harvey young
The New Culture Forum
comments
Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Britain's Segregation, Multiculturalism, & Mass Immigration Crisis Threatens Us All. What Solutions?" video.
Ok so now "What is the problem? And What is to be done? The problem here is disclosed as an immigration problem. It is evidenced in data. the data gives us time and place stamped snapshots Synchronic data fields if you will, the general concepts are subject to the limits of possible data collections like sets and their members subject to various categories I have discussed this earlier. Also the data changes are "explained", in terms of antecedent causes and conditions the explandum being the data set changes by degree ultimately atomistic not a continuum in/through/under/above space and time, but ultimately the consequent is presence now. This might be seen as a kind of arguing from the consequent to the antecedent as one interpretation of abduction can express.
This is similar to transcendental arguments, which go from state of affairs to its conditions, advocated by P..F. Strawson from his work on Kant it has been regarded as a fallacious argument. Certainly Strawson thought Kant had misapplied it in trying to think the relation between cognitively structured phenomena and the noumena "beneath it". Strawson thought this argument could have validity form Kant even though he erred in the application of his own new transcendental arguments.
When it comes then to antecedent causes and conditions of explanation for the consequent, this is not just a "set" of facts determined by laws of nature that rule over human beings, it also explicitly involves various intentionality’s. there is the apparent "exogenous" to the state, facts of poverty and war and so forth in "other states ", there is the policy legality institutional action of various states, that is the de jure intervention in time of the state on the data sets and their members, and the facto but legal actions of various non-governmental institutions. Of course in reality the distinction here between de facto and de jure is not clear, businesses relate to government policy and government policy relate to businesses. As we find in Hegel on quantity and quality de facto quantity change can have a quality change, and quality change as de jure can have unintended quantity changes. Some times there can be the exploitation of this as double effect, that is the policy is "said" to be from one thing for one outcomes but they know another outcomes unexpressed will unfold that can be the "real" and unsaid purpose of the policy. as described here the New Labours policy of immigration multiculturalism integration was a de jure policy intention about numbers" while the "long march through the institutions" was a de facto institutional process operating over quality. In this case these worked in tandum.
i was hoping to avoid bringing in Heidegger but here is an abstract of a paper by Ioannis Trisokkas called "Being, Presence, and Implication in Heidegger's Critique of Hegel". in the Hegel Bulletin 10th March 2022. Cambridge on line journal.
Abstract
For Heidegger, Hegel understands being, ‘the highest actuality’, as the categories which pervade and thereby form all objects and events. Since, Heidegger argues, the categories are, in Hegel, present-at-hand, Hegel conceives of being as presence-at-hand. This is a problem, for Heidegger, because it entails the full transparency and knowability of being, whereas, in his view, being is partially hidden and unknowable. I consider the objection to this Heideggerian critique of Hegel that Hegelian logic understands being not only as the list of categories but also as their derivation and movement from pure being to the absolute idea, which (derivation and movement) establish being not only as presence but also as implication. Since being-as-implication is (a) not presence-at-hand and (b) necessary to being, it cannot be said that Hegel's account of being turns it into full transparency and knowability. Heidegger's critique should, therefore, be rejected. I argue that this objection is unsuccessful because there is strong evidence in the Logic that Hegel ‘subordinates’ being-as-implication to presence-at-hand. Implication's way of being is, in Hegel, only a collapse into presence-at-hand and hence ‘merely a modification of presence’. Consequently, Heidegger's critique of Hegel should not be rejected based on the objection. I conclude the article with a remark on the relation between language and being-as-implication. I argue that Hegel's account of being-as-implication in language disrespects the autonomy of being-as-implication therein and that Haas's argument for such an autonomy based on the phenomenon of the syntactic ellipsis of ‘is’ fails to undermine Hegel's account.
1
Part 3 We are now moving into the realm of moral vocabulary here. We are already not external to it, we talk already of relations between things and concepts of things we arte already drawing on in our representation concepts like order rule best pattern pairing etc close to notions of duty contract and promise. But first we see say in Kant that the propositions (subject and predicate) are always already in a nest of syllogisms. Drawing on work by H. there is very rough relation between the 3 parts of the syllogism to which the proposition immediately belongs and the 3 part functioning of the state.
But the syllogistic action of the state operates on real people, connected by non-transitive non commutative, even non reflective and non-indexical relations. There are of course attempt to represent these relations as in accord with Group theory restrictions and they talk about networks (Deleuze Manual de Landa.) but all the time they cannot really express these truthfully faithfully under such institutional ordnance requirements. One does feel that if the free market science managers had their way or absolute left scientific governance, then they could disseminate the family the community etc. so they don’t have a problem of mathematical modelling at all but they have “dissolved it” or “pruned” it by policy action. No one thinks in terms of family any more only either in terms of useful labour and set equality without moral or material or parenting luck. It would be just so long as no one in government or business had any family ties or obligations. This seems the natural destiny of both the liberal free market right and the left to get the nominal people to conform to the phenominal requirements of Galois categories or axioms. Indeed “ what they call “social cohesion” is not, at the moment, a free construction of institutions but rather is there anyway before the phenomena under representation, and outstrips it in in terms of meanings and semantics. As I said earlier, there are spheres of ethical life, untraceable by data in institutional right, they even talk of family rights and community rights but these are only pretending to represent by making them objects in sets not as complex semantically related nexus of concepts. Detergent sales for the efficient home production of the worker/consumer, and family social care for equality projects and policies.
Kant’s solution is to see both there is a shadow of morality in Group relations of data and action but morality is really in the level before that and here represented as bellow that. This morality lives in an very different conceptual space to the thin shaped morality in the phenomenal world of science data’s. it gets very complex but brings in virtue and duty and contract and promise here in a way very different to how the moral functions at the phenomenal level. Virtue and duty must be internal to life in nouminal world, they are like Quantifications over propositions but are inseparable and indivisible. The nouminal world makes them appear separable and divisible. Vice and virtue are not separable names or concepts, public private duty are not separable names or concepts. Much of the problems here is due to modern usage that conflates these two roles these two grammar that the phenomenal is only the shadow of the nouminal, and this makes it look like we can still have reference to members and still have sets even if all morality was lost or seen as something we can eliminate or just make a new set out of eg all those moral people set members. The next stage for me here is very difficult and I’m not sure I can do it adequately, let alone explain it. And I think I need a bit of a break at this point. As, I imagine, will any one person who has read my comments to the conference so far.
Just in case i don't return to this presentation, my thanks to Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, Peter Whittle and the NCF for very interesting presentations.
1
1
1
part 5 There is here in my account an apparent running together of Hegelian speculative Kant's dialectics of the absolute unconditioned series and event and sciences of man. we have to be carful though that these distinctions are within somewhat different vocabularies and abilities and procedures of expressivity. What is clear is the scientific infinite point of view in its thin ontology of man. and we need some way to grasp real human relations as internal and these representations as internal in this way that is misplaced and projected to infinity onu when the predicate in question is taken in abstraction (ie the ontologies constructed by laws' self reflection and the predicate are abstracted out of from the original forms of life this is Hegelian abstraction not empiricist or Platonic abstraction). a move that is central to scientific method reason, one not solved by the scientist being a member of the set he is expressing. what is important is not member ship notion of the rule of law. but that the rule of law and science rests on this original position "in" context action and dependency which is inexpressible except by paradox in the speculated scientific realist vocabulary and logic.
Now we I have discussed the paradox of law from Peter Suber, butt here is a paradox of "aesthetic representation" by data collection in the manifold institutional systems here of receptivity that deny their own frame and limit. i have an analogies' here from physics: especially in thermodynamics and the thermionic valve. Thermodynamics as the application of mass data and statistics to heat, in late 19th century, if i am right took these methods from their original use which was form the analysis population and poverty studies. Here then physics, hard science, stem took its method from what they later called the "pseudo" science of sociology. So for example my tutor in nuclear physics had originally ben working on the thermodynamic stability of a cow. Another tutor was from CERN with an expertise in theoretical thermodynamic but he also taught us practical acoustics. This is interesting in that for example the decibel scale is a log scale that attempts to represent not power but loudness in which the human ear responds to "perceived loudness" different to the physical metric. note the detector has "aesthetic" limits above which it is full scale deflection unknown and bellow which is recording itself. This phenomena also "exists" in Nuclear radiation detection where a photomultiplier tube above a limit is a chaotic cascade and eventually destroyed as if being exposed to daylight or put into physical destruction, bellow the limit it is detecting itself. here radiation is measured in Sv which like loudness is already calibrated and standardise with resect to human biological damage. so going from Sv biological effect we have to track back to the "actual" human independent radiation metric and then track back further using the sphere model of symmetry to something called the "real" radiation as a whole emitted by the source. but now this real has become detached from the human experience and the necessary limits of detection, to claim a human and detector transcendent state of affairs in the atom. But also the theory of all this ahs to conform to highly abstract mathematic structure. Now the field for Faraday was not mechanical as it was for Maxwell, and in the hands of Maxwell the wire generating the filed becomes a null point. now the field is first and the wire then is seen as just a contingent region of high intensity in the field there before it. very Hegelian. In a thermionic value in use as amplifier they talk about balancing various attributes. we get the feeling that we must balance or strike a compromise between amplification and frequency response. it always looks as if there were a possible position of just pure amplification, and something like proportional frequency response. These apparently make sense as mathematical possibility in the single characteristic response metric, but "in reality of the actual valve" they do not as you cannot have one metric without the other . Like the idea of a car with no friction verses a car with absolute traction. The situation is not one of two opposing infinite projects in competition, that is not two real infinite oppositions trying to eliminate each other. rather at the level below we see they are mutually dependent. A case of both trying to saw of the branch they are sitting on in an attempt to get a clear view. This is not the case with the real valve only from the mathematical abstraction. therefor the answer to the problem of opposing infinite projects lies in its dissolution not in trying to find arbitrary legal limits because these are after the fact of legal and policy abstraction after the forms of life. this started off as a project to get away from philosophy for a bit but the AC30 amp never did get built after i dived into the Maxwell equations i was told in online course was the theoretical basis of its function. but something else came out of this: field requires difference like potential difference. but the representation is as if this is just an accidental feature not a limit. compare this to law as difference and reach and force and the idea of equality. when you look at a bright light it herts rather than being sensed we might cry out in fact, we feel and react to bright light not "a" bright light, and if you close your eyes you "see" the effects of the retina not an object. a person had an electric wire put in their brain at the ear part and a current run though it the effect was not of hearing but a twisting and contorting of the face. Also hysteresis in habit and skill and virtue and law. and you have no such thing as a valve in abstraction from its circuit. this is about the fact that the problem of givens in Sellars Empiricism and Philosophy of Mind is that it is only at the level of abstraction that we have such problems of givens etc, at the real level it is not solved but shown to be based in a misunderstanding. the conflicts are about misunderstanding of the baser at the level of speculative reason right science and its abstraction without limits and ground except the meta logic becomes the structure false grounding in symmetries groups etc.
i mean sociologists try to represent a complex world of so called real human relations etc as networks and complexity but these are after the fact of abstractions trying to reconnect the real by way of connecting abstractions. In one sense we discover say that marriage is just one possible relation nexus in a field of multiple possibilities. it is now a contingent choice among many and not a normative relation. In this sense it can be "taken care of" by the state or business, but at the level of network abstraction. and now the moral and ethical life is taken up and replaced by abstract legal and economic structures. in a similar way the view of international law is like this to infinity, the state is now a local contingency for the infinite projects and that is all. Like the Chinese emperor who got a mechanical nightingale so he could listen as if the real night gale sing 24/7. Then the real nightingale flew off and the mechanical one broke. the attitude data from the internet and face book will not show up real world human relations since we do this face to face. i guess they will claim, that for the efficiency of scientific management for utility and right all families must only communicate with each other on face book so the data is complete and efficient.
1
1
Part 2 So in a way policy then is forward project or program causing change through de jure and de facto institutions with the aim to change the data sets. It is very difficult if not impossible to link data sets and data sets by “immanent to them” and between them causes because the data sets are not real people they are general representative concepts if like Plato’s forms they do not exist in the world of causes, if abstract ideas they do not exist in the world of causes, in the old days they claimed the members of a set would share an essence a definition of what is in and out of the set what is contingent from what is necessary what has an essence from what has only an accidental. Recently it has been argued that social science data sets relations with respect to best ordering of pairs (one to one) instantiates or is explained by there being natural social kinds. This seems to exploit the linking of sets in terms sonly of extension and then where patterns are found by many different data sets the patters reflect not just an intension but a natural kind. In a way the “Bayesian” methods (I think) used Dominique Cummings were designed like this, but the best concepts “fall out” of the data without the prior need to fix the concepts before the data collection. For example I was in a social science conference and they talked about the need for a preliminary data trial that has the role of making sure the real data trial was not biased by a false or skewed data population w.r.t the whole universe population. I commentated that if they got the pre-trial right the real trial would be redundant if they got it wrong the real trial would be skewed. The idea of Baysian inductive and inference as it is mainly used today is that there are original concepts we begin with (in a prejudge of concepts) but the data that emerges can then allow us to modify those original concepts to better pattern matching’s. This is called subjective Bayesian and does not presuppose a universe of real patters there anyway before the process, which is called objective Bayesian.
The picture here w.r.t. populations is of a data set under concepts, abduction to prior causes and conditions drawn between and on a past data set , and then the imaginative agent and responsible act required going forward to create a new data set in the future. There is then on the one hand the link of causes here in terms perhaps of Davidson’s use of nomological sets, that if the antecedent and consequent contain all members under universal concepts then we can have talk of causation here e.g. between a universal and a universal set of all members. But of course the policy acts and other actions are not on the semantic level of the sets. The action are a mixture of acts done in law and acts detained a part so of rule governed institutional process. We could of course add to the level of data sets concepts like member of the government, member of civil service, member of a non-governmental organisation. Of course we could add “members who voted for the policy” and “those who paid for it”. In this case then we also have “those subject to the policy and those not”. At the level of sets and representations then we cannot get a grip on policy it is as if it operated in two dimensions or as conspiracy theorist might say cause operate below the level of consciousness awareness eg sub conscious sub cultural etc hidden even occult essences etc.
This is a serious problem for policy. We might go full social science aggregation and just consider say categories of people their place not in predicates like black white man women, but their “categorical” place in the spheres of the state their station and duty, their place in institutions not just as represented in them as data but as categories which determine their possible action their public freedom and effect their being as action not just their being as subject to external action.
1