Machiavellian

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

James Madison

The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.

James Madison

One of the most pressing issues of today, and if you had bothered to read history, any day that involved the existence of humans, is prevarication.  We all engage in the activity.  In some fashion, because of certain occultic and draconian silent rules of being a social herd animal, we don’t necessarily have a choice.  The little white lie is of less importance, it’s only arena is the singular of interpersonal communication.

What about that big, bad, nasty tosser?  The political lie, the corporate lie, the military lie.  Nothing much is my answer.  A lie is only as good as the story that is used to build it’s framework; which requires a good storyteller.  It should be rather simple to tell, mostly because anyone educated in the rudiments of their language would understand proper use of imagery, literary devices, solid word choice, required structure, etc.  It should also be rather simple to tell when someone’s story is just piss poor.

Notice that in both instances I used the terms, “should be”.

If James Madison’s words were ever heeded, it hasn’t been at any time in the last century.  There’s no point pulling punches, our prostiticians are morons, of the licentious variety; and yet, the populace seems to be none the wiser.  The flat-lined plebes of America still buy into the fallacy of bifurcation that is the left/right political spectrum.  It wouldn’t hold up as evidence under an adjudicatory hearing, but it is enough if you happen to ever part the pages of one of those dirty, better for cleaning windshields, factless periodicals known as a newspaper.  Or if you happen to have an IQ greater than a speed limit sign.

Are you groaning from the negativity yet?  I would be remiss for not reveling in the reader’s agony.

As I’m back in University, I have been forced into taking a “professional business writing” class.  I’ll digress on the overarching stupidity of the class and the nature of business writing I’ve encountered through the years, none of which succeeds in proving “professionalism”, in any sense.  But, I have learned one interesting tidbit from the class, via a rather harsh critique from the instructor.  It appears, according to his missive, that my writing fails to meet requisite standards of both the Fog Index and the Flesch Kincaid scale.

These are used everywhere in the news media, business and a mass of other publishing?  Read what the links explain plainly: both are setup to calculate whether or not you are writing at the “acceptable” level of 7th or 8th graders.  Don’t argue with me, it’s all there for you to read for yourself.

Modern writing is setup to the default standard of children, because regardless of where one finds oneself in this society, what magnanimous station you feel you’ve attained; the actuality is that your world is setup for the morons, the uneducated, the idiots, the cerebrally uncaring, however you choose to label them.

Fortunately, Mr. Madison has long since left this world and can no longer see the depraved indifference shown towards borderline illiteracy and lack of education.  There is no need to wonder why our government can rape, sodomise, pillage and loot the public; while still being defended by masses of individuals who watch the evening news.

Change the sign and the song: Amurika, home of the uneducated, land of the 7th grade reading level.  This country is beautiful, magnificent; Amurikans make me ill.

Sorry Mr. Madison, the experiment is ending as an abject failure, but on the positive side, none of the subjects will even be capable of reading the abstract.

So, here we go.

Let’s start off with a quote, from my good friend Tab’s father, “Philosophy is great son, but will it fix the kitchen sink?”

Yes, in the first instance, pragmatics is about philosophy.  Except, I’m afraid that philosophy errantly hijacked the term, as often happens, and morphed into something, as the above quote points out, less than useful.  In  philosophy, pragmatics is about meaning in context of linguistics.  That’s nice isn’t it?  Something all of the human species does on a moment by moment basis of existence, to help with navigating their place in the social constructs.  The action of this would be pragmatism, the actor, a pragmatist.  Except, philosophy interjects itself again, most notably through Charles Sanders Pierce and William James. Pierce coined the term for philosophy, William James solidifying his credit for such.  I’m thoroughly unimpressed, and pragmatics in philosophy is a redundancy of semiotics.  Basically, logical dissection of words and meanings which ends with a lot useless academia that tells us nothing about ourselves, especially in our most prevalent construct, societal interaction.

Great, back to the opening quote, which I will augment with one of my favorite phrases; “It’s a lot like watching a pack of monkeys, trying to hump a greased football”.  Meaning, sure, it can provide some entertainment, but what are we getting done?  The answer nothing, beyond a whole lot of mental masturbation for getting the dopamine dump which ends in us having happy thoughts that we’re really academically bright.

The problem is that pragmatics, and thereby, the pragmatist, is looking for something actually meaningful.  Ideas that can actually do something, and more importantly, do it correctly.

If philosophy won’t help us understand this, whatever will we do?  Here’s an idea, how about we go back before these cerebral stroking clods, and get back to the man that introduced the concept with stunning disseminations; Niccolo Machiavelli.  If you happen to go out to that page, you’ll notice this point, “Machiavelli never seems to have considered himself a philosopher—indeed, he often overtly rejected philosophical inquiry as beside the point”.  Well now, that’s an interesting bit.  A man who spent his best years in socio-political commentary, attempting to explain to the ruling Medici family, that they were basically lacking the fundamental understanding of human social behavior, and how that lack of understanding, coupled with their effete antics as rulers were working to their detriment, and the detriment of those they ruled; he found philosophical dialog and inquiry to be a less than useful aside.

Simply, the man understood human nature for the rulers and the unwashed masses, and he wanted to see things get done.  That is a primary point of the pragmatist; to see what is, not what makes people feel good about themselves or the situation.  His no non-sense approach to socio-political commentaries earned him the wrath of the church, which set about maligning him almost directly after his death.  This lets us know something else about the pragmatist; they aren’t going to make friends, especially with the unthinking crowds.  Machiavelli commented fairly consistently on the points of human repetitive behaviors, especially with morality/immorality, their need of recognition, their drive to ambition, and how that drive ends in corruption, mob rule/groupthink, etc.  From my perspective, the things he stated five hundred years ago about the socio-political behavior of the human, hasn’t shown itself to be non-factual.

At the root of it then, the pragmatist seeks what is correct, regardless “feelings”, morals, and/or perceptions.  Not because they are intent on being heartless tyrants, not because they are aberrant and unconcerned with human suffering; but that the bigger picture is getting done, what needs done, which usually ends up angering a fair number of people in the short run, but works out to the greatest benefit in the long run.

If there seems to be gaps here, have no fear, they’ll be plenty of revisiting to round out the case; life has an unerring ability to present case after case for inspection for the pragmatist.