Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Consciousness is entirely contingent and conditional on human organisms forming the capacity for abstract thought, but this doesn't mean consciousness is less valuable somehow.

Abstract thought or thought in general? There is a difference between concrete and abstract thinking, and consciousness is present in both. Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development go over this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development

I realize my posts have been sparse, but I'm really trying to keep this as simple as possible. I want to know how the population becomes the primary enemy of a state. The state is contingent upon human actors, meaning that it emerges because of interacting humans. At some point, however, it appears as though the state diverges, or turns against these actors; or is it the case that the state is always opposed to human individuals? But how can the latter be, if it emerges because of human actors?

Because the state is never the total population. It is those on the payroll generally, and those with authority most specifically. The state does not earn it's income, it takes it. Since it already takes it's income, the scheme allowing it to do so is rapidly, increasingly "abused" (more so than the initial creation). There is no check on the monopoly - except rejection by host or outside threat. Yet outside threats are counterintuitively beneficial to any state, except in the case of a loss in total war. Beneficial to the state apparatus, not the general population. Hence regular beating of the war drums by various countries even without a legitimate reason (which is most of the time).

I think my last question can be easily countered: "Just because something emerges because of something else doesn't mean it must be in support of that which came prior to it." I'll concede this point; but we need to perform a kind of genealogy of the state. Its emergence is the result of a very strong tendency in human agents to protect themselves and their rights to property and existence; in short, it emerges due to what a collective of individuals deems to be a law. The reasons for the creation of this law are beside the point, but it almost certainly manifests unintentionally as a result of power dynamics and struggles within tribes/cultures, and in all likelihood also coincides with the human capacity for abstract thought.

The institution of the law, prior to any form of state apparatus, thus appears as something universal and eternal because it looks as though it's somehow built into the structures of society and human interaction itself: the protection of families/clans, the gradual institution of private property, the ability of humans to consider the cosmos and its destructive and regenerative capacities (resulting in mythical belief systems). The law, therefore, takes root deep in the psyche of early humanity. In fact, I would argue that it's bound up with our ability for abstract/linguistic thought. It did not need to be; but somehow it is.

I argue that Law does need to be (Law, not law). The state does not. It's a fundamental difference in approach to an inescapable problem: antisocial behavior (I realize that is quite vague but I'm not sure how to get much more specific than that and retain a context of universality).

What law does not have to be is a sprawl of legal code filling entire libraries.

The law, even prior to state apparatuses, is a divisive and self-debilitating institution. It resists instinctual urges and drives. At this very primordial level, human individuals are already conflicted in and of themselves (again putting pressure on the whole notion of the individual). The point of all this is to suggest that humans are already, in fact, turned against themselves. The state is not the enemy of humanity, but merely the social manifestation of its inherent ambivalence.
[/quite]

The divisiveness depends on the content of both the law and the nature of the people. I like to start with "Thou shalt not kill" as probably the most universal Law. Of course there's all sorts of contingencies people want to put on this: Thou shalt not kill those in this tribe/country/family/state/race/etc.

I agree that humans are "turned against themselves" in many ways, and a subconscious and conscious understanding of this created Law. Turning to the state as a tool for application of the law is caused by misunderstanding the nature of the tool. Might fall under something like pathological altruism.

This isn't an argument that everything the state does is therefore just and acceptable, since that certainly isn't the case. It is an argument that the state - in its broadest definition - is not something that should be or can be done away with. If it is the enemy of the population, that is only because human individuals are, so to speak, their own worst enemies. There's nothing to be overcome by the removal of the state, and this desire appears (to me) as little more than a barely concealed desire for some kind of New Age cognitive revolution.

As long as people falsely believe the state is the best "tool for the job", then I agree that doing away with it is pointless. That's not a desire for a "New Age" cognitive revolution, where everyone suddenly (magically) gets along, thus making the state unnecessary as it's purpose is fulfilled. That argument assumes the function of the state is to benevolently guide human behavior to a higher mode of being, which it is not. It is merely the wishful thinking of some: that it's desired purpose and actual function are the same.

It's not going to be some sort of ideal happy world without the state, even in some future where the overwhelming majority of people do not hold conflicting ideas of morality for "us" vs "them". There will always be a segment of the population that simply will not care. That segment cannot be seen as an excuse for a state, as the state is the tool of that segment.

 

[Einherjar86]

I meant thinking in general; thought is abstract.

The state is the entire population if it's merely the manifestation of Law in people's psyches. Not some specific law such as "thou shalt not kill." I mean Law in general, its very form (its content does not matter at all). It has nothing to do with payroll or employment; this is all far more developed than what I'm talking about. I don't agree with your dissociation of Law and State. They're inseparable, in my opinion. You can't have the Law and not have the State. In fact, I would claim that Law is itself the State; the form of the State prior to its later manifestations. It's an institution, even if it doesn't possess employees.

The divisiveness doesn't depend on any of the Law's content. Any notion of Law, by its very institution, will be divisive. Also, the "nature of the people" might play some role; but this sounds like there must be natures that are superior to others.

Without the state, there is no application of Law. This is why I don't buy your separation. Without some form of the State, the Law depends on individual humans to act accordingly; again, this suggests a cognitive revolution that would, in fact, make Law obsolete. The State is not a mistake or a flawed application of any tool; it's inherently connected to the process of human cognition and capacity to conceive of Law.

 

[Dak]

I meant thinking in general; thought is abstract.

The state is the entire population if it's merely the manifestation of Law in people's psyches. Not some specific law such as "thou shalt not kill." I mean Law in general, its very form (its content does not matter at all). It has nothing to do with payroll or employment; this is all far more developed than what I'm talking about. I don't agree with your dissociation of Law and State. They're inseparable, in my opinion. You can't have the Law and not have the State. In fact, I would claim that Law is itself the State; the form of the State prior to its later manifestations. It's an institution, even if it doesn't possess employees.

The divisiveness doesn't depend on any of the Law's content. Any notion of Law, by its very institution, will be divisive. Also, the "nature of the people" might play some role; but this sounds like there must be natures that are superior to others.

Without the state, there is no application of Law. This is why I don't buy your separation. Without some form of the State, the Law depends on individual humans to act accordingly; again, this suggests a cognitive revolution that would, in fact, make Law obsolete. The State is not a mistake or a flawed application of any tool; it's inherently connected to the process of human cognition and capacity to conceive of Law.

It's no surprise you are insisting on rolling the state, Law, and punishment into one big opaque ball. It's that exact errancy that makes any current abolition of a state rather pointless.

Humans, in general, act according to the Law because of nature, not because of the state. Otherwise we would have neither Law nor State, or in the least very different Laws. The idealistic argument for the state is to protect the majority who naturally act in accordance from the minority who do not.

 

[Einherjar86]

Errancy, huh? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me. They're bound together in a way that isn't dissolvable like you're trying to make it.

Law might very well emerge naturally; but then the State does also.

 

[Dak]

You didn't address my point about the nature of the ideal purpose of the state.

If the majority (but not all) did not already act in accordance with some sort of universal Law, a codification would not emerge. Codification emerges as a tool for instruction and as a reaction to those who do not naturally act in accordance: Primarily restricted to psycho and sociopaths. The problem is that psycho and sociopaths are wired differently for any variety of reasons, and simply don't care that they aren't in accordance. Since codification does not restrict those who do not care, the state is accepted as necessary and even good. (Notice I did not say the state emerged as a consequence. The state's emergence is/was separate). The problem is that the state not only is relatively unsuccessful at restricting those types, it creates two new problems in addition: It is a tool custom made for those types, and it's structure even forces those not of that type to act in similar fashion as a matter of official conduct. So to combat psychopathy we have codified it, ensuring it's expansion and empowerment.

The state emerged in two separate forms but often connected: Familial hierarchy that eventually grew disconnected due to size, and the warlord. Both are based on the concept of the population as subordinate and property. The law must be appealed to, as does spirituality, to hold where power does not. As the state loses it's association with law and/or spirituality, it must of necessity "appeal" to, or bring to bear, physical power.

 

[Einherjar86]

You didn't address my point about the nature of the ideal purpose of the state.

The ideal nature of the State is posterior to any manifestation of it, so I'm not sure how it concerns me.

The State's ideal nature, as you outline it, is something appealed to much later in its development. When I use the terms "Law" and "State", I'm describing something very primitive; the tendency for concrete codification and state institutions. Law (capital L) and State (capital S) can have no specifics of codification ascribed to them. They are nothing more than the tendency for laws and states to emerge. This is why any manifestation of the Law or State is reliant on human individuals; but it has nothing to do with majority or minority. From texts that I've read, and from my understanding, Law and State are very primitive and, in fact, inherent to the individual itself. It is a sign and symptom of the irreducibility and divisibility of the individual, and it translates into the cognitive division at the heart of human individuals.

Any notion of idealism comes after the material; it doesn't explain the State or provide a genealogy of it. All it does is provide a rationalization of it. The truth is that the State, in its very primitive, basic and abstract form, is a part of the human individual. I assign no value or quality to this assertion, it's merely something I believe based on my understanding of human thought and history.

 

[Dak]

That would depend on your definition of State.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I gave my definition.

 

[Dak]

The manifestation of the Law in the psyche is the Law. The Law is the instruction. The State is an apparatus which can form with no law save Obey Me/Obey Him, which is not Law.

 

[Einherjar86]

Obeisance is Law, which is what you don't seem to understand. Law is prohibition; obeisance and obedience is submission to the Law.

 

[Dak]

Obedience to the Law, not the law. And certainly not automatically the state. Or State.

 

[Einherjar86]

It looked as though you were trying to dissociate obedience from the Law; but you can't have Law without obedience.

 

[Dak]

You can't have obedience or disobedience without Law. Law is still present with disobedience.

 

[Einherjar86]

You can't have obedience or disobedience without Law. Law is still present with disobedience.

Yes, I know. This is what you said:

The State is an apparatus which can form with no law save Obey Me/Obey Him, which is not Law.

You seemed to be saying that pure obedience doesn't mean that Law is in place; but I'm trying to say that obedience in any form means that Law is functioning. The specific nature of the laws, their codification, doesn't matter at all.

 

[Dak]

Obedience to a person is not the same as Obedience to the Law. That's what I meant. Obey Me is law, not Law.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll say that they're not tautologically the same; but Law is functioning even in "obey me."

 

[Dak]

Maybe. I see Law as enabling cooperation and enhancing inter/personal wellbeing. "law" does not necessarily have to do this and neither does hierarchy.

Edit: I think "Hierarchy" would be a more suitable label for what you are looking for as something existent with Law. State is only a particular manifestation of Hierarchy, and I believe a malformed version.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Dak]

Zero Hedge: meet-man-charge-americas-secret-cyber-army-which-bonesaw-makes-mockery-prism

Must Read.

 

[Dak]

What Ein likes to talk about:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/20/overselling-psychiatry

If the DSM is not a map of an actual world whose contours can be independently confirmed, then opening up old arguments or starting new ones is an invitation to chaos. With each revision of the DSM comes the potential for instability and discord that cannot be settled by turning to the microscope or the computed tomography (CT) scanner. Knowing this, Frances says the goal of a DSM revision should be to stabilize an inescapably fragile system rather than to perfect it—or, as he put it to me, “loving the pet, even if it is a mutt.”

The mutt has certainly caused some mischief. Among its more prominent detractors was Steven Hyman, who in 1996 became the head of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). A neurogeneticist by training, Hyman hadn’t thought much about nosology before taking over at NIMH. It “seemed a bit like stamp collecting,” he once wrote in a 2010 article in the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, “an absorbing activity perhaps, but not a vibrant area of inquiry.”

But then he realized that the DSM was “a critical platform for research.” Its categories and criteria were the basis of decisions made by journal editors, grant reviewers, regulators, and the Food and Drug Administration, which meant that scientists were bound to frame their proposals in the DSM’s language. “DSM-IV diagnoses controlled the research questions they could ask, and perhaps, even imagine,” he wrote.

“The tendency [is] always strong,” John Stuart Mill wrote in 1869, “to believe that whatever receives a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own.” To Hyman, who quoted Mill approvingly, this tendency had led all the stakeholders in nosology—scientists, regulators, editors, doctors, drug companies, and, of course, patients—to take the labels not as arbitrary descriptions but as the names of actual diseases. They had, at least according to Hyman, reified what were intended only as concepts.

And this was no mere abstract concern. “It became a source of real worry to me,” Hyman said, “that as Institute director I might be signing off on the expenditure of large sums of taxpayers’ money for…projects that almost never questioned the existing diagnostic categories despite their lack of validation.” The DSM, Hyman concluded, had “created an unintended epistemic prison,” and anyone with a stake in the mental health treatment system was trapped inside.

The Termite-Riddled Foundation

While he was at the National Institute of Mental Health, Hyman had occasion to confide his reservations to at least one colleague: Steven Mirin, then the APA’s medical director. On a weekend afternoon in the summer of 1998, the two were eating lunch by the side of Mirin’s swimming pool in the D.C. area when Mirin asked Hyman if the NIMH would give the APA money to get the next revision of the DSM up and running.

Mirin’s request for taxpayer money to kick-start a project from which a private organization would profit was not as untoward as it might seem. After all, the DSM is indispensable to public health, and the NIMH had helped fund the DSM-IV. Nonetheless, and despite their friendship, Hyman said no. He told Mirin that a revision was premature, not only because the ink was barely dry on DSM-IV but also because psychiatrists had yet to come up with a better way to chart the landscape of mental illness.