Essay

“Famous name” in what circles, and famous for what? Discussing “it” would prove “the issue” one way or the other, if that’s your interest. === But about the OP, I want to defend the necessity of political conservatism, in general, while still acknowledging the significant aspects of the right-wing authoritarianism-ness (RWA) that seem to be a common, fairly normal, human trait; a part of the human condition, which seems to arise universally across cultures and history, as if it were to some extent a genetic propensity. Reading E. O. Wilson’s recent book, “The Meaning of Human Existence,” I came across some lines, in chapter 13, entitled “Religion,” which seem to address this very subject; this RWA human trait. Wilson is the "father of evolutionary biology" and coined the term sociobiology, iirc. He writes: “Faith is biologically understandable as a Darwinian device for survival and increased reproduction. It is forged by the success of the tribe….” “The brain was made for religion and religion for the human brain. In every second of the believer’s conscious life religious belief plays multiple, mostly nurturing roles. All the followers are unified into a vastly extended family, a metaphorical band of brothers and sisters, reliable….” And so much for our highly-adaptive RWA Paleolithic roots …and genetic heritage. Wilson goes on describing civilization on levels that are more complex than the “tribal” level. === “A great many educated citizens … understand the rule attributed to the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger that religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Wilson goes on to note: “In more secular societies faith tends to be transmuted into religionlike political ideologies. Sometimes the two great belief categories are combined. Hence, “God favors my political principles over yours, and my principles, not yours, favor God. …. The price of the loss of faith was a hemorrhage of commitment, a weakening and dissipation of common purpose.” “It is tribalism, not the moral tenets and humanitarian thought of pure religion, that makes good people do bad things.” “Religious warriors are not an anomaly. It is a mistake to classify believers of particular religious and dogmatic religionlike ideologies into two groups, moderate versus extremist. The true cause of hatred and violence is faith versus faith, an outward expression of the ancient instinct of tribalism. Faith is the one thing that makes otherwise good people do bad things.” === I, imho, don’t think he’s saying faith is necessarily bad, but that a freedom of faith might be more adaptive than a blind faith; especially since as a “rare social species” we’re not ant-like automatons, but rather we are humans humanely trying to balance competition with cooperation, as the meaning of human existence emerges from our cultures. Speaking about freedom of faith, I’d hope Russell Means’ quote about how “Freedom means you're free to be responsible,” would illuminate that juxtaposition against blind faith. === As Wilson writes: “Religious warriors are not an anomaly. It is a mistake to classify believers of particular religious and dogmatic religionlike ideologies into two groups, moderate versus extremist. The true cause of hatred and violence is faith versus faith, an outward expression of the ancient instinct of tribalism.” === It's not that a mild form of insanity infects political conservatism, but that it afflicts one faction in particular more than other factions; especially where "In more secular societies faith tends to be transmuted into religionlike political ideologies." This experiment in Democracy has plenty of trials still emerging, istm. ~

Seriously though, if being "shorter" and from a "better known" source, is a basis for making a judgement, then why would a critique matter? I'm not advocating the "appeal to authority" fallacy here, but the "authority" of the source does matter! This is still a science forum, right? ~

On one of this past Sunday morning’s news and weekly-review shows (3/1/15), as they wondered if the DHS would be funded (amid efforts by one faction to link immigration policies to passage of the normal security budget), several Republican leaders spoke about that one faction. House Homeland Security Committee member Rep. Peter King used the phrases, “absolutely irresponsible” and “no concept of reality” and "self-righteous and delusional" for describing these members of his own party. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who heads the House Intelligence Committee described them as “a small group of phony conservative members who have no credible policy proposals and no political strategy….” Of course he finished this sentence of his, by adding “…to stop Obama’s lawlessness,” so you can tell that he’s still a Republican. Later, also speaking about that particular faction, Nunes described how they seem to be “unaware that they can’t advance conservatism by playing fantasy football with their voting cards.” === So there may yet be hope that not all political conservatism is a mild form of insanity, since the ability to recognize certain aspects of insanity, within one’s own (political) life, is a sign that one is not insane …or so I’ve heard. ~

Nor do I know if this is new, and.... I'm passing over the symbolic structure you've elaborated since I never studied logic, but to get to the gist.... Aren't you just theoretically adding more dimensions or perspectives by which to judge a problem or find a solution (truth)? Sure, when viewed from enough perspectives, you can always find some truth that is valid across a contradiction; but is it a practical perspective? Or put another way.... It seems logical (but maybe not practical) that if you add enough dimensions (as variables) to view a set of problems, then you'll always be able to find a "solution in common" across the set of individual solutions to those problems. But if you limit your dimensions to those of significant or relevant influence, then it'll be more difficult or even occasionally impossible to find a solution-in-common across the set. === It is often helpful to view multiple problems (such as a contradiction) as if they are multiple, simultaneous, non-linear, multi-variate equations; to see if there is a solution in common across the set of solutions to a given list of problems. Isn't that what you are doing, in a theoretical way, above; but without accounting for the need to limit the multi-variate aspect to only significant or relevant variables? Of course I suppose significance and relevance is too undefined and subjective to limit the theoretical... ...so go for it!!! === It might be helpful in tackling "wicked problems," so we can move on to become a Type I civilization. ~

I won't go into the free samples of very expensive scientific books I have on kindle, but as for real books: 1. Bacterial growth and form Author: Koch, Arthur L. 1925- Published: 2001 Call Number: QR84.5 .K63 2001 pp.470 Status: Checked Out & 2. Mitigating climate change through food and land use Author: Scherr, Sara J. Published: 2009 Call Number: S589.7 .S337 2009 pp.48 Status: Checked Out This second one is very concise and comprehensive. Thank God somebody finally gets this big picture about how basic economics depends on ecology. === The first book also talks about the origins of life, from the "first cell" to the "last universal ancestor." hint: google the phrase, with quote marks, "Gradually the global biomass would have increased" ~ enjoy

Oh, okay... I should read the mail before looking around, eh? Sorry for repeating this: Hola, I'm addicted to science and have learned obscure stuff in many fields from both physical and social sciences. I have a full profile if you google Mitchessay, at myspace [hey, you don't have to log in to read it!]. Boy that place has changed since last Fall. I can't even find the forums, from my login, anymore. I was cursing last night! But back on topic.... I've gotten a bit jaded on cosmology over the years [sorry] and of course, most everyone else is tired of climate dynamics.... So I only occasionally get motivated to write something. But this looks like an open, fun place and I'd like to try. "Underwater suspension tunnels" has been a fun and interesting read, and there is some climate discussion --so that is encouraging. Hope to see you around.... ~SA

Am I overlooking an introduction forum? Well, maybe this'll work. Hola, I'm addicted to science and have learned obscure stuff in many fields from both physical and social sciences. I have a full profile if you google Mitchessay, at myspace [hey, you don't have to log in to read it!]. Boy that place has changed since last Fall. I can't even find the forums, from my login, anymore. I was cursing last night! But back on topic.... I've gotten a bit jaded on cosmology over the years [sorry] and of course, most everyone else is tired of climate dynamics.... So I only occasionally get motivated to write something. But this looks like an open, fun place and I'd like to try. "Underwater suspension tunnels" has been a fun and interesting read, and there is some climate discussion --so that is encouraging. Hope to see you around.... ~SA