The Cult of Stultification - Encouraging "moderate" this and that

[al8]

I've found ever more anoying a discorse that I've notice pop up in coversations and debate every now and then, on the internet and elsewhere - Having to do with moderation, rejection of "extremes" and glorification of the middleground; implying that it makes one somehow automatically correct or very likly so. Or that the golden middle path is somehow a neutral safehaven, a paradise for people who can't decide anything for themselves. It appears to me that this is a mentality among many people. And a tool or prism by which everything else is measured and weighed, especially ideas or proposals. I find this detrimental and irritating when applied. Because;

1.It's entirely arbitrary - Choosing what is extreme is very reletive to where one stands ideologically and what one is exposed to. Political smartypants have even given a political measure that exploits this weekness a name; Overton window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window). An "extreme" is introduced to nudge the middleground mongerers in a desired direction.
2.It's automatically restrictive - It puts a brake on ones idological development, making it conservative without reason. One is deemed to take half-steps and half-measures all the time.

So in short I think this is a pre-emtive means of stultifying radical thought in its cradle. A means to keep people conforming as closely as possible to norms not set by themselves.

I would like people to stop being under the influance of this mechanism and free their thoughts. Doing things despite and disregardless of the demands. And maybe for fun do the exact opposite of what is expected - be extreme, un-muddled, fundamental, unthinkable, clear, honest, firm and truthful. And in that spirit I regard myself as an extremist. As is seen in my political adjective. It's my kneejerk reaction that dampening menatality conveyed through demands for moderation. Sometimes I feel I have more sympathy for extremists of all stripes, even though they would be my enemies - at least they are honest, clear, straight forward and significant.

When I think of it I can't find anything about extremism that I find abhorrent per se. It only represents something that is taken to the full.

So what I would like to know; Am I alone with this sentiment?

[RedAnarchist]

No. Sitting on the fence usually involves some sort of compromise, and doesn't really help anyone, apart from the status quo. Our views are extreme because they are an extreme solution to the current system in that the current system will be disposed of.

[al8]

That is correct. But out of curiosity, would you, Red Anarchist (other readers) think that 'playing the same game' towards our ideological enemies would be ok? In other words; that we call for the moderation of supertitious beliefs for example. Hail "moderate" christianity and scorn only "fundamentalist" christianity. Pay lip-service to lackluster idiocy while whining against more vitally organized ignorance?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This does not appear to be philosophical issue at all. I am moving it to Theory.

[Luís Henrique]

This does not appear to be philosophical issue at all. I am moving it to Theory.

Nor it seems to have anything to do with Theory...

************************

The cult of mediocrity has to do with a misunderstanding of Aristotle.

He never argued in favour of wishy-washyness. He argued in favour of equilibrium. That is, his "golden middle" isn't a person who is (for instance) mildly rational and mildly emotional, but a person whose extremely powerful emotions are balanced by extremely powerful reason.

Luís Henrique

[al8]

This misconception then is just so common. I would wish there where some witty frase about it or a scold-word.

[Luís Henrique]

This misconception then is just so common. I would wish there where some witty frase about it or a scold-word.

The best I know comes from the Book or Revelation...

Luís Henrique

[Enragé]

this cult is simply necessary for capitalism to maintain itself. Either extreme is dangerous to business since either extreme leads to at least some level of unrest. The right extreme is just where the bourgeois flee if scared enough by global events and/or a resurgent left extreme.

[Dystisis]

Yes, this middle ground bullshit is simply bullshit.

It is very popular these days, although theoretically impossible, to illustrate mundane human concepts with the usage of geometry and numbers. In this case, value is given to some sort of metaphysical "middle ground", when in fact there is no middle ground to speak of. There is no ground at all. You have political issues, societal issues, etc. All need to be judged on a case by case basis. Some actions have bigger, more far-reaching implications. That doesn't mean it can be illustrated by some "field" or geometric area, and "if you think this way - this is where you belong".

It is dangerous in practice. This is also the exact reason I am 'mildly' opposed to most classifications, such as communist, anarchist, etc.

[al8]

The best I know comes from the Book or Revelation...

Luís Henrique

Do you mean this? ;


3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

[Enragé]

oh like that quote <3

[Luís Henrique]

Do you mean this? ;

Yup.:D

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, this middle ground bullshit is simply bullshit.

It is very popular these days, although theoretically impossible, to illustrate mundane human concepts with the usage of geometry and numbers. In this case, value is given to some sort of metaphysical "middle ground", when in fact there is no middle ground to speak of. There is no ground at all. You have political issues, societal issues, etc. All need to be judged on a case by case basis. Some actions have bigger, more far-reaching implications. That doesn't mean it can be illustrated by some "field" or geometric area, and "if you think this way - this is where you belong".

It is dangerous in practice. This is also the exact reason I am 'mildly' opposed to most classifications, such as communist, anarchist, etc.


Dystisis,

I'd be curious to see some of these geometries you mention that purport to describe "metaphysical" realms of existence. I am entirely a materialist, and I do not subscribe to any "middle ground" theories. I'd also be curious to know what you think of the geometries I've come up with -- they are meant to serve as frameworks, extendable to any given specific situation:


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______
http : // tiny url . com / 2c252w


Ideologies & Operations
http : // tiny url . com / yqotq9


History, Macro-Micro
http : // tiny url . com / 2dafgr


Worldview diagram
http : // tiny url . com / ypmxx3



Thanks!


Chris




--
___

YFI S Dis cussion B oard
ht tp:// discussion. newy outh .com

Fa vor ite we b si tes: chica go.indym edia. org, wsw s. org, ma rxist. com, rwor .org, lab ourstart .or g, fightba ckne ws .org, lab oraction. org, ifam ericansknew .org, subst ancenews . com, soci alismandliberation .o rg, wh atreally hap pened .co m, ple nglis h. com, moneyfile s.o rg/temp .h tml, inform ationcl earingho use .i nfo, blac kcom menta to r. com, na rconew s. com, tru tho ut. org, ra ven1 .n et

Ph otoi llustr atio ns, P oliti cal Di ag rams by Ch ris K ai hatsu
h ttp :/ /co mmunit y.w ebsho ts. co m/u ser /ck aihatsu/

M ySp ace:
ww w. mys pace .co m/ck aihatsu

Co uchSu rfing:
htt p:/ /tinyu rl.c om/ yo h74u

[al8]

Ckaihatsu, your urls are not valid. And why do they have so many spaces?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I heartily agree with what you wrote al8, but I also believe we should recognize a similar tendency amongst people to accept a proclaimed radical side for the sake of hounding on opposing ideologies. It's a mistake to base oneself on any portion of the ground without coming to a personal conclusion.

Furthermore, we should distinguish between people who throw themselves into the middle ground and those who have concluded a belief that others view as being centralist.

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu, your urls are not valid. And why do they have so many spaces?


al8: Board policy won't allow links in the postings until the member has reached 25 postings -- so for now my standard .signature has to be broken up for me to display it at all.... Eliminating the spaces will yield you valid URLs.



I heartily agree with what you wrote al8, but I also believe we should recognize a similar tendency amongst people to accept a proclaimed radical side for the sake of hounding on opposing ideologies. It's a mistake to base oneself on any portion of the ground without coming to a personal conclusion.


Yeah, GeneCosta, well said. Platforms of agreement may span over a fairly long length of political tendencies, depending on the issue(s). The 9-11 stuff I do, for example, is pretty broad-based, though with a preponderance of libertarian types.

I'm not a radical myself, but I certainly support radicals against attacks on them from the state.



Furthermore, we should distinguish between people who throw themselves into the middle ground and those who have concluded a belief that others view as being centralist.


On this I don't know which is worse -- someone who just twists in the wind because they fell into that orientation by default (the unexamined life (of politics)), or someone who has *consciously* chosen to be status quo, and nationalist / centrist.... Both are abhorrent...!

[wallflower]

It must be understood that categorizing political positions "geometrically" (a great descriptor, Dystitis) is a meta-discourse, a simplified discourse on the content of the rhetoric of specific politicians. The content of the aforementioned rhetoric is, naturally, far more informative on issues of policy (for example), yet is unfortunately deemed too complex for the average citizen of the USA to comprehend. While I avow this opinion, it is itself far too conservative. In reality, it would be more controversial, yet more accurate, to assert that those with power over a candidate's image and public persona, so crucial to the USA electoral process, simply do not want the public to focus on what the candidate believes in its unmediated state.

So is "moderate" thinking the fault of the media or the fault of the politicians?