Pragmatic Reflections on the Will to Power and the Creation of Truth

 

Hard/ complete: Georg Cantor- Continuum hypothesis

Embodies rationalist/ modernist/ analytic movement

 

Soft/ incomplete: Godel- Incompletness Theorem

Embodies relativist/ postmodern/ creative movement

 

Synthetic: Hegel/ James- Dialectics/ Pragmatism

Synthesizes these two perspectives for subjective ends according to their utility to solve and achieve dilemma/ inquiry

 

 

All modern studies and disciplines, being defined by prescribed rules, expectations, is limited in its ability and scope, and will be inhibited in adequately addressing novel problems.

 

In addition, Hegel, and Neils Bohr, saw necessity in taking counterfactuals or contradicting ideas, and holding them together in the mind, suspending their rigid, dissolving boundaries, and creatively synthesizing their properties into a single, third, idea that is able to satisfy the initial counter-facts.

 

Relativist attitudes: revolution, creation, destabilization, individuality, synthesis, deconstruction.

 

Will to power- those who master language are the masters. Masters of language- more specifically, masters of delineation, or description- are the creator of causes.

Those who possess language, and the ability to manipulate language- proliferate perspectives and justify actions for everyone else.

 

To not have language, to not have education, is to be dispossessed, to be dominated. He who develops language, specifically his own language- be it borrowing from others or creating neologisms- can manipulate and dominate. Nietzsche understood this: the jews were masters of language- specializing in the oral and written tradition of the torah- owned and mastered language and eventually used this strength to manipulate the language of their ‘masters’ or the ‘gentiles’ by inverting their values of their language to subversively overpower and dominate them—see the New Testament, or Christ’s message.

 

The use of existing language can be used to justify by assimilating it into a final vocabulary by removing it from its original context. Decontextualizing is the ability of the pragmatic and creative types: they use existing language (tools), to manipulate and justify a unique (individual) end/ intention (action). Derrida attempts to capture the gestures of decontextualization. He seeks to pervert the internal semantic structure of words and language in order to recontextualize words, or leave them totally suspended in semantic ambiguity.

 

The reason manipulation can occur is that terms/ facts/ meanings are formed within a ‘present’ context. When the word is borrowed at a later time, it is referring to a previous/ past context, yet its use is always in the present. No two perspectives are alike, for all are subjective and indexed to individual/ unique direct experiences and the prevailing ideology of the context/ culture mutually shared by your social peers.

 

Language is social. Perspectives, thoughts, are formed to due direct experience, i.e. senses, impressions, experimentation, and ideologies, i.e. the semantic code and historically rooted structure contained in the language maintained by peers.

 

Perspective takes direct subjective experience and indexes it to the inherently ideological lanugae of yoru social peers. In this way subjective experience (individual consciousness) is censored by language. Likewise, language is compromised by ‘misusing’ semantics (metaphors, metonymies) and ‘decontextualizing’ it from its prevailing paradigmatic ideology.  Rorty alludes to this practice when he refers to the accumulating and building of “final vocabularies”.

 

The ability to use language is the ability to control the mind. Religion once controlled all language, and priests were the arbiters of its meaning—the interpretation of the bible, gods word, his divine will. This allowed the priests and prophets to govern the thoughts, and therefore actions, of their people.

 

The world tells us—leads us to believe—that language captures facts and truths. This is a form of ‘natural’ domination. ‘Natural’ in that man lives and persists through the “will to power” which enables them to thrive (dominate) in society by leveraging the minds of other men. This “will to believe” is uniquely distinct from other animals in that animals do not leverage the minds or ‘intentions’ or other animals. Instead they possess a “will to survive” which manifests through killing (predators) or compromise (prey).

 

Pragmatism recognizes the utility of using language—its conventions, rituals, customs, traditions, and accepted practices semantically assumed it contains – and uses it to justify intentions (ends/ actions).

 

Modes of Thought: Visual-spatial v Auditory-sequential

 

I am strong visual-spatial learner. Rather than a auditory-sequential, characterized by time and order, I am concerned with relations and assimilate information via space. Order does not diagnose a relation. It only designates hierarchy and assigns values according to this order. Rather than time, I am concerned with space. I do not think in time, order, and temporality by default. I must consciously switch modes of thought for that thought. I think in space and relations between parts. Those who time auditory-sequentially, in time and order, are bound by definite value and temporality. This is not an adaptive way to think since order is an established system. Recombinations are unthinkable outside the designed system of value and order.

 

Visual-spatial thought is conceptual and occurs on an arrangeable, flexible platitude or recombinatory possibility. Shifts occur that disrupts relations, destroying the perceived order that it temporally occupied.

 

Freedom lies in the how: how to act, move, combine, shift, create… etc. Slavery lies in the ‘what’: what to act, move, combine, shift, create, etc. The what is concerned with the concrete, atomistic, particulars.

 

Understanding the ‘how’ requires a multiplicity of perspectives, a pluralistic appreciation for possible alternative methods, concepts, etc. Understanding the ‘what’ is static and dead.

 

‘Utlity’ is thought to reflect ‘reality’, but it reflects ‘intention’ or ‘perception’. Things are useful because they work for some(one): for an individual subjective perspective according to their intention. ‘One’ is parenthetical because it refers to the (I), the single presence occupied by a consciousness.

 

Myths are useful, but they are fictional abstracts. ‘Utility’, to be said to reflect reality in the way most people think it does, depends upon the ‘aim’ or precise ‘intention’ driving/ behind the utlity. Things are always useful to some end. But the question is ‘whose’ end? Since they are useful for people (individual subjective perspectives), how these ends are chose is a matter of the “will to power” which, it seems, is a manifestation of living organisms innate ‘will’ to ‘self-preserve’. Is self preservation a manifestation of a deeper cause, such as the “law of conservation of matter”? The law of conservation of matter states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time, or conserved, so that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

Will to power is the primal instinct to transpose ‘will’ (proclivity to preserve mental conceptions/ beliefs by acting on them so that they manifest) onto the world via domination specifically through the use of language, or linguistic coercion, since leveraging minds is more productive and less threatening than physical coercion. (What is the ‘will’? What is ‘domination’?) The Jews do this fantastically. Their race is inseparably connected to their culture and religion which strongly emphasizes the use of language.

 

Language is God, and God is language.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” –John 1: 1-5

 

Greek Transliteration of the first verse:

 

En arche een ho logos kai, ho logos een pros ton theon, kai theos een ho logos.

In Greek, theos translates as God. logos is defined as: (a) that which is said or spoken; (b) ratio, thought, reason, agreeably with reason; (c) the word, comprising both senses of thought and word.

 

Understanding the word, being able to use the word, makes you god.

 

Language is justification, is god, is logic, is reason. He who possesses the language, has access to the language, who is esteemed to possess authority of that language, has power, is god.

 

The modern gatekeeps: preists, academics, institutions, preofessors, politicians, or anyone deemed authoritative expert. These expertssimply possess language. Authoirty is derived from (a) amount of linguistic capital/ language, including its diversity and depth, (b) application of linguistic capital, (c) creation of new linguistic capital or ‘truths’ or ‘neologisms’.

 

Experts and geniuses produce and, as a direct result, proliferate ideas (which language is used to capture). Activity is the mark. This activity may translate as a depth of justification within a given scope or activity may translate as a bread outlining of many scopes with brief justification.

 

Training or repetition instills habituation. Habituation, or consistency and repeatability, is the hallmark of analytic or rational systems which are concerned with the ‘what’. Novelty, change, is creativity. Repeatability is a hallmark of a closed system.

 

Habituation leads to inhibition.

 

Truth is a subjective perspective. Isomorphic facts, such as those immediately apparent and accessible to our senses which have no need for reflection to verify, is not what I dispute. Hume argued, as I upgold, that perceptions of ‘things’ or ‘facts’ of ‘cause and effect’ are simply the result of habitual associations, or conditioned correlation. The cause and effect, the perceptions- and categorical structures we organize our senses with- are all subjective, and therefore relative. Hoeber, we converge on agreement on how thesse aforementioned phenomena ‘are’ or ‘exist’ by dialoging with our social peers in order to establish a common/ mutual ground/ standard—which provides the ability to exchange information (communicat) about our unqiue/ subjective perspective and continually add to these convergent agreements and the way things ‘are’ or ‘exist’ in the world.

 

Novelty is not rewarded. Conformity is rewarded, through achievement in rigid/ formal education systems with ‘degrees’ signifying expert authority on a prescribed system of established study.

 

Linguistic Relativism

 

When I support relativism, I do not mean relative isomorphic facts or direct representations about the world. Though, Austin said that the “state of affairs can only be described in words, such as a state of affairs is toto mundo distinct from true statement.” These so called statements that seem true or false have no descriptive content, that is, they cannot be true or false. Strawson denies that facts are something in the world. Facts are not objects or complex objects combining particular and universal elements. Statements refer to such objects but they do not refer to facts; rather they state facts” says Strawson. Additionally, he says “fact is what a statement says, not what it is about. Facts correspond to ‘truth’ or ‘true things/ state of affairs in the world’ but cannot be used to define truth. Facts cal be localized to space and time. Melbr says ‘Facts’ different than facts and that facts, he says, exist independently of whether we talk or think of them.

 

Thing: an entity whose development in space and time is well defined? What of quantum phenomena within quantum mechanics? See Heisenbergs indeterminacy relation: cannot ascribe properties of space and time simultaneously to one and same object. The difficultly exists in determining quantum entities as thing possessing spatio-temporal location, or an event always obeying causal description, e.g. wave v. particle.

 

Scheme and System: define similarities, differences, compatibilities, metaphorical relationships.

 

Think in spheres.

 

When thinking: a multitude is no substitution for magnitude. Narrow intensity and power is often more persuasive than broad justification.

 

If heart is the thread then mind is the needle. Correctly combined they stitch together experience—a patchwork of irregular, paradoxical, incongruous experience—into a single reel of life.

 

Fear is internalized oppression. Of power? Of responsibility?

Fear is the character of inhibitions.

Fear is the manifestation of the inhibitions/ limitations possessed by the subjective character

 

Cause and Effect Relationships

Domination, Oppression

Individualism, Conformity

Expression, Depression

Wealth, Poverty

Possession, Dispossession

 

The world does not reward curiosity in the same way it rewards passivity.

 

Steve jobs understood power and authority’s role in leveraging others for the purpose of his personal creative self-expression that dominated competition.

 

Domination: properties in serial order

  1. Why? Ends, subjective intention or desire or will, direction, aim
  2. How? Method for attaining why power relations, program
  3. What? Content, facts, things

 

  1. Why? Will to power, to self-preserve, intention
  2. How? Feelings, emotions, intuitions
  3. What? Rational, reasoning, language

 

‘What?’ only serves as proof or justification for ‘why?’ or what your ‘believe’. Appeal to what others ‘believe’ or their ‘why?’ and you will leverage their mind.

Appeal/ leverage by way of language—possess and manipulate the language others possess and you will lead/ dominate/ over-power them.

 

Concentration of power (wealth) exacerbates inequality and decreases mobility by stripping/ inhibiting freedom due to others oppression (will to power)

 

Jews seem to be the masters language, and thus the art of ‘will to power’: despite their few numbers, they possess more nobel prizes than any other race/ ethnicity and they have more money, and subsequently more power, than any other race. They have done this through, relatively speaking, pacifism (non-violence). They dominate American business and politics and media and academics.

 

How does thinking in systems differ from thinking in schemes? What strengths do each possess?
Etymological Reflections

 

In greek, ‘power’ translates as dynamis or dunamis (δύναμις) which means potentiality or potency. It can also be translated as possibility, capacity, ability, capability, force, strength. Another word for power is krátos (κράτος) which translates as hard, or strength. (Think autocracy, democracy, etc.)

 

The Greek word dunamis, δύναμις (force ; specially, miraculous power (usually by implication, a miracle itself); force; specially, miraculous power (usually by implication, a miracle itself)) is derived from the Greek word dunasthai which is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *deu-.

 

The Proto-Indo-European root deu- is the root for plural word form deus (deywós) which, in various languages, translates as God, or celestial or that which belongs in heaven.

 

In Hebrew this most often translates as Elohim, which means God or power.

 

In the old Hebrew testament Jehova (kurios or κύριος) is translated to the latin dominus which means lord or master of the house, or to build. (Recall annō Dominī) (dominatus : rule, mastery, tyranny, domination).

 

To bring this superficial sketch full circle, it seems interesting that logos, or word and reason, is equated with theos (θεός), or god. According to sources, Latin deus is consistently translates Greek theos.

 

Interestingly, ‘word’ translates to the Proto-Indo-European as ‘verb’ or *were-. The etymology is as follows: verb late 14c., from O.Fr. verbe “part of speech that expresses action or being,” from L. verbum “verb,” originally “a word,” from PIE base *were- (cf. Avestan urvata- “command;” Skt. vrata- “command, vow;” Gk. rhetor “public speaker,” rhetra “agreement, covenant,” eirein “to speak, say;” Hittite weriga- “call, summon;” Lith. vardas “name;” Goth. waurd, O.E. word “word”).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.