Stirner
01-06-2004, 23:18
I originally wrote this for my web forums at http://www.virtualdave.ca/discussiongroup in the "The Pope is Catholic" forum. You may find other interesting things there.
I don't pretend to know much about Hegel, but I have an interest in dialectics as I understand them as a tool of concept-formation. Hegel is soundly criticised by both Karl Popper and Ayn Rand, and I think it would be worth my time to probe further.
I was introduced to dialectics through Robert Leonhard in The Principles of Warfare for the Information Age, specifically in his chapters entitled The Law of Duality and The Arguments of War. Leonhard sought to replace the aphorisms that propagate the modern list of principles of warfare with paired exclusive dualities (e.g.: dislocation/confrontation or distribution/concentration). The art of war then becomes striking the proper balance at the proper time between the paired dualities.
The key with dialectics is that it isn't about opposites, it is about thesis and antithesis.
Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis
Take motion. If motion is a thesis expressed as a vector quantity, it has an antithesis in rest which is a non-vector. 20 km/h east has an opposite of 20 km/h west, and an antithesis of being at rest.
After a bit of thought, I recognized that dialectics are represented in mathematics by absolute values. Maybe you remember this from high school math? An absolute value is expressed like this: |x|
Plot it on a two-axis graph and it looks like a 'v' with:
(-2, 2) (-1, 1) (0, 0) (1, 1) (2, 2), etc.
Here's a quick math lesson (http://www.purplemath.com/modules/graphabs.htm) with graphs if you need a refresher.
I've used dialectics to contemplate a few subjects. Chaos as the antithesis of Order. Death as the antithesis of Life. (Static) Equilibrium as the antithesis of tension.
It turns out I'm in good company. Ayn Rand said that "Life is motion, the antithesis of life is stillness, the essence of death."
How does this apply to politics? Because of a lack of understanding or respect for the prefixes 'il' and 'non', especially in the context of 'illegal' and 'nonlegal'. Most people consider them synonymous. 'Illegal' is in fact the opposite of 'legal', while 'nonlegal' is the antithesis.
I was quizzed by a friend recently about (among other things political) my views on marriage between homosexuals. He found my response difficult to comprehend, and I think his confusion is typical of our society.
The common position in the gay marriage debate is between those that would make it legal and those that want it to remain illegal. Everyone is expected to take one of those positions (usually in line with their general political disposition as well as religious and cultural beliefs). I take the position that gay marriage and traditional marriage should be non-legal, that is to say having nothing to do with law and the state.
Marriage is a declaration and continued recognition of an exclusive commitment between two people. It has a primary and secondary audience. The primary audience is: the two people and God (or in secular marriages just the two people). The secondary audience is the community of the married couple, so they know of this exclusive commitment. That's why marriage ceremonies are traditionally public and there are visible symbols of marriage (e.g.: wedding rings).
In an authoritarian society everything that is not permitted is forbidden. There is very little that is 'non-legal'. Our society often demands a determination of legality/illegality in a great many things, when another viable (and correct) position is: "It's no business of the law."
One of the tenets of modern western society is supposedly a separation of church and state. How did marriage slip through the cracks? The answer probably has something to do with tax benefits or somesuch. State: "Hey, want us to give you a tax rebate? Okay, just register your marriage with Us and say we are a legitimate authority. Be sure your marriage conforms to our boundaries."
Proponents of gay marriage would say that they want gay commitments to be recognized and accepted just like traditional marriages. But legality doesn't change anything about either the primary or secondary audiences of the marriage. We can assume that the two people making the commitment will recognize it even if the state doesn't. And that if one or both of them doesn't recognize it, no state law will make them. Likewise God's acceptance or non-acceptance is not likely influenced by a state law. The secondary audience (the community) is also not state-dependent. To gain acceptance of the community, gay marriage proponents need to use social change, not legal change. Of course they've been doing this social change very well, parallel with legal change. Through education, familiarity, and culture most people are becoming increasingly comfortable with homosexuality. If marriage was non-legal, gay marriage would pretty much be accepted by now. But they want those tax rebates too!
Note that I have no problem with someone refusing to recognize a marriage, gay or otherwise. That's up to them. If they assess a relationship rationally and come to a conclusion about it, for or against its sanctity, that's their business. If they refuse to see it rationally then they are idiots, but there is no law against that. You can't force someone to think.
I predict that we'll soon see a reintroduction of non-traditional marriage-like arrangements, such as polygamy, open-marriages, etc, both religious and secular. Hopefully by then marriage will be non-legal so we won't have to go through the same legislative crap.
The statists don't much mind what they sanction or prohibit through their laws, as long as they are the authority. Activist groups are willing to make a bargain with the statists as long as they promise to support their particular cause. Homosexuals of all people should recognize the dangers of state authority.
I don't pretend to know much about Hegel, but I have an interest in dialectics as I understand them as a tool of concept-formation. Hegel is soundly criticised by both Karl Popper and Ayn Rand, and I think it would be worth my time to probe further.
I was introduced to dialectics through Robert Leonhard in The Principles of Warfare for the Information Age, specifically in his chapters entitled The Law of Duality and The Arguments of War. Leonhard sought to replace the aphorisms that propagate the modern list of principles of warfare with paired exclusive dualities (e.g.: dislocation/confrontation or distribution/concentration). The art of war then becomes striking the proper balance at the proper time between the paired dualities.
The key with dialectics is that it isn't about opposites, it is about thesis and antithesis.
Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis
Take motion. If motion is a thesis expressed as a vector quantity, it has an antithesis in rest which is a non-vector. 20 km/h east has an opposite of 20 km/h west, and an antithesis of being at rest.
After a bit of thought, I recognized that dialectics are represented in mathematics by absolute values. Maybe you remember this from high school math? An absolute value is expressed like this: |x|
Plot it on a two-axis graph and it looks like a 'v' with:
(-2, 2) (-1, 1) (0, 0) (1, 1) (2, 2), etc.
Here's a quick math lesson (http://www.purplemath.com/modules/graphabs.htm) with graphs if you need a refresher.
I've used dialectics to contemplate a few subjects. Chaos as the antithesis of Order. Death as the antithesis of Life. (Static) Equilibrium as the antithesis of tension.
It turns out I'm in good company. Ayn Rand said that "Life is motion, the antithesis of life is stillness, the essence of death."
How does this apply to politics? Because of a lack of understanding or respect for the prefixes 'il' and 'non', especially in the context of 'illegal' and 'nonlegal'. Most people consider them synonymous. 'Illegal' is in fact the opposite of 'legal', while 'nonlegal' is the antithesis.
I was quizzed by a friend recently about (among other things political) my views on marriage between homosexuals. He found my response difficult to comprehend, and I think his confusion is typical of our society.
The common position in the gay marriage debate is between those that would make it legal and those that want it to remain illegal. Everyone is expected to take one of those positions (usually in line with their general political disposition as well as religious and cultural beliefs). I take the position that gay marriage and traditional marriage should be non-legal, that is to say having nothing to do with law and the state.
Marriage is a declaration and continued recognition of an exclusive commitment between two people. It has a primary and secondary audience. The primary audience is: the two people and God (or in secular marriages just the two people). The secondary audience is the community of the married couple, so they know of this exclusive commitment. That's why marriage ceremonies are traditionally public and there are visible symbols of marriage (e.g.: wedding rings).
In an authoritarian society everything that is not permitted is forbidden. There is very little that is 'non-legal'. Our society often demands a determination of legality/illegality in a great many things, when another viable (and correct) position is: "It's no business of the law."
One of the tenets of modern western society is supposedly a separation of church and state. How did marriage slip through the cracks? The answer probably has something to do with tax benefits or somesuch. State: "Hey, want us to give you a tax rebate? Okay, just register your marriage with Us and say we are a legitimate authority. Be sure your marriage conforms to our boundaries."
Proponents of gay marriage would say that they want gay commitments to be recognized and accepted just like traditional marriages. But legality doesn't change anything about either the primary or secondary audiences of the marriage. We can assume that the two people making the commitment will recognize it even if the state doesn't. And that if one or both of them doesn't recognize it, no state law will make them. Likewise God's acceptance or non-acceptance is not likely influenced by a state law. The secondary audience (the community) is also not state-dependent. To gain acceptance of the community, gay marriage proponents need to use social change, not legal change. Of course they've been doing this social change very well, parallel with legal change. Through education, familiarity, and culture most people are becoming increasingly comfortable with homosexuality. If marriage was non-legal, gay marriage would pretty much be accepted by now. But they want those tax rebates too!
Note that I have no problem with someone refusing to recognize a marriage, gay or otherwise. That's up to them. If they assess a relationship rationally and come to a conclusion about it, for or against its sanctity, that's their business. If they refuse to see it rationally then they are idiots, but there is no law against that. You can't force someone to think.
I predict that we'll soon see a reintroduction of non-traditional marriage-like arrangements, such as polygamy, open-marriages, etc, both religious and secular. Hopefully by then marriage will be non-legal so we won't have to go through the same legislative crap.
The statists don't much mind what they sanction or prohibit through their laws, as long as they are the authority. Activist groups are willing to make a bargain with the statists as long as they promise to support their particular cause. Homosexuals of all people should recognize the dangers of state authority.