Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
The causes are mostly objective. The effects are mostly objective. The interpretations are mostly subjective. An objective study of the politics includes closer examination of the causes and the effects, not the interpretations. The more the causes and effects have similarities in a defined domain, the more degree of certainty you could have as to the objectivity of the analysis you performed.


I think we could have a fruitful discussion here, but I would prefer not to let myself be distracted by this at this point and keep focused on the objectivity/subjectivity. You see, the strategemas are an excellent example of what in IT is referred to as the 'design patterns' and I think gives more credibility to the scientific approach to politics rather than the artistic/religous one.


Hey, I guess you expect the formula not only be specific, but also assert the deterministic nature of the world! That would be a way too much and a little bit against the laws of physics.


I sincerely apologize for that.


Yes and no. People died during the collectivization - objective. People died because they didn't want to join the collective farms - objective. People died because the communism implies collectivization - objective. It was ok to let those people die because they were exploiting other people - subjective. Can you see the switch when it becomes subjective? It's at the point of assigning the priorities. That process is subjective.


That means that the future is objective, but non-deterministic.


Not that it's impossible, but it could probably be done to a certain degree of certainty. You see, we have those quantum physicists who have some magic around a similar kind of things. Perhaps, the sociology would at some point apply some of those methods, not sure. That's a speculation point anyways.
Well, reading back what I wrote earlier, I owe an apology for a tone that I myself don't like, upon re-examination. I apologize for my tone.

I think we can mostly agree, if we can agree that there is subjectivity and objectivity involved in this issue. I feel that is true. And I think we agree on the point at which the subjective becomes the objective - during interpretation of the human mind.

But it breaches a dangerous point, because the model of subj. and obj. in leadership can infer an absolute right/wrong about leadership.. and I'm hard pressed to believe in an absolute right or wrong. I think some people, just to make an arbtitrary example, need a capitalistic society to seek their happiness.. others are barraged by the same environment, and would be better able to pursue happiness in a community-centered or even communist situation.. And when the day comes that someone feels that there's an objective solution to the poliltics problem, to the leadership of mankind, and they ALSO happen to be in a position of influence or power... Well, Hitler thought there was an objective solution, though his mindset was drug-addled and basal and reflective of his childhood prejudices... But the danger was not those things, it was his absolute mindset of an objective solution. If a person like that gains a little control, then a little more.. we may paint our world into a corner we can not escape.

One thing I think we can all agree on, though, is that when a leadership is a Dictatorship, only the Dictator truly benefits; the rest suffer. This is what I was saying when I put up the Clark video, or what I meant to convey anyway, and I think it's what hanna may have meant as well, when she asked how much more proof we all should need.. at least that's how I received it.

I guess my "button" (and i'm ashamed, on re-examination, to find I was so reactionary) was the concept that someone's opinion should be invalid, and that someone should request they take it back. Hell, to make sense of this world, we're all going to need models of obj & subj.

Earlier, I had written a formula for you, it took me two hours to write it and you would have been quite entertained.. variables to explain most of the factors behind political ascension and action.. but it got deleted when I timed out, and I didn't try to re-create it. Castles made of sand.

What I wish I knew (assuming there is any answer to give) is how we should, or even how me might, react to news like this. I am disheartened and vaguely frightened by the "Oh well, what can you do?" response that many of my countrymen have shown in response to this deception topic. See, the deception is appalling to everybody, but it seems I'm the only one, or the only one I've found, who would be willing to put some effort into righting this wrong. And would that we could, there might still be some good to come of it.. Us US, we're in Libya now, but the last couple on the list I don't think we've gotten to yet.. I have some vague hope that, armed with this bit of knowledge, we might offset the societal manipulation required to wag-the-dog on two more countries.. and man, if there's one thing america would benefit from right now, it would be NOT having MORE blood on our hands. None of what could come from this is good: we don't need richer Rumsfelds and such people at the top, fed by oil (acquired Roman-style, by military conquest) with oil-gleam in their eyes, looking towards more third-world countries... and we don't need to pave the path of pretense, that these people at the top of the US want us to help them pave - which leads to them being claimed forever innocent of these crimes, because the history books say so.. An uncontested lie, left alone for long enough, can grandfather itself in as "truth," and then we've crowned the devil himself. This is my fear.

Mr. Crocodile, I should mention that I always find your objectivity enlightening, and I envy your feverless demeanor, quite contrasted to my own.. but as for me, I feel I learn a lot about the world through the subjective. It's an approach that a good scientist would throw tomatoes at me for. I shouldn't blame anyone for doing that. It means things are as they should be.

To Seraphim - My apology should extend to you to, since I believe I was overly vitriolic on the same topic with you a couple days back.. Not my intention.. Your words ring true, and your intentions are good. Far be it from me, when I know what I'm doing, to want to interfere with that. My respects to you.

And to ms. hanna, and anyone else who's interested.. if ever a pathway appears, by which we can begin to right these wrongs, or even if you have any advice.. Call me first. I'm willing, if there is a way. My engine runs best on constructive action, and I'll be glad to work at it, if anyone knows what can be done about things like this.