David Knight's social axioms
Possibly unbeknownst to him, David Knight is a very common American and in that capacity he'll guide this treatise.
I've called the American culture an Erlebniskultur, a happening culture, if you like, although Erlebnis in German elicits less specific ideas of what is happening than happening - actually, Wiktionary errs when it calls Erlebnis a synonym of Erfahrung, since Erfahrung means experience in its general sense, whereas Erlebnis always refers to its sense in That was quite an experience. and never to its sense in statements like He lacks experience, in other words, there is always a connotation of adventure and challenge to cope.
With this lengthy explanation of the meaning of the word given, it may appear apparent that the American culture is of that kind, but as always I'm using words in common use as technical terms and each such redefinition is built on a theorem, namely that the technical term agrees with the common meaning, and part of the purpose of this post is to provide further evidence that it does in the case of Erlebniskultur.
The technical definition of that term is that the populace accepts to be taken on a ride by its government, which is less formally put than I put it in German, but very concise. The key to this acceptance is the cult of freedom, because it suppresses the social instinct to jointly go for the brakes, when things fall apart.
In studying the mind of David Knight, I hope to let the, or at least some, essential ingredients of this cult emerge as they exist today and, if successful, to shed some light on America's historical development as well.
Let us begin with the obvious, David Knight's commitment to missionary work. In theory, you could be interested in what your neighbour thinks so as to find common ground with him rather than dictate your conditions, which is what missionary work (in its Anglo-Saxon understanding) is about. It may well be that dictating is more efficient, but it is also fraught with artificial and hence arbitrary standards, which would not be embraced, if not for the gained efficiency.
We can, in other words, conclude that the missionary approach to the establishment of common ground is a symptom of a fractured society that is in vital need of establishing it, and we should expect that the American governmental system is based on this fracturing and the ability of the populace to cope with it by way of missionary work.
Following this expectation, let us look at possible means of creating and perpetuating the fracturing. Obviously, again, much depends on how debates are conducted, whether they dissolve points of contention or whether they don't. Naturally a debate would be geared to achieve the former, but that is based on natural conditions, namely that
Actually, the latter never is, but it is still possible to solve some problems that a society has with itself by showing it that a majority of it is convinced of a certain course of action, understands what is involved, what is gained by it and what it costs and is willing and capable to undertake it, for such a demonstration engenders trust and this trust can become its common ground.
But for that to happen, the first condition must be in place, because the reasons for mistrust must be voiced for it to be overcome by a debate.
Looking at American political debates it is obvious that those who debate are not those who have a problem with each other, but those who can speak eloquently in support of a certain course of action, which is never scrutinised, but rather propped up.
Hence the function of the political debate is reduced to showing how much money entrepreneurs are prepared to throw after a certain course of action, and decisions reached by that yardstick are by definition oligarchical decisions of the wealthy, that certainly don't dissolve any points of contention that exist within the general society and likely create new ones.
That already covers what needs to be covered, but I'd like to dwell on one more point concerning the social prerequisites for a constructive dialogue.
To that end let us turn the question around and ask what a destructive dialogue is.
Well? How about a dialogue in which one view seeks to diminish or confuse the insight contained in another?
The keyword here is insight, which is a subjective conviction, that is to say to be convicted by one's soul of being in the presence of the truth. Since the conviction is not a public one, it can be concealed, and not concealing it is what makes a dialogue constructive, but since it is a voluntary act, it presupposes good will or an expectation to profit from open and trusting dealings.
The opposite of which is what lawyers are paid to do, and hence lawyers serve as an illustration of what a destructive dialogue looks like and the more someone talks like a lawyer, the less value the dialogue has in which he participates.
It also means that a populace that is accustomed to listen to arguments presented in the style of lawyers has no involvement in solution finding and that a populace that meets itself, like it would meet itself in court, is incapable of even taking charge of those affairs that it could deal with once it had reached an agreement.
As for the American media landscape, the missionary slips some of his convictions into his arguments, but for the most time he sounds just like a lawyer, and good lawyers let some of their convictions slip into their arguments as well, by the way, if for different reasons, and it is only in sports that no-one talks like a lawyer, since no-one wants to hear in how far a victory was a defeat or a defeat a victory, an amazing stunt a failure or a failure an amazing stunt, but it is this frankness that you see in sports that is the basis of any dialogue of people, who jointly seek the solution to a problem.
In other words: American customs are a toxic stew.
I've called the American culture an Erlebniskultur, a happening culture, if you like, although Erlebnis in German elicits less specific ideas of what is happening than happening - actually, Wiktionary errs when it calls Erlebnis a synonym of Erfahrung, since Erfahrung means experience in its general sense, whereas Erlebnis always refers to its sense in That was quite an experience. and never to its sense in statements like He lacks experience, in other words, there is always a connotation of adventure and challenge to cope.
With this lengthy explanation of the meaning of the word given, it may appear apparent that the American culture is of that kind, but as always I'm using words in common use as technical terms and each such redefinition is built on a theorem, namely that the technical term agrees with the common meaning, and part of the purpose of this post is to provide further evidence that it does in the case of Erlebniskultur.
The technical definition of that term is that the populace accepts to be taken on a ride by its government, which is less formally put than I put it in German, but very concise. The key to this acceptance is the cult of freedom, because it suppresses the social instinct to jointly go for the brakes, when things fall apart.
In studying the mind of David Knight, I hope to let the, or at least some, essential ingredients of this cult emerge as they exist today and, if successful, to shed some light on America's historical development as well.
Let us begin with the obvious, David Knight's commitment to missionary work. In theory, you could be interested in what your neighbour thinks so as to find common ground with him rather than dictate your conditions, which is what missionary work (in its Anglo-Saxon understanding) is about. It may well be that dictating is more efficient, but it is also fraught with artificial and hence arbitrary standards, which would not be embraced, if not for the gained efficiency.
We can, in other words, conclude that the missionary approach to the establishment of common ground is a symptom of a fractured society that is in vital need of establishing it, and we should expect that the American governmental system is based on this fracturing and the ability of the populace to cope with it by way of missionary work.
Following this expectation, let us look at possible means of creating and perpetuating the fracturing. Obviously, again, much depends on how debates are conducted, whether they dissolve points of contention or whether they don't. Naturally a debate would be geared to achieve the former, but that is based on natural conditions, namely that
- those who debate are those who have a problem with each other and
- are able to solve that problem by means of an agreement,
Actually, the latter never is, but it is still possible to solve some problems that a society has with itself by showing it that a majority of it is convinced of a certain course of action, understands what is involved, what is gained by it and what it costs and is willing and capable to undertake it, for such a demonstration engenders trust and this trust can become its common ground.
But for that to happen, the first condition must be in place, because the reasons for mistrust must be voiced for it to be overcome by a debate.
Looking at American political debates it is obvious that those who debate are not those who have a problem with each other, but those who can speak eloquently in support of a certain course of action, which is never scrutinised, but rather propped up.
Hence the function of the political debate is reduced to showing how much money entrepreneurs are prepared to throw after a certain course of action, and decisions reached by that yardstick are by definition oligarchical decisions of the wealthy, that certainly don't dissolve any points of contention that exist within the general society and likely create new ones.
That already covers what needs to be covered, but I'd like to dwell on one more point concerning the social prerequisites for a constructive dialogue.
To that end let us turn the question around and ask what a destructive dialogue is.
Well? How about a dialogue in which one view seeks to diminish or confuse the insight contained in another?
The keyword here is insight, which is a subjective conviction, that is to say to be convicted by one's soul of being in the presence of the truth. Since the conviction is not a public one, it can be concealed, and not concealing it is what makes a dialogue constructive, but since it is a voluntary act, it presupposes good will or an expectation to profit from open and trusting dealings.
The opposite of which is what lawyers are paid to do, and hence lawyers serve as an illustration of what a destructive dialogue looks like and the more someone talks like a lawyer, the less value the dialogue has in which he participates.
It also means that a populace that is accustomed to listen to arguments presented in the style of lawyers has no involvement in solution finding and that a populace that meets itself, like it would meet itself in court, is incapable of even taking charge of those affairs that it could deal with once it had reached an agreement.
As for the American media landscape, the missionary slips some of his convictions into his arguments, but for the most time he sounds just like a lawyer, and good lawyers let some of their convictions slip into their arguments as well, by the way, if for different reasons, and it is only in sports that no-one talks like a lawyer, since no-one wants to hear in how far a victory was a defeat or a defeat a victory, an amazing stunt a failure or a failure an amazing stunt, but it is this frankness that you see in sports that is the basis of any dialogue of people, who jointly seek the solution to a problem.
In other words: American customs are a toxic stew.
Labels: 38, formalisierung, gesellschaftskritik, gesetze, identitäten, institutionen, sehhilfen, wahrnehmungen, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
11:09
