Answering 'Somehow': The Problem of the Ideological Observatory

As seen in the previous post, seeking after obvious facts and answers can 'somehow' put you at odds with understanding what is real and true. But how? As with most of our problems today, they have less to do with what we do, than with what we no longer do, and since the West has been 'educated' out of its stories and history, we've lost sight of what Aristotle understood to be a critical aspect of understanding what you know, which you can catch a glimpse of in his Poetics, Section 1, Part IX:

"...It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen- what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular...."

Proverbs 29-19:
"Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
Note: It's worth reading the other translations of that passage here.

, and together with our modern attitude of treating stories as 'just stories', we've trained ourselves into the habit of seeking obvious facts as being sufficient answers for particular problems, and we become too easily satisfied with that lack of depth in short range answers, and in so doing, give no thought to those universals which principled thoughts such as "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." depend upon being understood, by We The People.

This tendency to accept a shallow understanding of matters, makes an ideal stage for the 'somehow' that philosophical Houdini's - 'experts' - cultivate for performing their sleight of mind 'magic' of conceptual distractions, in synch with the artful stage management of narratives, which leaves us unable to see the monsters that our world is filled with today, let alone how to battle them. Worse, the forms which those monsters have been taking, like that of the many-headed Hydra, instinctively grasp that we don't understand them well enough to do them any real harm, and so they gleefully provoke us into reacting with those shallow attacks that we think we're hurting them with (hello "education reform!"), but which actually helps their beast to grow still more heads to overwhelm us with.

That deliberately shallowed vision is the means that pro-regressives from Descartes to Kant, to Fichte, to Dewey and Gramsci, have used in their efforts to hamper people's ability to grasp what is real and true, and that is critical to their plans for ending the West's 'Cultural Hegemony'.

How does that 'somehow' work?

You've heard of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, right? In which there are prisoners chained to the wall in a cave, as unseen others fix their attention upon the shadows being cast upon the other wall before them. The prisoners, who seeing nothing else, accept those shadowy images before them as being real, and there's something in that act of accepting surface level answers, which leads them to cling to them, and to resent, and even to attack, those who try to show them the depths of what is actually real and true.

While keeping that spirit of Plato's Allegory intact, I'd like to make a suggestion for modernizing its form, by utilizing the popular meme of an object that is shaped in such a way that when light is shone on it from the front, side, or above, onlookers see it casting images of a square upon one wall, a circle upon the other, and a triangle upon the center of the floor, within the walls of an Ideological Observatory that has been established to teach what are said to be the most valuable answers (ideologies) to students who're studying to become Those Who Know Best (TWKB) in their society.

Inside the Ideological Observatory, its interior has been curtained off and divided up in such a way that a spotlight can be shone onto the ideological object hanging from the ceiling, so that only one shape is seen in any individual area within it. And instead of images being viewed by prisoners chained to a wall of a cave, the students of the Ideological Observatory are divided up into particular groups, in which each group knows nothing of the shapes that other groups are being shown in their areas, and seeing only that one image which is obviously being cast upon its surface by the light being shone on it from above, they are instructed throughout their studies there, how to argue that the image they're being shown contains the answer that is the key to resolving the world's troubles, and to getting all that they most desire in that world.

Of course, once these students have graduated and are sent out into the world, they are soon confronted by others who've passed through the Ideological Observatory, but who speak of having seen differently shaped answers than those shapes that they had learned to recognize within all that they saw. Each of these groups will predictably experience "WTF?!" moments and a sense of outrage, whenever meeting the liars and idiots of those other groups who dare to deny the obvious fact that the shape of the answer is "and should be!" that [triangle, circle, or square] which they earned their degrees in studying.

More importantly, the fact is, of course, that each group has viewed what is obviously the image of a [triangle, circle, or square]. But along with that 'obvious fact' comes the false impression that the object that they viewed that image of, was cast from a [triangle, circle, or square], which couldn't be further from the truth - which those who focus the spotlight on the ideological object hanging above all of these areas know full well - and without a grasp of the wider and deeper contexts involved in what they are considering, such 'obvious facts', can be exceedingly misleading, and quite possibly entirely untrue.

For real life examples of this, see 'Social Justice!', 'Free Speech Movement!', 'Free Trade!', etc., etc., etc.

Now you might be assuming that it's obvious that the Ideological Observatory is able to instill those assumptions which spread division & discord, because its inner rooms are curtained off to show different 'answers' to different groups, but that's not the case.

In fact, those differences are but useful distractions that help each group to provoke reactions from those of other groups, to act out against them, which keeps the ideological dialectic churning away, and helps ensure that the Ideological Observatories will continue to be filled with a steady stream of eager students in search of answers.

The real key to the Ideological Observatory isn't so much that each group has been given different answers, as the fact that 'answers' are all that each group is given; 'answers' are what each group is taught to seek out in all of their materials; 'answers' define the problems which their group desires to solve; 'answers' are what each group is thoroughly instructed in how to give systematic arguments for justifying those systems, and which produce only those 'answers' which they recognize as being the acceptable 'answers'.

The particular 'shape' (ideology, system, etc.,) which one group does, or doesn't accept as being the 'answer', isn't what matters to the Ideological Observatory. What does matter to it, is its ability to shape every group to conform to the pattern of seeking answers from ideologically approved sources & authorities, with very little risk that the 'educated' will ever learn how to ask those questions that would lead to understanding the essentials of what they have been observing.

That pattern of accepting, memorizing, and regurgitating obvious 'answers' and seeing systems as if they were reality, is the central lesson and is the key to the successful spread of ideology, and that pattern of thinking is what The Ideological Observatory instills into all of the members of all of the groups that it processes through its hallowed halls, and is passed on to those who've learned by example from them.

The only counter arguments that are taken seriously by any of the groups themselves, are those of 'Epistemological arguments' which compare and contrast the utility of 'answers' from competing systems, while conspicuously refusing to venture into examining what the hanging object actually is, or how the spotlight is focused upon it, and who it is that handles doing that, or why, which amount to wacademic fanfare over making distinctions without a difference.

What this ultimately means, is, that what the Ideological Observatory's graduates think, isn't the issue, or their litmus test for entry: How they think, is, which illustrates that far from being a benign saying, that idiom attributed to John Dewey:

"Teach them how to think, not what to think"

, is less a noble sounding statement about the methods of good teaching, than how modernity has used our educational system to pour a big goblet of hemlock down reason's throat, for more than a century.

That system for transmitting the ideological pattern of thinking is what ensures that the interests of the Ideological Observatory are served, and that is served, no matter what shape any group's ideological system identifies as being the 'answer' - be it triangle, circle, or square.

As a consequence, what's common to every ideological shape-seer amongst TWKB in our society, is that the same habitual pattern of thinking which all groups are instructed in, expects to find satisfaction in obvious facts and in all-encompassing systematic answers for them (ideology). Each of these shape-seers will habitually argue with those who 'somehow' fail to see that the shape which they see in those facts which 'everyone' can clearly see, must be the 'answer' that they're seeking. And having been miseducated into an unfamiliarity with, or misunderstanding of Universals, they lack the 'metaphysical firewall' of what is, and what cannot be real and true, which leaves them more easily led to see particular answers in any given flurry of facts. Even in the case of those who convert into believing a different ideological group's 'answer' - now seeing a square instead of a circle or a triangle - they're not valued for the new 'answer' they believe, but for how that adds to the competition between the ideological systems that are peddling circles, triangles, or squares, and that 'conversion' raises the heat of contention over what all have observed. That heated competition is valued not because it helps to promote one shape over another, but because it helps to better hide what is real and true beneath the churning of discord & division that their ideological competition ensures, and that is what ensures that Ideology is what will continue to reign over all.

Those who don't order their understanding by surface appearances, but by their underlying concepts and principles, integrated with facts, are better able to resist accepting those 'answers' put out by the Intellectual Observatory, because they will routinely question what other people fail to. By doing so, these questioners are better able to see how an ideology leads its listeners into accepting its disembodied 'answers', and how it is that the ideolog's purposes depend upon human nature being rendered rootless, so that it will run its course more favorably for the particular narratives they are being fed. But when these outliers try to ask their questions of TWKB, they will almost certainly find them unwilling to listen, or to do the work of understanding: 'people don't talk that way or use words like that!' is a reply that's often heard from those who want the fruit of answers, but who want nothing to do with tending the tree and roots which such fruit is grown from.

What is necessarily not observed in the Ideological Observatory
The pattern that those who pass through the Ideological Observatory do not learn, is that of inspecting what the actual issue is (Metaphysics), understanding what leads to and follows from that (Causality & Logic), and methodically reasoning from that to understand what, if anything, should or should not be done about that (Ethics).

The person who learns to look up and around in order to observe the object that ideological images are generated from, and inspects the source of the light being shown upon it, as well as the shadows being cast from them, becomes someone who develops the habit of thinking first about what is, and then diligently reasons from there, in accordance with that. Those are the people who are able to develop the deep roots that a sound & sturdy tree of knowledge can grow from, and so becomes able to comprehend at least some of what the whole truth actually is.

The nature of that pattern of reasoning, which has been passed on down from Aristotle through Aquinas, and from Thomas Reid to our Founders' generation, is understood as:

“the conformity of thing and intellect” (adaequatio intellectus et rei)

, and that is recognized (though not understood) by the operators of the Ideological Observatory, as being a direct threat to the observatory itself, for it understands that if its adherents regularly examined both the light source and the object which its vaunted images were being cast from, they'd soon understand how its shapes were contrived to appear to be what 'everyone knows!' as triangles, squares, and circles, and whether or not those shapes actually followed from the nature of the object of their thought, or not.

The depth of understanding and breadth of applicability that particular 'answers' can never contain:
"...A single line of choral text can emerge from memory and aid recognition of what is occurring in the present, perhaps even more clearly than pages of intellectual academic argument..."
~ "Axioms in Accord"

Anything that might impart that pattern of thinking - such as the once treasured stories and music of The West in concert with the realist philosophy they are rooted in - cannot be permitted to be given any respect in the Ideological Observatory. Instead, they are sold the sop of 'Epistemology' justifying what you know, by comparing one system with other systems, each of which systematically avoids identifying what it is that those systems are systems of...'somehow' (ala Hegel's 'Science!' of systematic mysticism).

Recall that stories don't provide their readers with easy answers. The person who opens up the biblical books of Genesis or Judges, or myths such as Hercules, or even histories such as are found in Thucydides or Plutarch's Lives, expecting to be presented with answers they can 'score an A+!' with, are in possession of minds that've already been captured by the pro-regressive pattern of thinking, and they will have to actively and intentionally struggle to free themselves from those habits of mind that they've been taught to confine their thinking within.

Logic as a Liberal Art: An Introduction to Rhetoric and Reasoning by Rollen Edward Houser

If you doubt the value of the literature of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West (The Bible, the stories from Homer to Dante, their histories), you need only look at the state of the world today to see what its absence over the last century has cost us. It's not coincidence that its stories were the first to be ejected from our schools, its philosophy was then pragmatically subverted & corrupted without their support, and its religions stands alone, turned against each other, and under siege. And if you ask 'What can be done to restore it?', the answer should be obvious: Read what has been set aside. Do that, and you begin restoring the glory of The West within yourself, and that is no little thing.

Familiarize yourself with the 'language' used - and realize that because we are talking about a 'common culture' that extends over umpteen languages, we are not talking about the 'arbitrary rules of punctuation' (the English rules of which, though I'm better than I once was, I've no doubt my grammar still gives grammarians the willies), but of a grammar centered on the reality based logical integration of thought across theme, plot, and character development. Focusing your attention upon that grammar of reasoning within the stories and materials being read, is what encourages the reader to draw inferences, identify principles, and so better understand how and why people - yourself included - take those actions that they do.

But as you're reading, it is important to understand that just reading the lost literature of The West, is not enough: how you read through it makes a critical difference.

The Real Difference that makes all the Difference!
As you're reading through what is truly worth reading, you must realize that reading to understand what is (Metaphysics), what it leads to and what follows from that (Causality & Logic), and what, if anything, should or should not be done about that (Ethics), is a very different method and purpose for reading, than that of reading those same 'texts' through 'the lens of' modernist ideologies (whether Utilitarian, Marxist, or other Critical Theories), to see what the Ideological Observatory expects you to see. The tragic fact is that much of The West's literature is still technically being taught in our schools and colleges today (as professed by creatures like my troll), but they are being taught in such a way that doesn't seek understanding and wisdom, but utility and power. That difference between seeking to understand what you're reading, in order to better understand what is real and true, and that of seeking answers that are 'true enough' to achieve an aim, is the difference between day and night, and while you may be reading the same words, what you are able to understand from them, will be worlds apart.

Those rootless would-be heroes 'on our side' who've ignored or were steered away from rooting their understanding in what is real and true, will fail to foresee the long-range consequences of their short-term answers, which is exactly what makes them the target audience that the hydra counts upon provoking. Remember: The Hydra wants you to attack it, because your reaction is the point of its action - and the impetuously heroic efforts of those full of answers without understanding (hello "School Choice!"), will do little more than to help the hydra to grow more heads to attack us all with. That is what Saul Alinsky understood about the vast monster he helped to create out of decades of college students: The Hydra knows that you won't have been taught enough to be able to kill it, and that because your ill-considered reaction is likely to be cutting off one of its regenerable heads without knowing how (or understanding why) to cauterize it and prevent it from growing two more back in its place, your heroic efforts will only help it to grow still more heads to eventually overwhelm us all with.

Most of all, what the would-be heroes of our populace have been 'educated' to not understand, is how much damage can be accomplished by just shifting our attention and understanding aside... just enough... for an important universal to be only partially recognized and an inference of principle to be missed (like the shift from inalienable rights, to what rights you've contracted for, which is a very different thing). We no longer recognize how much our ability to recognize universals clearly (or realize why we need to) and to assiduously make principled distinctions, is largely developed from what we learned (or should have learned) in childhood all those years before, and so we've forgotten how much we rely upon being able to lay ahold of those in the face of all of the buzzing particulars that adult life might array against us.

The most meaningful lessons for us to learn are not learned through the STEM's of 2+2=4, but by working through fables like 'The boy who cried wolf', and parables like 'The Sower' and the return of 'The Prodigal Son', and epic stories from The Iliad to Ivanhoe, as well as the many meaningful poems, and speeches of the great orators, which were key to developing the deep and penetrating reasoning that put the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West on the world stage. The person whose thinking was developed through lessons such as those, is likely to be better prepared to utilize the understanding of 2+2=4 with far greater effect, than that of a person who has learned only the deracinated facts of 2+2=4. Which approach a person's learning was guided by, is a clue to how likely it is that they themselves habitually engage in 'Critical Thinking'.

Those who truly want to 'fight!, fight!, fight!', must learn to look further than the obvious 'answers' floating upon the surfaces of popular narratives, and to realize that doing so requires more than those 'answers' which targeted 'research' and the engineering of LLM prompts can provide, and that requires reading, considering, and pondering, those lessons and histories found in the books - not textbooks - of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West, which most of us were either never taught, or were taught in a way that neutered or subverted their meaning and value.

We'll dig further into the nature of that, and into revealing the hidden nature of the dastardly 'somehow', in the next post.