“Police” might not be ‘a great’ acronym, but I referring to each person “policing” their own thought. What I am referring to, is not “self-censorship” in the way the libertarians discuss this concept of “self-censorship”. Libertarians get themselves in knots in thinking that “they”, as individuals, must not fail in the cognition of acknowledging each personal thought as valid, and sound, basis on its libertarian valuing. Principles of the Critical Theory field are being referenced here. When libertarians are not critiquing the field in the effort to rescue a libertarian argument (negativity: the attempted negative argument), there is automation in the action between stating the “valid and sound” acknowledgment and the alleged logical-ontological compatibility (positivity; the attempted positive argument). Compatibility [1], valid and sound philosophy ought to be the aim, but there is no automation – as in the alleged claims of “artificial intelligences” – which is valid and sound. There is not one (singular) paradigm at work and, in fact, it is intelligence, philosophically understood, which is the organising principle. It is akin to Aristotle’s view of the Soul as the organising principle. Rationality is abused in the paradigm of hard rationalism. And this is the reason why the rationality is abused, as in the militancy, of acknowledging each personal thought as valid, and sound automatic. Most (but not all) of the libertarian rhetoric are assertions. The rhetoric does not have the elements and dynamics of Jürgen Habermas’ communicative action. Libertarianism is historically a product of several culture–history wars during the 20th century.
Philosophically Ontology Logic Intersect Compatibility Education (POLICE) is a claim as follows: to sufficiently defunct the practice of the culture-history wars, philosophically turn to reading the ontology and logic, and intersect truthful claims as a stance of compatibility, achieved as this being–logically education. Here is a theory in the philosophy and sociology of education.
The philosophy is very applicable in applied educational settings. A few examples can be given. In a discussion of community education, the subject of “A.I. hallucination” was explored: we are not talking about a personal experience of hallucination but the machine as a representational mirror of the human experience. There is a legitimate disassociation here. The machine cannot have any agency. It deliberately “chooses” (metaphor) to misrepresent, in other words, the machine itself is determinate and cannot self-correct, in the exact way that the libertarian falls into the half-life cognition of acknowledging each personal thought as valid, and sound automatic. In the discussion an astute mind stated: “Unfortunately, so many of my Rationality-worshipping colleagues treat ChatGPT like it was an ideal [sic]”. My friend meant to tap “idol” rather than “ideal” but, with many cases of the stupidity of the self-correcting technology, the machine, in total unawareness, appears to be “clever”. The hard rationalist-libertarian-materialist is saying that, “If only we could get rid of our emotions and feelings, we could then be completely rational and logical.” It is an Ideal, and as an ideal it works. BUT ideals cannot work as daily practice. There are impractical ideals, and ideals which can effectively work in the long-run. If this ideal – to become a machine – was worked as daily practice, the individual cognition is deformed. Such a case is nearly impossible, and the question has to be, is it advisable (work of “the ought”)? Dissidents might rebel to this extreme but the ethical question is ought a person evolve into a machine. The question is answered in the compatibility between the “No Harm” principle and the characteristics of a flourishing human being. In our poor reading, though, we are currently going from the ideal to the idol: mindless worship of the machine.
There is difficulty in the idealism of rationality, and what I trying to explain is that the seeds of the difficulty (“little”) started in the philosophy discipline, in the development of a school of thought militantly to what came before and what comes after. The difficulty dramatically increases in the popularism, as fallacies are added upon one another on the sacrificial table of the idol.
The first example, just explained, is the legitimate negative argument. A second example of POLICE is a positive example of three community educational managers, as scholars, putting our joint interest, opportunity and benefit together in exploring overlapping intelligence. It is the philosophical compatibility practice by Dr Neil Peach, Dr Donnell Davis, and Dr Neville Buch. Intelligence matters, and as per Habermas, it is achieved in both as a compassionate community and as a democratic society.
The “socio-community” work of these scholarly-managers, as policing their own thoughts, on the histrio-theorio-politico outline of various movements in thought, shaping a community and a society. The scholars review, in the momentary selection, the linkages in order to better connect with the communal knowledges and ideas. In the other direction, that of the culture-history war, is the ‘efficiency’ cause, with the impetus and momentum for putative ‘progress’ created by the combination of science, technology and commerce. The concept-in-practice of efficiency has steam rolled many dimensions of human agency and thought, and due to the speed and the energy people need to respond to this speed-change, memory is lost and the absence of memory is filled with techno-experiences that flood the human in a sea of ‘what is’ and ‘now’.
The critic of the essay messaging will attempt to conclude that the essay is a case of cognitive dissonance. The dismissive is nonsense, but it will be said by the average citizen and too-smart-ass academics. In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it. As an action or idea, it is psychologically inconsistent, as a set of claims with the other, people do all in their power to change either the argumentative agenda, stress, or acceptance of the hard stoics’ of “what it is” (resignation or fatalism) so that they become consistent. In this negative argument part of the dismissive, we have a logical misnomer. The argument of the essay has not changed: the argumentative agenda, stress, nor changed the criticism in the acceptance of the hard stoics’ of “what it is” (resignation or fatalism).
In the positive argument of cognitive dissonance, the theory proposes that people seek psychological consistency between their expectations of life and the existential reality of the world. To function by that expectation of existential consistency, people continually reduce their cognitive dissonance in order to align their cognitions (perceptions of the world) with their actions. This is exactly what the essay has achieved as its argument. Only in the positive argument of cognitive dissonance can a claim be made of the essay, not a charge of unethical behaviour.
People who actively avoid situations and information are likely to increase cognitive dissonance – the discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or dealing with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. People do not think much about their attitudes, let alone whether they are in conflict. They can come to conclusions as observers without much (or no) emotional or intellectual (cognitive) reflection.
The situation is most likely worse. No one has time to think, and to recognise what is lost….almost no one in the global demography. However, there is a growing (at this stage) non-school grouping who are performing in POLICE. Drs Peach, Davis, and Buch, are showing a better understanding, and a better practice. In this way, it is not only good for a community and a democratic society, but energy and efforts are made towards a more complete and contributory economy.
Acknowledgement of the work of Dr Neil Peach and Dr Donnally Davis in the composition of this teaching essay. Note the links to Wikipedia does not necessarily take you to an article that you intuitively think. Be aware that separate words might be separately linked.
[1] An oppositional system to the negative-positive inclusiveness is “forward compatibility” which destroys the capacity of “history” for the system. There is “backward compatibility” but the transference in these cases filters the understanding of the technology history.
Featured Images: Illustration 301363328 © Artofthew33k | Dreamstime.com
Dreamstime.com Description as the Narrative: “A close-up of a high-tech gadget with glowing lights and buttons, symbolizing the control and manipulation of technology. A sleek and modern device sits in front of us, its smooth surface reflecting the light around it. The camera focuses on one button, which is illuminated by an LED light that gives off a soft glow. The background is dark, emphasizing the contrast between the high-tech gadget and the rest of the world. The device has multiple buttons arranged in a circular pattern, with each button having its own unique function. Some are labeled with symbols or letters, while others have no markings at all. As we zoom in closer, we can see that there is a small screen on the top of the device, displaying information and data. The glowing lights on the buttons create an almost otherworldly effect, as if they were some kind of magical tool for controlling technology. The contrast between the dark background and the bright lights draws our attention to the device itself, making it stand out from everything else around us. Overall, this stock image represents the power and control [over the human] that comes with modern technology. It shows how even something as simple as a button can have a profound impact on our lives, and how we use technology to manipulate and shape the world around us. AI Generated.
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Presentism and Parallelism: Why Political Decisions-Makers Need to fund, contract, or employ professional historians - April 27, 2024
- What is “Stupidity” and Why it is Not a Dismissal in My Philosophic-Sociological History Work - April 26, 2024
- No! Not Yes: Optus Thinking is Machine Thinking - April 25, 2024