In today's episode John and Adam deconstruct the Republic National Convention, Trump's speech, recent trouble in Munich, the WikiLeaks release of the DNC's emails, and a host of other issues. This episode is a splendid three hours.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
No Agenda Show - Episode 843 "Save the Date"
Friday, July 15, 2016
No Agenda Show - Episode 842 "Cannmed"
Monday, July 11, 2016
No Agenda Show - Episode 841 "Summer of Chaos"
Thursday, July 7, 2016
24
Originally posted by Kevin Minus here.
My co-admin said this: “In order for libertarians to gain a foothold in congress, we’d have to do two things libertarians generally hate doing. That is learn to play the political game and the art of compromise.”
My co-admin said this: “In order for libertarians to gain a foothold in congress, we’d have to do two things libertarians generally hate doing. That is learn to play the political game and the art of compromise.”
I think what he said was right but it needs to be expanded.
First and foremost, we need to define what we mean by “libertarians”. LP members and ideologically libertarians are not always the same group. In fact, the latter outnumbers the former several times over.
Let’s assume that we are talking about the LP members for a moment. In order for Libertarians to gain a foothold in congress, Libertarians needs to start with State and Local government positions and build upon those successes. Right now there are currently 143 LP members in office and 39 of those positions are partisan. For some perspective, consider this:
There are almost 520,000 elected offices in the US. 0.000075% of those positions are claimed by Libertarian Party….. For the LP members, just getting elected to any position would be a victory. Dog catcher, State rep, city council, anything that they can get their hands on. The idea is to get exposure for the party and shift the numbers a big. This will probably take generations of work so I hope they are in it for the long haul…
So let’s shift for a moment to the “ideological” libertarians. I think sisyphean task is best shown when you had a person like Rand Paul (who wasn’t even libertarian but close) polling at 2-3% throughout his entire time running for POTUS. I said once that Paul wasn’t running for Pastor of the libertarian unification church, I should have been more precise: Paul couldn’t run under the platform of L/libertarian unification even if he wanted to. No one wanted what he was selling.
This is where my co-admins comments ring true. We do need to play ball with Liberals and Conservatives because they hold almost all of the power. I think our best bet politically is to get elected and start to influence both parties. Outside of the political process, we need more youth outright in order to raise a generation of people who are more likely to vote along *our* ideas (more on this later). If we are trying to win scores of people during POTUS elections, we have already lost. The Party nor the ideologically aligned will never win in this way. The numbers just aren’t on our side.
The average voter does care about liberty but many do care about safety, who will build the roads, who will feed the poor and who will do xyz. If we approach them with our “The market will provide it” platitude, we will lose many people simply because of entrenchment. Even in places where the “market” is already providing it in some places such as water suppliers (more on this later as well).
Put a different way, the average voter cares about liberty on their terms, defined by their ideology, their faith their community etc. This is not captured well in Individualism, especially in the Black Community. Liberty is safety and collective safety in the minds of many people. This is not an entirely bad position nor is it something L/libertarians should reject IMO. The critique L/libertarians should have is along the lines of who gets to draw the lines of community. A sort of libertarian communitarianism is what I think, *will* draw many people towards this way of thinking. In other words, we care about you and the people in your community. We want to empower you and your neighbors.
I think this is the major issue is the LP members and the ideologically aligned libertarians do not want the same thing. I think there are similar goals, and the methods to get towards those goals are similar but there is significant conflict. Assuming he was still running, Rand Paul as a fully actualized libertarian aligned Republicans would be antithetical to the goals of the LP (because the LP and the GOP are competitors). The same goes for any libertarian aligned member of the “Liberty” caucus or any similarly aligned members of the Democratic Party. I think this is important to keep in mind, although not entirely necessary because of the low impact of the LP in politics. Ultimately I believe that the LP should resign attempting to get into federal positions and focus for the next decade on getting elected in State and local positions. I think ideologically aligned libertarians should focus on building coalitions in the existing major parties and inject as much libertarianism as possible into the mix. When those two goals are in conflict, the LP members should defer to the ideologically aligned libertarian in the major party. If there is none, proceed with the campaign process.
Black Conservatives and Black Libertarianism
By Kevin Minus and originally posted here.
First, I think that it is entirely possible to be a Black Conservative without any conflict, if and only if certain precautions are taken and certain mindsets are avoided. However, there is a certain brand of Black Conservatism that is damaging to the former institution in order to support the latter. Reactionary Black Conservatives (RBC) are people that I dislike the most and people I believe, have the least to offer regarding moving the Black Community forward outside of more outright racist. In my personal experience, anyone who makes an attempt to live the mindset of a Liberal Democrat has the potential of becoming a RBC. I think this happens for several reasons but the main reason is that it takes a level of energy to overcome to Inertia of Liberalism. I think that while intellectualism and its pursuits are a preferred force to overcome inertia, they are far less accessible than what can what powers many over the cliff: hate and anger. While it may be perfectly rational to hate certain things and be angry about other things, left unchecked it can fester then metastasize and become your dominant ideology, without you realizing it. This happened to me in the past when I abandoned the left. I became conservative, latched onto the plentiful hate and eventually became a RBC for a time. It was only after I settled into myself, actually studied a little philosophy and did a self-examination did I realize what had happened and what I needed to change about myself and what I was consuming.
I see RBCs on my Facebook timeline who went down a much darker and deeper path than I, where hate of the left and self-hate commingled in a witches’ brew of ideology, dogma and contrarian fiction. I see what I was and what I could have become. I see famous ones, with their gaggles of non-black supporters, who use them as a source of validation, a security blanket and a tool to prevent discussion and analysis. They are swords and shields. “So and So said this and he is black, therefore” should be prepended to someone of the videos that are shared from certain actors. In future post, I plan this will be elucidated but I think there is an easy test to see what sort of Black Conservative you are dealing with: Look at who makes up their support. The RBCs will almost always be more popular because of the role they play. The more principled Black Conservatives will be called traitors and race baiters and eventually be cast aside as something less Conservative.
One of my goals is to make sure that Black Libertarianism does not have the same relationship to Conservatism has to RBCs. I’ve seen some of the evidence of a similar movement in some of my interactions but I mostly think this is due to the great shadow that Conservatism casts across L/libertarians. It’s important for me personally that Liberty and Libertarianism be something that supports my Blackness and ethnic identity and not something that would cause a false choice. A multifaceted and modular framework is what I believe the movement must be in order for it to survive in any usable form. I believe that is what Black Libertarians (and all Libertarians) must work towards. That is purpose of this blog. I hope in whatever small way I can, I help make New Liberty.
First, I think that it is entirely possible to be a Black Conservative without any conflict, if and only if certain precautions are taken and certain mindsets are avoided. However, there is a certain brand of Black Conservatism that is damaging to the former institution in order to support the latter. Reactionary Black Conservatives (RBC) are people that I dislike the most and people I believe, have the least to offer regarding moving the Black Community forward outside of more outright racist. In my personal experience, anyone who makes an attempt to live the mindset of a Liberal Democrat has the potential of becoming a RBC. I think this happens for several reasons but the main reason is that it takes a level of energy to overcome to Inertia of Liberalism. I think that while intellectualism and its pursuits are a preferred force to overcome inertia, they are far less accessible than what can what powers many over the cliff: hate and anger. While it may be perfectly rational to hate certain things and be angry about other things, left unchecked it can fester then metastasize and become your dominant ideology, without you realizing it. This happened to me in the past when I abandoned the left. I became conservative, latched onto the plentiful hate and eventually became a RBC for a time. It was only after I settled into myself, actually studied a little philosophy and did a self-examination did I realize what had happened and what I needed to change about myself and what I was consuming.
I see RBCs on my Facebook timeline who went down a much darker and deeper path than I, where hate of the left and self-hate commingled in a witches’ brew of ideology, dogma and contrarian fiction. I see what I was and what I could have become. I see famous ones, with their gaggles of non-black supporters, who use them as a source of validation, a security blanket and a tool to prevent discussion and analysis. They are swords and shields. “So and So said this and he is black, therefore” should be prepended to someone of the videos that are shared from certain actors. In future post, I plan this will be elucidated but I think there is an easy test to see what sort of Black Conservative you are dealing with: Look at who makes up their support. The RBCs will almost always be more popular because of the role they play. The more principled Black Conservatives will be called traitors and race baiters and eventually be cast aside as something less Conservative.
One of my goals is to make sure that Black Libertarianism does not have the same relationship to Conservatism has to RBCs. I’ve seen some of the evidence of a similar movement in some of my interactions but I mostly think this is due to the great shadow that Conservatism casts across L/libertarians. It’s important for me personally that Liberty and Libertarianism be something that supports my Blackness and ethnic identity and not something that would cause a false choice. A multifaceted and modular framework is what I believe the movement must be in order for it to survive in any usable form. I believe that is what Black Libertarians (and all Libertarians) must work towards. That is purpose of this blog. I hope in whatever small way I can, I help make New Liberty.
Thoughts on Jesse Williams
By Kevin Minus and originally posted here.
Maybe this makes me less woke than most but I wasn’t impressed by the Jesse Williams speech. It didn’t move me, I wasn’t inspired and ultimately, I didn’t think too much of it.
Why? Well that’s twofold:
0: A speech like that, while provocative, was done in the “safest” possible way possible. It’s the *BET* awards, not the Emmy’s. Racial commentary is almost a requirement whenever we gather for any reason in a post Black Lives Matters world.
1: The content itself wasn’t fresh to me at all. In fact, I believe I could tag no less than 20 people on my Facebook feed and produce a speech that is similar in message or even more radical. It was measured, it was almost paint by the numbers “woke” commentary.
The speech wasn’t that interesting but the responses where. White (and black) conservative commentators responded to an apparent attack with vapid retorts. Black commentators responding about how much they love it, while others bringing up colorism and its impact on the situation. This was not just limited to Facebook comments and memes either. It was a real Willie Lynch death spiral, predictable and depressing. Other commentators calling for “unity” and that we should accept “the message” from any source.
Race is political and skin tone matters in this context.
What about that message? What *exactly* is the point? Has Black Intelligensia really changed since the 60s or 70s? Where are the market oriented solutions? Even when talking about the market, race lathers, always in the foreground.
I wish Jesse had said, look, go move your money to this bank or buy X product from this seller because they support the community. That, would have been evolutionary to me, but it also may have pissed off the advertisers.
Stacey Dash called Jesse Williams a “Hollywood Plantation slave.” She wasn’t entirely wrong in one sense. Of course, since she is a right wing Conservative plantation slave, she has no room to talk. The free are those who absolutely control their own destiny or have relinquished the need to control said destiny. I doubt either of them meet either requirement.
The next time a famous black person gets a platform and wants to talk about revolution, I want to hear about some stock tips or investment advise at scale. Give me some information to reduce my debt. Tell me how I can be healthier or how I can reduce stress in my life. Tell me how to start a sustainable business or double my income. I need help with my real problems, I don’t need a rallying cry to fight for progressive values. At some point, the (r)evolution must be commodified and turned into a usable product. I look forward to that day.
Maybe this makes me less woke than most but I wasn’t impressed by the Jesse Williams speech. It didn’t move me, I wasn’t inspired and ultimately, I didn’t think too much of it.
Why? Well that’s twofold:
0: A speech like that, while provocative, was done in the “safest” possible way possible. It’s the *BET* awards, not the Emmy’s. Racial commentary is almost a requirement whenever we gather for any reason in a post Black Lives Matters world.
1: The content itself wasn’t fresh to me at all. In fact, I believe I could tag no less than 20 people on my Facebook feed and produce a speech that is similar in message or even more radical. It was measured, it was almost paint by the numbers “woke” commentary.
The speech wasn’t that interesting but the responses where. White (and black) conservative commentators responded to an apparent attack with vapid retorts. Black commentators responding about how much they love it, while others bringing up colorism and its impact on the situation. This was not just limited to Facebook comments and memes either. It was a real Willie Lynch death spiral, predictable and depressing. Other commentators calling for “unity” and that we should accept “the message” from any source.
Race is political and skin tone matters in this context.
What about that message? What *exactly* is the point? Has Black Intelligensia really changed since the 60s or 70s? Where are the market oriented solutions? Even when talking about the market, race lathers, always in the foreground.
I wish Jesse had said, look, go move your money to this bank or buy X product from this seller because they support the community. That, would have been evolutionary to me, but it also may have pissed off the advertisers.
Stacey Dash called Jesse Williams a “Hollywood Plantation slave.” She wasn’t entirely wrong in one sense. Of course, since she is a right wing Conservative plantation slave, she has no room to talk. The free are those who absolutely control their own destiny or have relinquished the need to control said destiny. I doubt either of them meet either requirement.
The next time a famous black person gets a platform and wants to talk about revolution, I want to hear about some stock tips or investment advise at scale. Give me some information to reduce my debt. Tell me how I can be healthier or how I can reduce stress in my life. Tell me how to start a sustainable business or double my income. I need help with my real problems, I don’t need a rallying cry to fight for progressive values. At some point, the (r)evolution must be commodified and turned into a usable product. I look forward to that day.
Monday, July 4, 2016
The No Agenda Show - Episode 839: "Spatchcock"
Friday, July 1, 2016
The No Agenda Show - Episode 838: "Hillary and the Vase"
For episode 838 Adam and John discuss the Brexit, Hillary Clinton, and all things "shut up, slave." Don't miss it.
Monday, June 27, 2016
The Art in art (or the art in Art) : Integrity
As a creative person and an artist I am, like, most artists, constantly striving to make work that satisfies both my vision and my compulsion. To create for the purpose of selling and making money is a noteworthy endeavor, but the most grinding of monotonous boredom. It takes a very particular commission to generate any interest or enthusiasm. To create for concept and dialogue is increasingly pointless. Any position you can take has been already taken by any number of other artists, both more and less capable. This ensures that the only way to have your art received well enough to begin that dialogue (outside an academic setting) is to make it "original", which is the third possible point of satisfaction that engages an artist. However, you can ignore the amalgam of art history and pretend that you are being original until you are confronted with the evidence that you are not, or you can fall prey to the notion that "there is nothing new under the sun" (which is quite biblical, but seems limiting to an artist's hopes that he/she can make a truly unique piece), but I don't see the way to escape either conclusion for long.
This promotes a certain despair in the artist's mindset that is typically already besieged with the inadequacies of the world around, and can serve as a damper to many possible projects or concepts.
Fortunately, contemporary art practices provides an idea that supersedes those three formats and allows an artist to make work under the proposition of integrity. I was first introduced to the idea of integrity as an art student. It was immediately appealing in that it seemed to validate that I cold make anything as long as I was "true" to the integrity of my vision. This of course is a misapplied and simplified twist of the whole idea, as integrity is not quite malleable into the relativistic idea that my art must be accepted as such if I can "prove" the validity and integrity of my work and concepts, although a large part of formal art training is the proving of just such an idea.
Personally, I have reached the point where the making of art under that pretense is no more satisfying than making it for money, concept, or originality, which sometimes threatens to derail any project I begin.
There is another way to look at the idea of integrity though that does provide reason and impetus to continue work. This way is sort of the esoteric shibui (beauty with inner implications) of the concept integrity. It is this concept that provides me with an external meaning for integrity with which to work, and I am not long into any piece or idea before I get the sense that I am within this aesthetic integrity or not. It is becoming my basis for achieving, through this integrity, any of the other form/means that come with an artistic expression.
When it works it is an amazing thing. When it falls short it is excruciating.
This type of integrity begins with (though it has become fashionably trite to say) the zen of material- to not necessarily master, but to know and to respect the medium. It is to use the nature of that medium to be what it is, rather than fight against and make it what it is not. *For more on the origins and explanations of this idea see pre-restoration Japanese wooden sculptures and the particular and reverent architecture of Shinto shrines.
This truth to material allows for more manipulation of the material and better control over how it may represent the overall concept.
Working past the material is the tricky part. There are many moments that the concept must be tested and revised and shifted, but there is one moment in particular that is the point where the idea must stand or fall on its own. It is the point where material, concept, and craftsmanship must meet. Failure to do so does not mean a piece can't be successful, but rather that its execution lacks some quality. This is 98% of an artists finished personal work. (which is why we keep making, or fall into making the same thing over and over and over). And that doesn't include those pieces that were doomed from the start but the artist fails to notice...
I wish I could better describe the end of this aesthetic integrity (for me), but it is, unfortunately only 2%, and often seems to conflict in resolution, Sometimes I am satisfied and simply walk away from it, as detached as Greenburg ever could be. This is what I think the exemplar should be; that the piece can be let go, to exist on its own as it were. Other times, I admit, I am too attached, and don't want to let a piece go and this becomes a fetter and an expectation of future work. On rare occasion, this feeling is due to the exceptional success of the piece (though I have seen others wonder how that could be, considering what they are looking at- so in a way it still falls short in some respects of audience) but this only partially ameliorates the problem.
So it is this sense of artistic integrity that demands attention to material, defines the level of craftsmanship, and tests the overall vision or concept. The search for it in my work is exacting and frustrating. It leads to many abandoned or never begun projects, and I hope really that I am not in some way hindering myself with such demands. Many are the times I have struggled through a piece only to bury it so that it may never be seen by mortal eyes (that may be a slight exaggeration). Is it worth it? Will it lead me to that philosophic aesthetic I am looking for? I don't know yet. I may not for a while
But, it keeps me working.
This promotes a certain despair in the artist's mindset that is typically already besieged with the inadequacies of the world around, and can serve as a damper to many possible projects or concepts.
Fortunately, contemporary art practices provides an idea that supersedes those three formats and allows an artist to make work under the proposition of integrity. I was first introduced to the idea of integrity as an art student. It was immediately appealing in that it seemed to validate that I cold make anything as long as I was "true" to the integrity of my vision. This of course is a misapplied and simplified twist of the whole idea, as integrity is not quite malleable into the relativistic idea that my art must be accepted as such if I can "prove" the validity and integrity of my work and concepts, although a large part of formal art training is the proving of just such an idea.
Personally, I have reached the point where the making of art under that pretense is no more satisfying than making it for money, concept, or originality, which sometimes threatens to derail any project I begin.
There is another way to look at the idea of integrity though that does provide reason and impetus to continue work. This way is sort of the esoteric shibui (beauty with inner implications) of the concept integrity. It is this concept that provides me with an external meaning for integrity with which to work, and I am not long into any piece or idea before I get the sense that I am within this aesthetic integrity or not. It is becoming my basis for achieving, through this integrity, any of the other form/means that come with an artistic expression.
When it works it is an amazing thing. When it falls short it is excruciating.
This type of integrity begins with (though it has become fashionably trite to say) the zen of material- to not necessarily master, but to know and to respect the medium. It is to use the nature of that medium to be what it is, rather than fight against and make it what it is not. *For more on the origins and explanations of this idea see pre-restoration Japanese wooden sculptures and the particular and reverent architecture of Shinto shrines.
This truth to material allows for more manipulation of the material and better control over how it may represent the overall concept.
Working past the material is the tricky part. There are many moments that the concept must be tested and revised and shifted, but there is one moment in particular that is the point where the idea must stand or fall on its own. It is the point where material, concept, and craftsmanship must meet. Failure to do so does not mean a piece can't be successful, but rather that its execution lacks some quality. This is 98% of an artists finished personal work. (which is why we keep making, or fall into making the same thing over and over and over). And that doesn't include those pieces that were doomed from the start but the artist fails to notice...
I wish I could better describe the end of this aesthetic integrity (for me), but it is, unfortunately only 2%, and often seems to conflict in resolution, Sometimes I am satisfied and simply walk away from it, as detached as Greenburg ever could be. This is what I think the exemplar should be; that the piece can be let go, to exist on its own as it were. Other times, I admit, I am too attached, and don't want to let a piece go and this becomes a fetter and an expectation of future work. On rare occasion, this feeling is due to the exceptional success of the piece (though I have seen others wonder how that could be, considering what they are looking at- so in a way it still falls short in some respects of audience) but this only partially ameliorates the problem.
So it is this sense of artistic integrity that demands attention to material, defines the level of craftsmanship, and tests the overall vision or concept. The search for it in my work is exacting and frustrating. It leads to many abandoned or never begun projects, and I hope really that I am not in some way hindering myself with such demands. Many are the times I have struggled through a piece only to bury it so that it may never be seen by mortal eyes (that may be a slight exaggeration). Is it worth it? Will it lead me to that philosophic aesthetic I am looking for? I don't know yet. I may not for a while
But, it keeps me working.
A Brief History on the Nature and Habits of the Absolute Relativist
(a tongue-in-cheek look at a contemporary occurrence)
There has been, on any number of occasions, the opportunity to observe the peculiarities of a relatively new creature that has become increasingly more common, as well as more prodigious, since the advent of the 21st century. A strange creature, of dubious logical positioning, that has come to be known as Relativus absoluta (a semi-Latinate designation that translates to Absolute Relativist). The meaning of the appellation deriving from the terms absolute-being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships (def 9) and relativist- a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them (def 2).
It is, of course, readily apparent that the terms, when juxtaposed, are contraindicative and establish an oxymoron, a device to be avoided generally speaking, except in such instances as its use in satire or in circumstances of irony, such as is the case herein.
This creature, the Absolute Relativist, can trace its ancestry directly to the demise of Modernist theory in the mid-20th century and the advent of post-Modern theory, along with its cousin Deconstructivism. Modernism itself can trace its lineage through time back to the Enlightenment period of the late 18th century and the intertwining of scientific thought as praxis for the dissemination of world-view, rather than spirituality, myth, religion, faith, or, dare I say, the sublime. This scientific-ism did not fully gestate into its present form until the first World War shredded the utopian idealism of the pre-war western world, leaving literature, Art, and philosophy, seeing the ramifications, in a desperate search for meaning, especially grand unifying meaning.
The search, through Modernism, proved fruitless however, as western thought dismantled itself, and the underlying structure necessary to build upon, at the same time it attempted to apprehend this universal concept. As an aside, it would be remiss here not to note the schism between the actually of scientific thought and the practice of what is considered scientific thought in the sense that science, built upon pre-existing thought, when proven deficient can discard meaningless attribute and rebuild on established systems whereas what is considered scientific thought had no such solid foundation, but must instead redefine terms to avoid structural calamity. The search through the rubble for the former yields Laws and Theory, through the latter there is only more rubble.
Much like the scientist searching for the building blocks of matter and finding ever smaller pieces with ever more peculiar qualities so too the artist, writer, thinker, found less adhesion between thought and reality, though the non-scientist had no Law of Universal Gravitation to revert to stop the free fall. In science this is called Uncertainty. In the Arts it is called Post-Modernism, and in philosophy it is called Relativism.
With this said, it is not important to fully attend the process theory and resultant implications of post-modern relativist thought beyond one simple clarification. To the relativist, meaning is a fluid concept, ever changing, dependent on time, location, and circumstance. Reality is an instantaneous concept, fragmentary, and only coalescing as reality when it is observed through the subjective lens of culture, locale, period, and of course, intelligence. It is not the perception of an objective reality the true relativist denies, but rather the actuality of an objective reality altogether, as reality can be said to be only the convention of subjective discernment.
Very few relativists will acknowledge the fundamental flaw inherent in their world-view, such as Sartre, and of those few most will attempt once again to redefine terms to avoid the problem, such as Dawkins. This flaw can be summed up in the proposition that making an inviolable statement that there are no inviolable statements violates not only the Law of Non-contradiction but also relativism’s most basic tenet.
The Absolute Relativist takes this one step further, not only refusing to recognize this contradiction, but to magnify it to the point of absurdity. Such a creature will not only state that it is absolutely true that everything is relative to subjectivity, but that this point of view is absolutely true and can be deduced from objective empirical data, such as observation. This is to say that the Absolute Relativist claims that there is no external objective source, for truth and value propositions, but that through personal experience they have discovered absolute values and truths. Some such claims made by these creatures are the following: that there is no God (an absolute statement to end all absolute statements, and it is also important to note that, due to their very nature, this is claimed to be not a mere belief, but an exhaustive fact), that people (implying all) are better off today than they used to be, morality is an effect of evolution (people are nice to each other because of it), science is always right (Kuhn begs to differ), being kind makes you good (a valueless statement without a scale by which to measure), and that morality (defined as how to be a good person) has no objective impetus yet is a universal proposition that holds true regardless of the relative situation of cultural, societal, religious, and historical context and is discoverable only by evolution, intelligence, and experience. While this may hold true for some manners of technology or medical practice it seems illogical to infer that there has been a time when people could not have been moral because they were un-evolved or lived outside the proper timeframe.
There has been, on any number of occasions, the opportunity to observe the peculiarities of a relatively new creature that has become increasingly more common, as well as more prodigious, since the advent of the 21st century. A strange creature, of dubious logical positioning, that has come to be known as Relativus absoluta (a semi-Latinate designation that translates to Absolute Relativist). The meaning of the appellation deriving from the terms absolute-being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships (def 9) and relativist- a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them (def 2).
It is, of course, readily apparent that the terms, when juxtaposed, are contraindicative and establish an oxymoron, a device to be avoided generally speaking, except in such instances as its use in satire or in circumstances of irony, such as is the case herein.
This creature, the Absolute Relativist, can trace its ancestry directly to the demise of Modernist theory in the mid-20th century and the advent of post-Modern theory, along with its cousin Deconstructivism. Modernism itself can trace its lineage through time back to the Enlightenment period of the late 18th century and the intertwining of scientific thought as praxis for the dissemination of world-view, rather than spirituality, myth, religion, faith, or, dare I say, the sublime. This scientific-ism did not fully gestate into its present form until the first World War shredded the utopian idealism of the pre-war western world, leaving literature, Art, and philosophy, seeing the ramifications, in a desperate search for meaning, especially grand unifying meaning.
The search, through Modernism, proved fruitless however, as western thought dismantled itself, and the underlying structure necessary to build upon, at the same time it attempted to apprehend this universal concept. As an aside, it would be remiss here not to note the schism between the actually of scientific thought and the practice of what is considered scientific thought in the sense that science, built upon pre-existing thought, when proven deficient can discard meaningless attribute and rebuild on established systems whereas what is considered scientific thought had no such solid foundation, but must instead redefine terms to avoid structural calamity. The search through the rubble for the former yields Laws and Theory, through the latter there is only more rubble.
Much like the scientist searching for the building blocks of matter and finding ever smaller pieces with ever more peculiar qualities so too the artist, writer, thinker, found less adhesion between thought and reality, though the non-scientist had no Law of Universal Gravitation to revert to stop the free fall. In science this is called Uncertainty. In the Arts it is called Post-Modernism, and in philosophy it is called Relativism.
With this said, it is not important to fully attend the process theory and resultant implications of post-modern relativist thought beyond one simple clarification. To the relativist, meaning is a fluid concept, ever changing, dependent on time, location, and circumstance. Reality is an instantaneous concept, fragmentary, and only coalescing as reality when it is observed through the subjective lens of culture, locale, period, and of course, intelligence. It is not the perception of an objective reality the true relativist denies, but rather the actuality of an objective reality altogether, as reality can be said to be only the convention of subjective discernment.
Very few relativists will acknowledge the fundamental flaw inherent in their world-view, such as Sartre, and of those few most will attempt once again to redefine terms to avoid the problem, such as Dawkins. This flaw can be summed up in the proposition that making an inviolable statement that there are no inviolable statements violates not only the Law of Non-contradiction but also relativism’s most basic tenet.
The Absolute Relativist takes this one step further, not only refusing to recognize this contradiction, but to magnify it to the point of absurdity. Such a creature will not only state that it is absolutely true that everything is relative to subjectivity, but that this point of view is absolutely true and can be deduced from objective empirical data, such as observation. This is to say that the Absolute Relativist claims that there is no external objective source, for truth and value propositions, but that through personal experience they have discovered absolute values and truths. Some such claims made by these creatures are the following: that there is no God (an absolute statement to end all absolute statements, and it is also important to note that, due to their very nature, this is claimed to be not a mere belief, but an exhaustive fact), that people (implying all) are better off today than they used to be, morality is an effect of evolution (people are nice to each other because of it), science is always right (Kuhn begs to differ), being kind makes you good (a valueless statement without a scale by which to measure), and that morality (defined as how to be a good person) has no objective impetus yet is a universal proposition that holds true regardless of the relative situation of cultural, societal, religious, and historical context and is discoverable only by evolution, intelligence, and experience. While this may hold true for some manners of technology or medical practice it seems illogical to infer that there has been a time when people could not have been moral because they were un-evolved or lived outside the proper timeframe.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
The No Agenda Show - Episode 837: "Open the Chunnel!"
Adam and John offer their usual splendid media deconstruction with this episode focusing on the Brexit. Don't miss episode 837 and, by all means, keep propagating the formula!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)