logicp_writings/new/statues.md

Idea pathogens.. oh boy so if we are to talk about the growing trend to accept and excuse protest, in so many different forms, seemingly for similar reasons but with different interfaces into the the concept which allow for each event or instance of the behaviour to be reasoned about independently, and accepted through a differennot be more appealing for one particular mind or another, then we need to talk about what we think is real about the experience and the behaviour, and what eactly we are arguing over what is it about the protest that doesn't allow for everyone to accept it unanimously? Are some people simply racist? do they not want to see equity for black people? you need to wonder if those who are claiming this, as a reason to obviously choose to support the protests, actually believe it because if they do, do they believe that the reason they are choosing to accept and support protest, is because if they weren't to support it, it would be because they themselves would prefer that equity is not achieved, and that people of colour, black people, or whatever group is in question, remain behind them in whatever relevant form of hierarchical stnading that one wishes to use as a framework for evaluation? so they actually think that, by choosing to support the protest, that are preventing themselves from allowing this type of belief to animate them, take them over, and force them into racist beliefs and practices How much of a factor is the fear of being perceived as such a person? That they are willing to avoid scrutiny as to whether or not they might be guilty of the most forbidden sin, racism, because it implies that they are insecure, unrefined, unknowledgable, antiquated and altogether irrelevant in space and time, as far as can be understood in teh current societal frame, is a factor perfectly plausible to be present to some degree, whether a prime factor or not In any case, if truly they believe that the only reason one would be against the protest, is because they were racist, then they might be suppressing racist behaviour and beliefs that exist in them, which they are aware of if that is not the case, and they are simply wishing to avoid scrutiny or accusation of being a racist, then they are delegating those designations to their peers who are otherwise trying to challenge them in order to reinstate a more reasonable practice of evaluation on the issue of protesting This assumes a lot of different things, and we need to work through them one at a time Let's take for granted that they are choosing to believe that the support is for something which they accept because of the following reasons:

1. Society is developed enough to withstand the collateral damage of these protests
2. Some of the ideas being promoted by these activities are ones which the consensus agrees as being beneficial for the social sphere
3. That these behaviours are complex means that we can't know which fundamental values or behaviours are most important to consider, and since there are some good ones, we can assume that it at least is worth enacting and seeing through, because some good might come of it, and if not, then at least we have gained some understanding and can do a better job next time
4. The consequence of not supporting this movement is not worth paying exit are there any other reasons? so here is one which was posited by a colleague and good friend New set
5. there is valid concern for racism in the Southern parts of the United States
6. This is a path towards creating a countr ywith no state So let's look at these one aat a time in the case of concern for racism in the south this doesn't specify a nuanced position concerning certain aspects of racism, the movement to abolish it, whether these methods are caspable of achieving the aims what other aims are being achieved, orpossible achieved what is the cariability in teh likelihood of any of these aims being achieved, and how do they affec ton eanother I mean we can go on and on about these things and find more stuff to scrutinize over, and we might not necessarily be becoming more scrupulous in the analysis, in the case of paying particularly more attention to increasingly esoteric or xconfined ways of thinking about an interaction or the effects of a decision in the case of enacting changes which might resolve racism, what are we really considering here
7. Forced education
8. The removal of state provided security; or
9. a) the transformation of state security into a new type of entity which is capable of giving particular care to one classification of human over another 3. Admission of guilt the admission of guilt is cmoplex, because it can be communicated in different ways tto different minds or wauys of thinking it can be translated to mean a bit of something else so I think the example that I gave Ross was that in one case you have the radical black feminist who's asking to have the entire system destroyed burned to the ground, religiously even, and then allowing black people to take control of the new civilization, which will allow for a better society which doesn't have the same corruption which came from whiteness that's pretty insane, and anyone who goes along with it is obviously racist beacuse they want to see a racial dominance hierarchy in any case, we have far more salient versions of the argument, which arenot asking for the same thing at all, but are in the same spirit, and can be used to gather more support for a range of ideas which are ill defined in the case of demnding something radical, we're only asking them toa gree that the mechanics of the system which exists, incur the possibility of enacting phenomena which demonstrate an abuse of power by authority figures if this can happen at all, it's easy to see, because we know that there are human elements at playt, and a human's behaviour is not considered as beign reliable unless you are that human humans can only trust their own experience, because it's the only thing that's real even if they believe that humans, including themselves, are able to fall victim to the possibility of believing in the illusory, or failing to apply logical reasoning to a given issue or problem, they still can easily maintain the perception that they might still be best able to detect when this is happening, since they are actively considering the possibility of it at all you can't really get around that, because yoy necessarily expect that of anyone who is able to mitigate their bias or propensity to think in the illusory this always brings us back around full circle we either have a divine being, which if not divine, is just like anyone you or me and subject to the same pitfalls of being just a human, or you have the belief that you would rather have yourself be in control and since being in control, at that point, means you need to be in control of yourself we're pretty much still also arguing for the idea that anyone can be in control of thermselves you can't believe in having someone who is in control of the society unless you also believe that person is in control of themselves because they wouldn't be able to enact or cause or create anything that you would have already been aligned to any positive expectation that you would have of this person gaining control, would necessarily require you to believe that ahead of time, and thus his ability to enact it requires some element of planning or understanding, at least in sofar that you are able to deduxce that they have a mindset which naturally allows them to make the decision you would prefer but even then, this assumes that their mindset has a sort of consistency at all, because you wouldn't have been able to make a prediction about their ability or reasoning otherwise thus you are, again considering that they must be able to make those decisions because they are in control of themselves so you must also be arguing for the idea that someone is in control of themselves, and thus people are able to be in control of themselves if they can't be in control of themselves, then no one can ever be expected to be in control of anything at all, especially not all of us so again if the problem is having authority figures at all, we're still can't come to make ourselves believe that a new system would have any sort of authority figure that would be able to be free of corruption unless that figure was a divine one, and not a human if that's the case, then we're off the neverneverland and there's no coming back so again, are we asking for no authority? no we're not, we need to be asking for a transformation of authority, and we only know where that would go exit what were we talking about before we know that it had something to do with disagreement the reasons we have conflicts and the reasons we abide by our different view externalizing our enemies, externalizing evil externalizing the parts of ourselves that we are ashamed of neglecting the reality of human behaviour choosing not to pay attention to the types of emotions which are produced by those who perform the actions necessary to the position which you wish to support it might be because one has many aspects of the action to focus upon, and some of those could take time or it might be that there are mutliple emotions which are possible but which ones are plausible? if you imagine yourself in that moment, in the body, taking action and taking aim at a particular goal what is the goal in destroying anything? does it ever feel joyful, or liberating? is it ever a catharsis or a transcendance? how does that happen with removing statues the statues stand for something that you are against something which you must defeat even if it's something from the past that you aren't able to accept or something from the past that you don't think deserves recognition what sort of recognition? the recognition of it having passed? of its occurrence? it's not necessarily a recognition in the sense that we must praise it the statue itself, however, does seem to be a sort of praise a form of praise we can't really get around that, because work was performed and maintenance was required.. this didn't happen b accident, any it didn't happen for nothing so with that in mind, it's true that these statues, as all statues, are recognizing the good parts in tha tsense that it was worth spending ther esources but that doesn't mean that it's the only thing we could recognize because if we decide to go the path of removing anything which causes enough fofence, given enough time, it's likely that most things could cause offense, and that our standards as to what constitutes an intolerable offense will change so, knowing these things, do we wish to accept a future where all things are eventually removed and destroyed? all art? all music? anything icon or emblem, anyhting which inspires through the history and acts of any particular person could we have statues that are meant to offend, which will never be taken down unless they didn't cause ENOUGH offense? what would be better, to have to worry about which statues are offensive enough, and possibly just ban the use of statues altogether, or to have statues which rae only erected because they cause enough offense to do so that's an interesting idea, and that might even be wortwhile as an experiment someplace, like a hotel or a town in any case, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that given the complexity of social interaction and community, and enough time for the necessary changes to have taken place, all art and all statues might be worthy of being removed, or might be believed to be worthy of being removed, because of any number of areas of analysis so if we aren't also okay with the idea of banning all statues, then it doesn't seem like the position to remove statues especially in the case that the statues aren't offending you, but might be offending others so we might get to a place where we can't have any statues or any tributes fo any kind and possibly no art is that a future we all want? would we be willing to make that switch right now, and give up things which we consider artful, beauthat these transactions are multilayered and require a few iteration in order to get right and I think that those ierations, unless they are brutal, should, at least in a system of reason, inspire the actual work we need to get free again exit