This essay is directed both to my readers in terms of clarifying what 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...is and isn't... and to Ms. Niki Raapana, otherwise known as The Tent Lady from Alaska, author of the blogsite 'Living Outside The Dialectic' who I actually wish to have more favorable 'debating relations' with relative to the contents and evolution of our respective blogsites and philosophical passions. This having been said, the last part of my letter becomes a more general address to my reading audience relative to defining, describing, and distinguishing some of the similarities and differences between Hegel's Hotel, Communitarianism, and Anti-Communitarianism.
Let me add that I do not expect more favorable relations but I am hoping for them. I am putting up at least a partial if not total 'truce flag' here -- not a 'white flag' but a 'truce flag'. I sincerely believe that there are some things that both I -- and my readers -- can learn from her 'Living Outside the Dialectic' site, and I encourage my readers to at least check out parts of her work.
This having been said, there are still some important differences between our respective philosophical perspectives that I intend to re-emphasize here.
Without further ado I will write this essay as an open letter directed to Ms. Niki Raapano,
................................................................................
Hi Niki,
This may seem like a strange request but I want you to be a guest writer on Hegel's Hotel.
I admit to not knowing anything about Communitarianism or Anti-Communitarianism when I first visited your website/blogsite. However, I think it is fair to say that you also didn't know anything about the substance of my DGB Philosophy when you visited my site.
I think you were coming into my network of blogsites with a broad, negative 'Hegelian Dialectic Stereotype'. You chose one particular essay that I wrote -- not a bad choice I might add, it is a good essay -- and added it to your own 'Living Outside The Dialectic' blogsite as a link and an example of what Communiarianism is about -- before proceeding with your own 'anti-thesis' against Communiatrianism and against the idea of one 'collosal' Hegelian Dialectic Synthesis that you seem to rightly or wrongly connect Communitarianism with.
My chief complaint against what you did is your broad stereotype of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy as a form of Communitarianism.
It is not.
There are probably thousands of different ideas kicking around both the academic world and the internet as to just exactly what 'Communitarianism' is, and what it is not. As I wrote in one of my last essays, 'words are promiscuous' -- and the word 'Communitarian' is a 'semantic -- pardon the crude metaphor -- slut'. (You can use the word 'male slut' or 'womanizer' or 'philanderer' or 'Village Ram' if you think I am being sexist.)
The word 'Communitarian' -- if you check the internet -- seems to have been 'sleeping around' with thousands of different philosophers, academics, politicians, and blogwriters.
Obviously the word and concept of 'communitarian' is attractive to a lot of different people out there, stimulating jealousies because each writer wants to be the 'sole possesor of what the word correctly means'. There are no correct meanings: just these thousands of different writers, philosophers, politicians using the word in the way they thing represents their own personal 'Utopia'. Or in your case, as a rebellor and antagonist against this very abstract word and its meaning(s) -- you seem to associate 'Communitarianism' with 'anti-Utopia'.
Likewise with this collosal vision of a 'Hegelian Dialectic Synthesis' that you seem to believe is the essence of 'Communitarianism'.
I think you have written about both the ex-President Bush and the present President Obama as having dreams of 'Communitarian Utopian Visions' running through their respective brains.
The fact that this is possible points to one very good example of how the meaning of Communitarianism can mean very, very different things to different people, different philosophers, different Presidents...
I have said in a recent essay that words have both a 'range of meaning' and a 'narcissisitic focus of meaning' -- both socially and in the minds of different individuals borrowing the usage of the word. (I got this distinction, incidently, and slightly extrapolated on it from an old George Kelly book written in the early 1960s about 'cognitive constructs'. (I will find the exact reference shortly.)
There are literally millions of potential 'Hegelian Dialectic Syntheses' being processed somewhere in the world as I sit here writing this essay at this moment. So to write about the possibility of 'One Gigantic World Vision Using One Gigantic Hegelian Dialectic Synthesis' to get there -- is a bit of a reach don't you think, Ms. Niki, when half the world is at war right now.
We can't even get The Democrats and The Republicans to come to any 'bi-lateral agreement' in the Senate that both Parties are happy with. Never mind that -- The Republicans are still trying to sort themselves out and define who they are after they kind of 'lost their way in the last election'. So we can't even get any bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements in the Republican Party itself.
So this idea -- or rebellion against the idea -- of some grand, grand scheme to put together some 'Collosal New World Order' is probably 'light years away' -- if a husband and wife can't even agree on what they want to do together, how can we expect to get the whole world and all its radically different leaders all on the same page. It certainly is not going to happen by 'consensus'.
It might happen if the world gets another 'Super-Napoleon', 'Alexander The Great'...but that involves killing people...which is obviously not a good thing, and if the visionary 'Super-Unilateral-Leader' (read: conqueror, dictator...) believes in killing people to establish the 'Utopia' that he (or she) wants, then we are obviously talking about at least a partly 'pathological' leader. Napoleon and Alexander The Great both did some good thing but bottom line is that they killed a lot of people. Same with other pathological 'Idealist-Utopian-Leaders' such as Mao tse Tung, Lenin, Bin Laden, and these other 'gunslingers, rocket launchers, and testosterone muscle flexers' in Iran, North Korea, Somalia, and Russia...
The Somalian Pirates -- many of them are barely older than kids and being told what to do by the big pirates and robbers behind them; you can at least partly see where they are coming from -- foreign fishing vessels have raped and robbed them of their fishing livlihood. Same as off the coast of Nova Scotia but we don't have any pirates there. Just a lot of people out of work and living on some type of government cheque because their fish -- and their canneries -- are gone.
I don't blame Russia being upset about the NATO war exercises going on right beside them: America didn't like it very much when Russia moved their rockets into Cuba during the 1960s Cold War. How can we expect the Russians to like what NATO is doing right beside them -- and all the talk about missiles being put into Eastern Europe. If the shoe was on the other foot, American wouldn't like it either -- and they/we would probably be 'flexing our war muscles as well'.
Let us get back to Communitarianism and look at 3 or 4 possible ideas that either could be, or have been, associated with the idea of Communitarianism.
1. An addition of 'Community (Regional, Federal, International
) Rights'; and a subtraction of 'Individual Rights';
2. An increase and improvement in Community Values;
3. A 'healthy balance between community values and rights on the one side, and individual values and rights on the other side;
4. Proponents of Communitarianism tend to want to cite the American Constitution, The American Bill of Rights, and the like; antagonists to Communitarianism tend to believe that these important Constitutional Documents will end up going the way of the dinosaur...
..............................................................................
Ms. Niki, permit me to interpret from your work that I have read (which admittedly is not a lot but more than before) that we seem to be on the same philosophical page on at least two counts:
1. We would both like to see an improvement in communtiy values and community life -- you so perhaps even more than me as evidenced by your participation in the 'Kenny Lake Community Project and Blogsite' (I encourage readers to check this site out...wonderful Alaskan scenery...);
2. Neither of us want to see any significant decrease in 'individual rights'; both of us seem to be concerned by the idea of 'Big Brother Watching You' -- especially pertaining to such things as 'toxic new laws coming into existence under the cover of night -- or 'no coverage'; I'm also concerned with the problem of 'home invasions via internet spying techniques' and the conflict between 'toxic internet usage' on the one hand vs. 'freedom of internet usage and freedom of speech' on the other hand.
There is a government demand that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' which is aimed at each and everyone of the adult citizens in both America and Canada.
However, there should be an imporant corollary to this first Government demand and mandate -- an 'anti-thesis' to the first:
Simply stated, 'No new government law should be passed and brought into existence without full media -- and philosophical -- coverage as to both the content and potential positive and negative consequences of this new law.
This goes hand in hand with the idea of both more 'government accountability and transparency' in terms of the nature, content, history, and potential consequences of these new laws. If these new laws are 'good laws' -- or even if they are provocative, controversial laws -- they should not, indeed must not, suddenly appear from 'out of the cover of darkness' as if someone -- or the government as a whole -- is trying to 'slide' the law through with as minimum a public resistance as possible. This is essentially no different than the idea of 'hidden taxes' which should be illegal as well.
Of particular concern and importance here, is the idea of what 'special interest group' -- what 'socialist' or 'capitalist' or 'religious' or 'feminist' lobbyist group has had a particularly strong effect on 'putting undue pressure on' a politician, a political party, or the government as a whole to 'push' or 'slide' a particular law through the system that may be totally toxic to, and unwanted by, the general public as a whole -- which is why it 'magically appears out of the cover of darkness' -- meaning the covert and often if not usually the 'monetary' collusion between certain politicians, and/or political parties with particular private interest groups.
Cases in point: The Liberal Ad Scam and the resulting Gomery Report; At least two Brian Mulroney Business 'Soap Operas' ('Airbus' and the 'Schreiber Affair'...Only select people in the government know how many more 'shady lobbyist dealings and suspect new or old laws there are that have come into existence through government lobbyist impropriety.' We need to 'open the drapes' and change the laws regarding the current practises of 'lobbyist-politician relationships'.
These relationships need to become much more transparent -- throw the lobbyists into Parliament if need be, pit them up against some hard-nosed 'anti-lobbyists' -- and make all these lobbyists, counter-lobbyists and politicians go at each other in front of the eyes and ears of the Canadian and/or American people. Take the collosal stink out of all forms of Lobbyism as it is currently practised. Make all forms of private lobbyism transparent to the General Public. Then probably, about 90% of the lobbyists would disappear back into the woodwork, disappear into the cover the darkness because they know what they are doing is ethically and morally reprehensible if not downright illegal.
As respective countries -- both Canada and America -- need to move away from 'Narcissistic, Collusive, Covert, Ethically-Legally Reprehensible Lobbyism' to...'Multi-Dialectic-Democratic-Transparent-Ethically-Legally Responsible Lobbyism'.
I found a section from your most recent blog in 'Living Outside The Dialectic', Ms Niki, that was particularly of interest to me...With your permission, I will repeat it here...showing that I do indeed, agree with some of your opinions:
..........................................................................
From the blogsite, 'Living Outside The Dialectic' by Niki Raapano...Just google 'Living Outside the Dialectic'...
From Peter Myers:
(1) Bill would turn Internet bloggers into felons
From: [ The_Draconia_Chronicles ]
By John Cox , Network World , 05/08/2009
http://www.networkworld.com/nldailynewspm195375
Internet Flamers into Felons
A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if "the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person
A little-noticed bill re-introduced in Congress last month would make the use of popular electronic communications a felony if “the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.”
Given the free-wheeling exchanges that characterize everything from SMS text messages and instant messaging, to blogs and Web site comments, the broadly written bill potentially could turn a lot of flamers and bloggers into felons. If convicted, they would face fines (no amounts given) and prison sentences up to two years. Webcast: PCI Wireless Compliance Demystified : View now
The bill is H.R. 1966, filed April 2 by Rep. Linda Sanchez, a liberal Democrat for California’s 39th district, a horseshoe-shaped patch around Los Angeles, from Whittier through Ceritos to Lynnwood. She was joined by 14 other congressmen. It's been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill has recently begun to receive attention, much of it critical, in the online community. Greg Pollowitz, at National Review Online’s Media Blog, labeled it the “Censorship Act of 2009.”
In fact, some of the comments could even be construed as intended to cause emotional distress under the bill's loosely defined language.
Sanchez earlier this week sought to explain and defend the proposal online at HuffingtonPost.com, a political blog that is generally considered liberal.
One response to her post was by “radmul,” who wrote,
“No offense congresswoman
but you can't handle prosecuting war criminals for torture
so you have no right to bring your lack of ethics to the Web.”
Another comment, from “dubster,” attacked still another poster who blamed the Megan Meier tragedy on “bad parenting”: “I detest jerks like you, that can't comprehend the gravity and severity of certain things.”
HR 1966 is Sanchez' second attempt (she first filed in May 2008) to enact the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” a reference to a Missouri 13-year-old who in 2007 killed herself, apparently in despair over a bullying campaign organized against her on MySpace. A federal grand jury brought indictments against one of the teens involved, but the trial jury reduced three of the four felony counts to misdeameanors, and deadlocked on the fourth. Incidents like these have spawned local school policies and state laws against cyberbullying. At least 13 states have passed laws, including California earlier this year. But many of these require only administrative actions, such as suspending or expelling students. And all of them raise the issue of where to draw the line between protecting kids from electronic harassment and protecting the right to free speech.
(2) Hate Crimes Bill: Unintended Consequences, By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
From: Kristoffer Larsson
http://counterpunch.org/roberts05122009.html
May 12, 2009 Beware the Hate Crimes Bill! Unintended Consequences
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
A statute’s words do not tell how the law will be interpreted and applied.
All laws are expansively interpreted. For example:
The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was directed at drug lords. Nothing in the law says anything about divorce; yet it soon was applied in divorce cases.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly bans racial quotas and defines racial discrimination as an intentional act. Yet, quotas were imposed by the civil rights bureaucracy on the basis of the 1964 Act, and intent was replaced by statistical disparity.
The Clean Water Act makes no reference to wetlands and conveys no powers to the executive branch to create wetlands regulations. Yet, for example, Ocie and Carey Mills, who had a valid Florida state permit to build a house, were imprisoned by federal bureaucrats, who claimed jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The bureaucrats ruled that the clean dirt used to level the building lot constituted discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the U.S. No navigable waters were involved, and according to the state of Florida, no wetlands.
The Exxon Valdez accident was criminalized. An unintentional oil spill became the intentional discharge of pollutants without a license, and the bird kill became killing migratory birds without a license. An accident was prosecuted as crimes of intent.
Well informed attorneys can provide many examples. Others are documented in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Awareness of what can be pulled out of even clearly written laws is essential to the preservation of civil liberty.
With this in mind, consider the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Opponents criticize the bill for adding a second punishment to existing punishments for acts of violence. Assault, murder, rape are crimes regardless of motivation. The penalties are sufficient, or can be made so, without applying a new crime of motivation that creates specially protected classes, such as homosexuals and minorities. To commit a violent act against a member of a specially protected class will carry a heavier punishment.
How will a court know whether a violent act was committed because of hatred or because of sexual lust or the need for money? As case law is made, the likely direction will be to eliminate intent. The issue will be resolved by whether the attacked person is a member of a protected class. The mugger who beats as well as robs a victim who turns out to be homosexual or Jewish will have committed a hate crime.
It will prove difficult to separate speaking against members of protected classes, or criticizing their practices, from hate. The two things are easily conflated. Once enacted, hate crimes will become independent of specific violent acts. An eventual likely outcome will be that speaking against members of specially protected classes will itself become a violent act of inciting violence.
Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act in 2004, the US Department of State is required to monitor anti-semitism world wide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act created a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by the US Department of State of negative sentiments expressed against Jews.
In order to monitor anti-semitism, the term must be defined. The definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly, interpreted. The State Department has come up with its attempt. The State Department’s approach could include any truthful statements about Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli government or AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or contest.
Anti-semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred. Inciting hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. “Excessive” criticism of Israel is a subjective, undefinable concept that can be used to determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate “excessive” with “strong.” Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable for war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere become acts of the hate crime of anti-semitism.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
...............................................................................
dgb...continued...
Two more quick points, Ms. Niki,
1. It is impossible for you to 'live outside the dialectic':
a) Because you are, by nature, personality, character, and/or behavior, confrontational;
b) We all have to live inside a government -- which sets up a dialectic even if we don't like what is happening inside our government...
Fighting, running, distancing, hiding, rebelling, submitting, debating...these are all different dialectic strategies.
We all have to pick a particular 'style of living' by which we deal with ourselves, other people, and our goverment.
'Living outside the dialectic' is still a dialectic response -- an 'anti-thesis strategy' to get away from what you believe to be the coming 'Communitarian, anti-Individual State'...this you view as 'The Coming Plague'...
I don't disagree with you on some of your assessments and judgments -- just your more 'global, all-encompassing ones' about Hegel -- and my site, Hegel's Hotel.
Have a good day.
-- dgb, May 14th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
