on his toughest cases!)
This direct-line no "operator" needed approach differs markedly from other faiths where special powers are bestowed upon the priestly class-- Most folks don't know this makes us chews roll a bit differently cuz every schmoe has that direct line... no temple needed, no birthright, no "specialists"... (this isn't about doctors an' laywers an' accountants... ;-)
2. re Populism-- Joos are taught that everyone is good! man is good! we mess up so we must fix but innately good--we don't need God to fergive us if we mess up--we do that ourselfs (Yom Kippur etc). I love Milton (all Miltons! Berle too!) but when it comes ta sin, joos are not born sinners per what we're taught. There is no devil! (There's a guy that is a bit shady to avoid... there is no classic Hell). Nobuddy outside the faith knows this--they draw wrong conclusions..
So... RE both Gnosticism & Populism--ta git a handle on the jooish religion's approach Naomi Wolf has been diggin' inta the original five books of the Torah/Old Testament an' unearthing both the bad later translations (King James bein' the worst!) an' the delightful original Hebrew that shows no impediment 'tween God & us human beans... ADDIN' too that in this same series of readin's we learn quite easily that God believes his creations are all GOOD, not born as sinners--AND we kin fix our screw ups! Even God can (very fallible guy--wuther ya take this stuff literally or as metaphor)--Moses pleads to him not ta destroy all the Golden Calf Worshippers an' abandon 'em all--God obliges. It's a two way conversation!
Here's where you'll find the eye-openin' readings from Naomi --
https://genevabiblereadingsbynaomiwolf.substack.com/?
ALSO...
Contrary ta "popular" opinion (sigh)--even "chosen" doesn't mean "special"--it means DESIGNATED as in "I (God) pick you guys/i.e. da chews, to work on as my test subjects. Yer chosen by me not due to some superior traits but ruther as my very human guinea pigs (kosher sure...) as I'm already familiar with youse guys (prior to Moses & the Ten he already was bizzy workin' on his "invention"--us) AND an' am tryin' ta figger out some laws I think'll stop y'all from feudin' & fightin' an' worse-- Yes, like kids in the front row picked out in class ta pass around the hand-outs. Now (God would say), if a jew I picked sets a good example an' follers my 10 commandments (...er try yer best I don't expect perfection...) you'll be blessed--but either way, even if ya muck it up I won't revoke my covenant." This is what we all were taught-- So even "chosen" is NOT a populist conceit the joos were somehow elites an' should lord it over the non-joos--that's bollocks! --Aside from some folks with big egos that act like their were "God's Gift to Mankind" (we have 'em in every faith--I'll name big headed egotists like this that I abso-loot-ly adore--Teddy Roosevelt & PT Barnum neither joos...) as Joos don't have a patent on big egos at all--"chosen" just means picked. Picked for WORK to DO an' yup, in doin' the work "may they serve as an example set" but only fer follerin' DIRECTIONS -- not b/c "bettah" (folks don't git this either).
THUS the movers & shakers behind the creation of Israel (joos an' non-joos) operated far more in the selfish/Gnostic/Populist British-Venetian vein than what a true-joo would do!
IMHO it so happened that a good thing (creation of Israel's statehood) took place but did so via the not-so-good self-serving graces of the most Anti-Jooish elitists. Those that GRANTED the "gift" also did so with some masonic apron strings that didn't quite work out as planned.. Today tho' nasty "globalists" have their hands ON Israel, the nation's existence runs contrary ta globalism too--if it manages to survive it's really quite the nationlist entity (hence hated by the UN!).
All this ta say that in spite of some crummy / dishonest British-Venetians that started its statehood (mit zum jooish bankers, i.e. the Rotten Rothschilds, natch)--an' in spite of it not behavin' in MANY ways like the Jooish State it should be (by virtue of abandonin' many of its jooish values--here I speak of leaders, not of the ordinary citizens)...WERE it to do so I daresay it COULD be both a jooish state in practice AND a democratic republic which'd be more consistent with jooish values an' faith actCHEWally (indeed a lota ta chew on)--
Good stuff this info tho!
I find Rose's argument a little sophistic and tenuous. Notably, he ignores the fact that Aristotle makes a clear distinction between the natural slave on the one hand, and the conventional slave on the other, conflating it all into support by Aristotle for slavery in general.