🚀 go-pugleaf

As a college student at University of Virginia, I worked at a
restaurant called the Tree House. All other employees were local black
people, and I noticed one thing especially: They were all referring to
each other by nickname. I asked why they did that, and the answers were
such as "What do you mean, why?" and "That's just how it is dog." One
woman with intelligent eyes said, "That's a good question."

And indeed it is a good question to ask, one that is not limited to the
Tree House. The statements like "that's just how it is, dog" reveal a
common problem that is had by people who have lived in a single society
all their lives: Lack of objective insight into its workings. Clearly
referring to everybody by nickname is not the case in Long Island or in
Sudan or in China. "That's how it is, dog"? Not exactly.

Similar is the case with referring to things as "normal" or referring
to one or another clique as speaking for "everyone." What's normal in
one place (calling people by nickname in the Tree House) is not what's
normal in another (who does that in CIA?) And of course there is nobody
who speaks for everyone (6 billion people), most of whom do not believe
in anything similar to what is believed by the bully clique under
consideration - and whose claims to speak for everyone are the heights
of arrogance - the arrogance that they claim to denounce. The arrogance
that it claims to be fighting but which it shows to a far more complete
and far more overbearing extent, with less to justify it and far more
horrid results for the people ensnared inside of it.

The results being, that people can't leave the ghetto because they feel
that would be selfish or arrogant; that people can't go into business
or long-term work because they feel that would be collaborating with
the white man; that people can't study science or engineering or
teaching or literature because they feel that would be acting white;
and what's left? Thuggery. Hideousness. Entrapment.

All a necessary and inevitable result of the arrogance expropriated
from individual to serve the tribal consciousness, and whose only
possible outcome is war.

I need hardly speak that dynamics similar to these, but in different
forms, take place in different cultures besides the ghetto.

Alexis De Tocqueville, a Frenchman who lived in America, came up with a
balanced and highly insightful work into the nature of the United
States. He did that because, as both an outsider and an insider, he was
able to combine the external and the internal and thus to understand to
a far more complete extent than is afforded by either mode of
perception alone. As both outsider and insider, he was not subject to
the error that is functional of either: The error of insider of failing
to see the nation in its external effects and its workings - and the
error of outsider of failing to experience it from within and thus
failing to understand it. He was able to combine the objective and the
subjective - to combine the experience and the analysis - to combine
mind and heart, the two functionalities in which people discern and
experience human reality.

Both the subjective and the objective modes of understanding give part
of the picture. But both are capable of error. The error inherent in
first method is that of failure to quantify external effects - with the
result that the people practicing the merely subjective perspective are
constantly, and rightfully, accused of selfishness and lack of
consideration for others. The error inherent in the second method is
that of absolute lack of compassion for what is being studied; a lack
of emotional closeness; a coldness and hideousness that is almost
unhuman and that, lacking compassion by nature, therefore seeks to
conquer and to subdue. This results in wars, dominations and
extremecruelties and abuses. I am of the belief that complete
understanding is that of understanding things in both in their external
effects and their inner workings; a perspective possessing both
objectivity and subjectivity - both intelligence and compassion - both
mind and heart - both discerning it from without and experiencing it
from within.

The error of merely objective is twofold. First is failure to
experience a phenomenon, resulting in lack of emotional insight. When
people say they want someone to understand them, what they mean is that
they want someone to feel how they feel rather than simply analyzing
it, and certainly not analyzing them in reference to an external value
set or a normative function or a psychological theory. When cultural
and social and political entities say that they don't want outsiders
telling them what to do, what they mean is that they want to first be
understood in their experience before any agenda can be found that
would be workable for them. But to do that and merely that is not
adequate; external effects have to be quantified likewise. In combining
objective observation and subjective experience, and then in
interpolating between them, is arrived a complete picture of culture,
religion, or social locale.

Doing that, I refer to as integrative cognition.

EXISTENTIAL BASIS

There are sayings such as "The only absolute is that there are no
absolutes" and "all generalizations are false, including this one."
This shows shortcomings in existentialism and relativism; however it
does not render it worthless. The relative quality of reference frames
- the curvature of the convex mirrors - do not make them worthless; it
renders them incomplete. Which incompleteness is reduced through
introduction of other reference frames that pose as check on the
incompleteness. Through cross-referencing it becomes possible to see
where each is right and where each is wrong. The convexity of the
mirrors is quantified and reduced, and clarity rises.

At which point becomes possible greater objectivity. And then it
becomes possible to go to the next step: Look at the reasons for the
convexity of the mirrors. To see the basic interests and ideologies
functional thereto, and based on seeing these interests and ideologies
for their character to see the extent to which the reflections are a
function of relativistic distortion - distortion based on interests and
ideologies underlying the mirrors - and to what extent these
reflections are a function of clarity. Which interests and ideologies,
being seen for what they are, are thus computed for the convexity that
they produce; and the beams that make mirrors convex are gradually
abraded until they become less prevalent, and greater objectivity is
achieved.

I am of the belief that this way the relative frames become closer to
the absolute, and by tapping into Einsteinian relativity while
understanding the nature thereof comes ever-greater clarity. By seeing
the sun reflecting in multiplicity of convex mirrors, develops a closer
and closer approximation of what is the sun. Convexities become
visible; are understood for their essence; and are reduced. And the
result is a more complete picture of the sun, and improvement in the
quality of the mirrors.

INTRINSIC AND REFERENTIAL

There is the observation referential and there is the observation
intrinsic. To know something from without, is to observe it
referentially - referentially to a mode of experience, a mode of
beliefs, a mode of cognition or a perceptual and conceptual base
forming the human perception. To know it intrinsically, is to
experience it on one's own heart or one's own skin. The integrative
perspective is a synthesis of the referential and the intrinsic,
combining assaying of the essential from multiple frames of reference
with going into it intrinsically. Arriving at an assaying of a culture,
a religion, a civilization or a mode of experience combining awareness
of its experience with awareness of its external effects.

This creates a complete representation of the phenomenon. One that is
not limited by either failure to understand from within nor failure to
understand from without, but rather creating a complete pictographical
representation integrating the intrinsic and the referential.

I shy from the use of the word objective, because I do not see complete
objectivity as possible. Complete objectivity is a matter of being
completely clear of all kinds of bias or agenda, and while that is a
worthwhile pursuit I do not see it as being available for everyone, and
certainly not something I've seen employed by anyone at all in either
psychology or sociology. The "reality is what I can touch and feel"
argument results in a perspective centered in self; which is not
worthless but not complete, given the difference among selves. The
"reality is what can be reproduced" argument results in perspective
centered in canon; which is not worthless but not complete, given the
change in lab conditions and explanations afforded by scientific
progress. The "reality is what refuses to go away when you stop
believing in it" argument fails to compute the extent to which people's
beliefs shape their minds and thereafter their actions. This, once
again, is not worthless but not complete.

The solution I seek is one of approximation among reference frames. Not
the nihilistic-anarchistic one of
"nothing-is-completely-objective-so-let's-burn-down-everything"; but
one rather of interpolation and check-and-balance among frames of
reference, arriving at clarity of observation - combined with
intrinsic, experiential understanding arrived at through direct
experience of the mindset, the culture or the civilization that is
being studied.

A phenomenon can be assayed in reference to a method; it can be assayed
in reference to an ideology; it can be assayed in reference to an
interest; it can be assayed in reference to a a mode of thought and in
reference to one's own experience. Each perspective forms a reference
frame, akin to the Galilean reference frames of Einsteinian relativity.
Each is a function of devices that shape it; each therefore creates a
mirror in which is glimpsed the object of study. Each is valuable but
not complete reality. Each, as such, is usable but not to the
absoluteness. And enhancement of the external perspective is rendered
through interpolation among these frames of reference, through checks
and balances acting upon each other to attain at ever-greater clarity.

There are of course many issues that come to pass. One is, Of what is
one's own experience of the world a function? Is it not a function of
previous experiences, assumptions, beliefs, characteristics,
perspectives? Can it be ever truly objective? And is not greater
objectivity arrived at through shifts of perspective, both mind and
heart, as a result of interpolation, abrasion and ultimate integration
among multiple modes of experience?

What is the definition of integrity? It is that of acting as a single
unit. A single unit premised on what? What premises are the correct
ones, and will not something based on false premises come crashing
down? The country I come from did. The static integrity of a rock can
perhaps be defined as integrity, until one starts wondering what is
under the rock and dislodges it, and then it crashes. I see integrity
that is intellectually viable and far more interesting as one that is a
dynamic synthesis; an ongoing whirling through chaos to create patterns
to give to various interests; an integration and reconciliation leading
toward meaningful outcomes and enhancement in people's experience of
life.

It is my belief that through continuing shifts of perspective and
cross-examination between one's own experiences and the condition of
many cultures, an interplay takes place between self and the object of
study that refines one's experiential self toward greater clarity. Thus
not only is study served, but also clarity of the self. The optimal
result is exchange of ideas and understanding that helps to improve and
to enrich both. Dangers include those of losing one's good qualities
along with the bad ones if they are not part of the value of the
culture at hand. Which qualities can be regained in a still greater and
more informed manner when more informed, integrative, conclusions are
drawn.

The same applies likewise in philosophical inquiry. The existential
theory of multiple truths - based on Einsteinian relativity - suggests
this: That for greater reality it is important to experience and to
assay all the truths in reference to each other, creating a greater
understanding. And the theory of multiple Galilean reference forms,
coming from physics, each frame a partial but incomplete incorporation
of timespace, means that to know timespace to greater extent means to
experience these forms and from reference point of these forms to draw
connections and understanding of one another. If it is impossible to
look at the sun for a prolonged period of time without going blind,
then to see sun's reflections everywhere is a path toward greater
understanding of the sun. And if the divine is invisible, then to see
the reflections of the divine in the workings of cosmos as contained in
everything from neutron stars to the plants to the oceans to human mind
and human heart and inspired artwork is a path toward greater
understanding and appreciation of the divine.

The same applies to psychological inquiry. This is where R.D. Laing
comes in handy: He believed in actually going into the person's inner
world and seeing it from within. Indeed he showed several examples of
how this could be done. For this, he is loved universally by the
patients. The reason for that love? That he made an effort to
understand them from within. Whereas, for example, Freud is universally
hated - because he made no such effort. Instead, he partly observed,
then he judged, then he stomped. Claiming himself a scientist, he
performed grievous leaps of logic such as the following: Of leaping
from analysis to judgment - of claiming that certain feelings, because
they were supposedly (and in my belief wrongly) based in an earlier ego
state, are therefore to be adjudicated infantile. It could be asked, Do
my feelings exist for the sake of your values? Do my feelings exist for
the sake of your supposed (and here obviously fallacious) rationality?
Do I exist for your sake and the sake of your value system? And while
we're speaking of value systems, what is the moral virtue of yours, Mr.
Cocaine Addict?

The merely objective - more correct term is referential - perspective
is therefore necessarily cruel, precisely because it is merely
referential. It is merely a result of observation in reference to
existing beliefs. It sees that which is studied as an object - an
object to be dissected and analyzed. And then it becomes the logic of
dissection. And the question to be asked of all people engaging in such
task (and those benefiting from it), according to their own devices,
is: Of what is the logic a manifestation? What is the mechanism that
runs the logic? How can it be linear when DNA, clouds, oceans,
galaxies, stars, and the human body are anything but linear but full of
curves and spirals and galaxies and multiplicitous interlocking
ecosystemic forms? And is it rational to then claim that a single
method is superior to all else in the universe when (A) it did not
create the universe; (B) it did not create human brain that runs it;
(C) any honest examination of such things fills one's heart with wonder
at majesty and magnificence of the Universe and knowledge of the
multiplicity of forms of logic present within it; and (D) knowing such
things, to claim one form of cognition to be superior to all else in
the Universe is not only irrational but indeed preposterous?

The merely objective logic leads by the logic contained in its own
devices indeed to the worst of narcissism and the worst of illogic. It
leads to this: A dry, cruel, destructive maliciousness. Maliciousness
that, having disconnected itself from the source of sensation, requires
the intuitive and the emotional to prey upon - which it seeks out and,
despising, goes on to destroy and discard. The illogic we see in
abominations such as behaviorism, logical positivism, 1990s feminism
and materialist fundamentalism.

This is not accidental. This is not a stereotype. This is a necessary
result of the mechanisms involved.

If something exists at a rate greater than chance, then there must be
causes for it. The probability theory dictates that, without causal
factors, things will occur at the same rate as chance. So that, when
they occur at a greater rate than chance, it stands to reason that
there must be causal factors. And the way to discover the causal
factors is through examination of fundamental mechanisms.

The worst error of which merely objective method is capable is that of
rationalistic judgmentalism. It is one thing to assay things in a
scientific manner; it is quite another to judge mental processes - or
ultimately life - as irrational because it runs by a logic different
from the one that the person uses to study it. Thus we get to such
foolish conclusions as "Taken as a whole, the universe is absurd,"
"women are stupid" and "we are the only two sane people in the
universe, and sometimes I wonder about you." What rationality? If it's
a rational universe then there must be a rationale, so let's find it
out! Absurd? Absurd in reference toward what standard of thought? And
is it not wrong to say that the problem is with the universe rather
than with the method that fails to grasp it wholly, or with its
incompetent utilization?

Thus we get all kinds of hideousness coming to us through psychology.
When one sees man's primary motivation as one of adequacy, one creates
an ensnaring tribal consciousness that cannot bear what man has done
through history: Enhance human condition. No man is an adequate match
for a tiger; but he creates better technology to outsmart the tiger. To
keep alive the tribal consciousness based on the lie of adequacy it
becomes necessary to weed out those who would find better technology.
Logical result, inevitable according to the logic contained in this
method? Handicapper General, return to the roots, Ellsworth Toohey and
Appalachia for us all.

When one sees man's primary motivation as one of adaptation within
social reality, one essentially deifies whatever order exists at the
time. What needs to happen for that to remain the case? Kill off all
the damn pesky troublemakers. Shove down people's throats the same
party line. Make sure nobody thinks for themselves. Deadening,
dumbening, degenerating of the population. Until the false God that is
social consciousness turns into totalitarianism and becomes a torturer
and a killer. Destroying everything that is passionate; destroying
everything that is original; robbing people of their vitality; and
turning the place into an emotional, intellectual and spiritual
wasteland, in which man that the adaptation pretends to serve simply
cannot exist and the claims of serving man become tranparently false.

This is why it is entirely requisite, for any kind of objectivity, to
see the situation in its entirety, rather than having it constituted in
one or another mindset. That everyone in the ghetto will tell you the
same thing, does not mean it is true; it means it is functional to the
perspective of the ghetto. Of what is the perspective of ghetto a
function? Let's find that out.

The more that is done, the greater the objectivity and the greater the
insight.

PREMISES

A mind torn from its premises is a mind that is insane. A mind put on
another set of premises is a mind that is reconstituted. A mind that is
intermingling among the reference frames of premises is confused,
passionate, ecstatic, throbbing with fire of life. According to Keats,
"The way to intelligence is by making one's mind a thoroughfare for all
thoughts" - in which experiential chaos patterns form and are
crystallized and can be used for any area of human endeavor.

In what does one place one's faith? What are its premises?

Is premise reason? Then don't reason's own investigations into the
higher mathematics, biology, astronomy and everything else show the
existence of other forms of rationality in the universe - its
fundamental nonlinearity, instead its intricacies and complexities

Is premise work? Then does not the process of work (and what it takes
to maintain it) lead to all kinds of unanticipated consequences, which
then require greater exploration, which then create a more enhanced
understanding of what is work and what it is that is doing it,
expanding both the definition of work and the definition of usable and
worthwhile abilities?

Is premise morality? Then does not the process of striving for ethical
living lead to all kinds of agonizing moral choices, which likewise
expand undestanding of human existence, and which when carried out
incomptently or incompletely raise all kinds of moral questions about
the validity of the morality that oneself claims to practice? Which
morality, in order to be maintained through methods consistent with
principle, including honesty of examination, then lead to a greater
understanding and greater empathy and greater insight into just what
constitutes truly ethical choice?

Is premise responsibility? Does not acting in a responsible manner
presuppose understanding the world enough that one knows the full range
of consequences of one's actions and thus acts in a manner that
anticipates and takes responsibility for the results? And are not the
people who most loudly shout about responsibility hostile to knowledge
and what it takes to attain it, thus putting a lie to their claim of
valuing the responsibility they claim to espouse?

A convex mirror reflects the sun partially truly and partially not
truly. And to remove the beam from one's eye without replacing it with
a brick, is to see its reflections in pools - including ones that don't
contain in them the sulphur and the chlorine of the interest-shaped,
belief-shaped thought contained in one's own culture.

I don't regard it right to do away with things simply because they
aren't complete. I don't regard it right to do away with logic, with
economics, with politics; I seek to show the ways in which these
methods can go right and the ways in which they can go wrong. I believe
that all of these things, like all human things, are capable of both
good and bad, and it is for that reason that we have a government of
checks and balances. I believe that checks and balances could be
applied on the totality of human activity and human thinking through
complementary forms of cognition, in order that the result be both
empathic and wise; in order that the capacity for wrong in each form be
checked by balance with its opposite; in order that this synthesis lead
to quality and refinement; and in order that in this manner we have
minimax people living in minimax conditions.

The samsara is beautiful and worthy of being loved and cherished. You
don't kill a cat for not being a dog; you appreciate her as a cat, and
then she can be happy as a cat and you can be happy as a lark having
the cat - for having done what is required of intelligence: To
appreciate the cat; to clear mind's conceptions from dog-shaped ideas
of what cat should be; and thus to be able to reap of the beauty the
cat wants to impart and would to those who are willing to understand
without rushing to judgment. And if one's view of nature is a result of
propaganda done by the dogs, then the process of understanding and
loving the cat requires suspension of disbelief - suspension of
judgment from dog-shaped premises of thought - and going into the world
of the cat and there learning the beauty of which cat is herself
capable.

This, is the intrinsic side of the dialectic. Empathy. Going into the
other person's world. Feeling the other person's experience of the
world. Being Julia.

Or - as Alexis De Tocqueville showed - doing another culture and doing
that with it.

REFERENTIAL ASSAYAL

The referential side of the dialectic consists of assaying external
results. This is best done from multiplicity of perspectives. The
logical implication of relativity is that the way to approximate
objectivity is to interpolate between reference frames. Thus, one does
not observe American ghetto only from Northwest DC and the belief
structure of Northwest DC; one does it also from China and Africa and
the Cherokee tribe. Arriving at a more complete understanding of the
ghetto.

To greater elucidate what I'm talking about, let's conceptualize how a
mindset of Northwest DC views and values. The mindset of Northwest DC,
as a result of the ideologies in it contained, views and values
according to standards of prosperity and human rights - the two great
values preached by the American mindset. The mindset of China, on the
other hand, views and values according to standards of family
cohesiveness and work - its values, preached once again by Chinese
ideology. So to assay the ghetto from the perspective of both China and
Northwest DC, is to understand it more completely than it would be
understood from either perspective (each value-set, belief-set,
ideology-set, mindset shaping the convex mirror) acting alone. Thus is
achieved a more complete representation of the American ghetto; one
that, being more complete, thus becomes capable of more thorough
understanding - and, pursuant this more thorough understanding, more
complete and more valuable solutions for people in it living.

To understand a culture - a mindset - an ideology, it is necessary to
see it in both internal and external effects. It is necessary to
understand the experience of those inside it and the way in which it
affects the rest of the world and how other perspectives might see it.
The other perspectives, in turn, must be seen for interests and values
that are in them contained, in order that objectivity can be achieved.
It is necessary to combine observation from multiple convex mirrors,
with understanding of the nature of the convex mirrors, with subjective
experience - and then weave. Interpolate. Integrate. Coming up with new
patterns combining the mind and the heart, or analysis and experience.

Creating an integrative understanding of the culture, combining
external observation and internal experience.

BEAM IN THE EYE

That a mirror is convex does not make it worthless. It simply means
that it, like just about anything else, is incomplete; and to
approximate objectivity it becomes necessary to either clear it
completely and to remove the curvature at the core, or to reduce the
curvature by assaying it in reference to other mirrors. Complete
objectivity may not be achievable given the state of human existence;
but it is most certainly capable of being approximated. The closer to
the infinity, the more precise the result.

Similarly different people's subjective experience of the cultures is
going to differ according to what shapes their subjective worlds. The
heart is a convex mirror just like the mind; that, like the mind, can
be trained into greater clarity. The process of interpolation through
external observation and subjective experience refines both the heart
and the mind and reduces the quantity of beam contained in one's eye.
Refinement of both organs becomes the result, and a path toward greater
observational clarity.

The quantity of beam is diminished also in the society, philosophy,
person or institution being studied. As it sees its reflections in
multiple mirrors, it cannot escape the fact of wrong that exists in it
as well as right. As convexity of each mirror is reduced, more clear
picture evolves; and as pictures become clear, it is no longer possible
to blame all things for convexity. More importantly, the object is seen
from more sides, with all the good and the bad as reflected in
reference frames being made visible. At which point external picture
becomes more and more complete.

This is of course beneficial especially for writers and journalists. To
be able to feel an experience from within, as opposed to merely observe
it from without, is to have a far more complete understanding of it
than would be found in merely objective (i.e. referential) perspective
acting alone. When the participants in the Burningman event invited the
media to partake in the festivities, that is precisely what they had in
mind: To have the journalist feel - indeed "get" - the experience
before writing about it in their papers. An event is described far more
precisely when it is felt intrinsically, rather than simply assayed
referentially to one or another convex mirror. And to be able to truly
describe and to know a cat, it becomes necessary to remove the blinders
imposed by the dog logic and feel the cat's world on one's heart and
her fur on one's arms.

At which point the journalist or the writer has the ability to
integrate; to interpolate; to weave a gossamer thread contained of
heart and mind between the internal and the particular external
perspective to which he is catering. He can explain the experience in
terms of the values and attitudes and convictions of the people for
whom he is writing, while also making it palatable through his
emotional understanding to their hearts. Having experienced it himself,
he can speak for the people about whom he is writing, to the people for
whom he is writing. He can be both analytical and empathic; at which
point he can both feel and understand - and convey his knowledge of -
the experience, to a far greater extent than he could from either
perspective acting alone.

PSYCHIATRY

I need not say to what extent this can be of use to psychologists. This
is a matter likewise of being able to both understand the patient's
experience of the world, and to also see the entirety of the situation.
Thus is arrived a far more complete plan of treatment than one of
either acting alone.

Thus the R.D. Laing method - of going into the person's world - is
superior to the Freudian method of shackling it by assaying it through
his dogma and presenting it in reference thereto. When a young woman in
a mental hospital sat naked in the cell rocking and would not talk to
anyone, he came in, took off his clothes and started rocking next to
her, at which point she started talking to him as well. Upon leaving
the cell he told other psychiatrists, "Did you not think to do that?"

While this example may be considered by some to be ripe with potential
for abuse of power, I am of the belief that this is a useful technique.
Another technique I've seen used has been that of assaying the same
from without. A highly gifted psychiatric nurse, when confronted with a
client who thought himself a camel, was pressed to find out how to
administer to him medication. She thought, "Well, how would camel get
his medication?" and she put it in a cup on the floor. The camel
hobbled up and took the medicine.

What she had done, was figure out the logic of the psychosis and act
upon it. She went to where he had gone, and then found the way to lead
him out of  there. She used her heart to empathize with the camel and
her mind to figure out what to do about it. This, is the optimal of
psychiatry combining the mind and heart.

A question that the psychiatrist faces in front of him is, How does one
defuse a nuclear bomb or a black hole? It's not enough to tinker with
it on the outside as that would do nothing; it's not enough to go in it
on the inside as one would get lost. The inner worlds can be beautiful
or horrid or both at once; the question at this point becomes, How to
reach into those inner worlds without breaking them, while leading the
person out of the rabbit hole and into the sunlight? The error of many
psychiatrists is that of completely destroying the people's worlds and
leaving them dried, dead and broken. That's not psychiatry, that's
oppression. It leaves the person worse off than he was before.

But through interpolation between the referential and the intrinsic it
becomes possible to go into the mechanism, while holding on from
without so that one understands where to go with it. The outside of the
bomb is seen reflected in multiplicity of convex mirrors that are
referential perspectives - ones that cannot, I repeat, cannot, be
limited to a single interest or social locale, but rather have to
combine multiplicity of perspectives from multiplicity of places and
states of consciousness - in order that outside effects can be
approximated most closely. The quantity of beam in the eye is reduced
through interpolation among these perspectives. Thus nearness to
objectivity and some awareness of subjective experience is achieved,
and mind is seen - to an extent, the greater the better - both from
within and from without. At which point it's possible to go into the
mind and to lead it out, while making it possible for the inner world
to exist.

Thus psychiatry that is worth anything depends upon the study of
multiple perspectives, from multiple cultures and multiple theories.
Integration through interpolation among these perspectives builds skill
and wisdom in practice; which, due to the fluid nature of life, must be
constantly refined. The quantity of beam in the eye is reduced through
the process of integration and inter-analysis among Galilean reference
frames: Of their assaying each other in reference to each other - of
each viewing the other from its perspective and in so doing correcting
each other's incompletenesses. The frames are themselves assayed based
on the interest and the premise and the mentality of which they are a
function, and quantity of distortion contained in them as functional of
these things is quantified and assayed and computed. The curvature of
the convex mirrors is quantified through analysis of such things, and
correction is made in the resulting outcome. The beams in the eyes are
reduced through this process, and greater clarity of reference frames
is accomplished. And then it can be said that the matter is seen from
the outside with a degree of objectivity.

The subjective perspective meanwhile is figuring out how he feels and
why. The goal of this process is to actually experience the world of
the patient. This requires leaving behind one's conceptions - right
ones or wrong ones - and taking the dive. While there, it is necessary
to do the repair job; and then, like a skilled Houdini, it is necessary
to go to the light, come out, and lead the patient out likewise.


POLITICS

The 1970s Democrats practiced an inclusive ideology that included
multiplicity of perspectives. Jimmy Carter was accused of trying to
micromanage, which is to say that he did not trust his subordinates,
because he felt that they did not have the same perspective or agenda
as did he. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, felt comfortable
delegating power to his subordinates, because he picked subordinates
who believed exactly as he believed. This led to a well-run machinery;
it also led to groupthink, coercion and similitude of all thought and
attitude. Until it could be said, paraphrasing one of Reagan's
subordinates, that "If you've seen one Reagan Republican, you've seen
them all."

What are the dangers of groupthink? That of dogmatic thinking that
fails to have clarity. That of prevailing on people into perpetuation
of party line, thus blinding them to reality - reality that they claim
to espouse and which they claim to be common sense. The party line
effectively becomes commonsense, and any deviation from it is viciously
prosecuted. Until anyone who has any capacity for original thinking is
broken and desecrated and shoved into the gutter.

The party line blinds one to reality; this perpetuates errors. All is
assayed in reference to the party line rather than either intrinsically
or through a synthesis of referential planes. At which point the task
stops being one of leading and becomes one of bludgeoning. The
population becomes devitalized; broken; expropriated.  And all the
perceptions, ideas, art, business, and thought of the civilization
become functional to the beam under the convex mirror of Reaganism.

Where does this lead? As in case of all ideologies that blind people to
clarity, it led to consequences that were unanticipated (or sometimes
perhaps anticipated) functional to the ideology. An ideology that
believes that tax cuts are the solution to everything can, and always
will, lead to huge federal debt. An ideology that believes that human
activity cannot affect the environment can, and always will, lead to
pollution and sickening of people here and elsewhere around the world.
An ideology that believes that there is a single American way that is
right for everyone can, and always will, lead to destruction of
people's individuality and - far more ominously - people being
prevented from contributing what they have to offer or making good on
the Constitutional promise of life and liberty.

These aren't coincidences or stereotypes. These are direct and
inevitable results of these dogmas, and it is the Republicans therefore
that need a reality check.

So what do I prescribe? At political level another set of beam-removal
techniques and interpolation. Synthesis through abrasion of beam.
Attainment of clarity through this process and clarity that leads to
enhancement and life and liberty functional to the noumenal, which is
discerned likewise from within.

And which therefore blossoms through the core.


Ilya Shambatl