A Theory of Everything; Humour for Humanists and the Poststructured Part 1: A Predicate For Instinct

 In a 2005 article for the Journal of Academic Questions, Mark Goldblatt argues that since humanists, by definition, require logical demonstration to contextualize opposition and thus differ from postructuralists who do not require verification nor falsification in determining the "truth," neither side can effectively communicate without the exchange of opinions being either verified or falsified. However, I argue that on the contrary, humanists and poststructuralists can talk. In fact, the two can get along quite nicely. And if they choose, they can even talk about Theories of Everything such as the one i am about to propose here however odd that attempt may prove to be.

The contrasting opinions of the extreme left of the Democratic Party and many party centrists over the issue of a "Public Option" in Health Care Insurance Reform is one example of this diametric opposition. For the sake of argument  let's say for instance, the view of the left would label the President's recent comments on the issue a "selling out" of what should have been a non-negotiable provision to imposed and artificial principles adhered to by the rich and the insurance companies. While on the other hand, those who may opt for more of a compromise just to get the Bill through, may take the position  that the actual "sense experience" of the situation should be the main determining factor. In this side's view, the existence and reality of Health Care Insurance Reform must take into account the undeniable geometry of the factors involved.

In this model, the we could say the former represents a poststructural view whereas the latter opposing side represents more of a humanist perspective. Yet, I maintain neither side is actually that far apart.

In previous posts, we have developed F. Nietzsche's  idea that there is a necessity of error in perspective and illusion such that (according to an ontological transformation) the Subject, that which is inherent, is necessary.
We can say this  because of the three elements of our assertion: p=perspective, q=illusion and the ratio of p|q=error. If we start with negation as a ratio ( |-->0<--| ) where two opposing quantities, one that is known and one that is not, oppose each other in a specific range we have two possible resulting generalities. One being Perspective ( |<---) the other being Illusion (--->| ). In some ways then, this approach is poststructural in so far that we are attempting to illustrate intuition as a range, a frame for conditions  that allow us to predict inherent Subject as an integration of qualitative and quantitative capacity. Of course this also means we must redefine our parameters of what is and is not quantifiable in terms of so called "primitive" human nature. Moreover since we are also saying there is a Constancy of Occurrence of either perspective and illusion in  joint, direct or inverse relation to the other (conjunctive, disjunctive and negation respectively) we are employing an positivist approach. On the other hand Object ( an ontological transformation from our positivist construction of Subject) is that quantity which is constructed from that capacity which is inherent and thus,  probable.

 If you are still with me here...

Before i get too far ahead, I want to take the opportunity to specify and fine tune this post and set the stage for the next one dealing with circumstantial occurrence and specific integration.

i am going to attempt to integrate propositional  symbolic logic with the beginnings of predicate logic.
I'll go back and explain where i got most of this stuff in the next post, I promise. But for now, I am thinking about the commutative, associative and distributive properties as well as the order of operations fundamental in Mathematics. I don't see why we can't adapt these Mathematical descriptions of how symbols interact for our purposes in this discussion.

We start with negation, actually we start with the specifics of what we have argued is an Inherency Principle. In Any given system of variable interrelation

where (x,y) are representative of symbolic value

  (Some unknowns are counter-interactional) with every known quantity.
         Thus, for every known quantity (a)
          there exists some unknown capacity (b)
          such that, (a) always integrates with (b)  through
           counter inter activity.
        if and only if  (a) represents a discrete quantity and (b) represents a continuous capacity when both          (a) and (b) are in  either joint, direct or inverse disjunction
AND

    Some unknowns (are counter-interactional with every known quantity)
           When, for some unknown capacity (a)
            there exists a known quantity (b)
            such that (a) always counter-interacts with (b)
            as integration if and only if  (a) unknown capacity is continuous when (b) remains a discrete quantity as both (a) and (b) are in either a joint, direct or inverse disjunction.

In other words, much like the current ongoing Health Care Insurance Reform National Discussion, inherency is identical to a ping pong game or a game of tennis, where the serve represents a "negation of what is known at the time of the serve." Afterall, why serve or play for that matter, if you know beforehand who is going to win?

For our purposes, we could even go so far as to suggest a similar relationship exists between qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Yet I hasten to add, there doesn't need to be such a large difference, since both are approaches based on reason:  reason in this particular instance being that integration of inherent capacity and object quantity both camps ultimately share. The same connection may be made between humanists who require verification and poststructuralists who refute the validity of any one "truth." The  point is both sides are as correct as they are mistaken in much the same way as a Ping Pong ball is hit back and forth between opponents. Error as we are using the term here describes a conjunction of known and unknown where Knowledge is a discrete quantity as instinct is a continuous capacity of space and time.

 Thus

All error is known of many unknowns
When for a given measure of "unknown" (a) there exists error (b)
Such that (a) is known through (b) if and only if (a) is discrete and (b) is continuous

While

for all error (b) there exists many measures of unknown (a)
Such that (b) is known by (a) if and only if the continuity of (b) substantiates the discretion of (a) as a joint, direct and inverse conjunction.

For example, with the recent Health Care Debate, everyone is getting hung up on the idea that error is necessarily a bad thing. The fact remains, many Americans on both sides of aisle agree "something" must be done not just for Health Care Insurance Reform but also for the many Americans recently unemployed. Error as we are discussing it here, isn't always about mistakes. Error is more about an equilibrium between unknown and known. What is known is known and what is unknown cannot be experienced or fully perceived until some act of expression is undertaken.

The system of counter-interactional logic we have discussed thus far would dictate then that "that which is known should outweigh that which is unknown" in a reasonably intelligent and democratic society. Otherwise, continued inaction would indeed invite an inverse occurrence rather than a joint or direct outcome.

With regards to our previous argument of the necessity of error in perspective and illusion:
Error is necessary in every illusion when
for every illusion (q) there exists an error (r)
such that (q) requires (r)  for the function of constitution.
Thus, for every perspective (p) there exists error (r) if and only if (p) does not depend on (q).

MEANWHILE

the condition wherein for every error (r) there exists an illusion (q) such that (r) substantiates (q)  if and only if (r) constitutes (P) as Subject result of (p to q trough r) counter-interaction.

MOREOVER

for every (r) there exists a perspective (p) such that (r) substantiates (p) if and only if (r) constitutes (Q) as Object result of (q to p through r) counter-integration. (r) in this sense, is the medium of  binary interrelation facility.

We are attempting to describe an echo here: first the ping pong then the echoe from the ping pong. For example, in terms of the recent debate regarding Health Care Insurance Reform in America, we have to ask ourselves which is more valuable in both the short and long term: staying on the surface of the economic threat to Middle Class America by relying on an interaction many Republicans and more than a few Democrats wish existed, or investing time, energy and fiduciary resources in establishing a more involved integration in otherwise antagonistic elements of the existing establishment, towards a more balanced and logically economic and cultured alternative?

Apparently, the issue is still undecided.

At this point of our illustration, we come to our first Therefore.

Therefore:

The Subject (P) is necessary as inherent capacity  if and only if perspective exists of error and illusion interaction

WHEN
Object (Q) is probable of constituent quantity as illusion and perspective integration constitute Subject as The

Constancy of Occurrence (R) of either in joint, direct or inverse relation to the other and WHEN

                                      Subject and Object occur because of each other OR

                                       because one of the two are absent OR

                                       because one occurs in opposition to the other.

Therefore

The Summation (S) Condition (ST) and Continuation (T) of inherent capacity in object quantity are relative as the

Greatest Common General Circumstance (S) from Subject OR Object occurrence 
TO (ST)

the least Common Specific | Individual Result (T) of Subject AND Object Integration consubstantiated as

Counter-interactional  Binary Hierarchy (x,y)

This is a general model applicable to any given system that relies in whole or in part on variable interrelation where (x,y) represent symbolic value.

                                      





The Above Rectangular Coordinate System is an illustration of the ideas regarding Equilibrium this post discusses. The diagram also speaks directly to our current understanding of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics as those two laws relate to our argument concerning Subject and Object Interposition. But going beyond that, the concept of minimizing potential in the maximization of entropy is extended because the concept of restraint according to the above model, is or at least should take into account the logical interdependence of the range of instinct  as infinite specific capacity and the finite but continuous quantity of  object as general circumstance.

In other words, all systems move towards the simplest form of order, whether through transformational means or dissipated potential. Regardless of whether the Health Care Bill passes or not, the overall Health Care System will move towards the simplest order, one way or the other. And regardless of whether Al Quaeda is defeated in Afghanistan or not, again then overall System will move as it has always done, towards the simplest form of exchange and expression. The same can be said of  Iran, Palestine and Israel, our own economy or the issue of whether or not I will ever be a student teacher. All things are of systems and all systems move towards the simplest order: the order in which the necessity of error in perspective and illusion dictates all possible human thought and behavior in terms of perception.

My ideas may not be good news for my friends of the Poststructural Camp or the Humanist Congress, but I maintain the logic is sound and inescapable. The best any of us can hope for is that we never stop believing that ALL of us, regardless of how meek or insignificant or ineffectual we may appear on the surface, have every natural and inherent right to be heard, understood and fully accounted for as human being on the face of this or any other place one might call, a home.

A few thoughts from
Tom

 Sites  Consulted

http://www.springerlink.com/content/5y8lrla85wnw8k5a/http://www.readysteadybook.com/Article.aspx?page=whatispoststructuralism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_multiple_generality
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism.
http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com/

from this side: Literary Theory Part 2 : A Radical Symbolic Empiricist Approach to Narrative Analysis.

from this side: Literary Theory Part 2 : A Radical Symbolic Empiricist Approach to Narrative Analysis.

Literary Theory Part 2 : A Radical Symbolic Empiricist Approach to Narrative Analysis.

Introduction

The goal of this post is to further analyze the philosophical arguments set forth in this blog  according to my understanding of Symbolic Propositional Logic Notation. As we accomplish this goal, a secondary desire is to suggest a pragmatic direction towards a more  mathematical representation which can be easily applied in a systems approach to  Literary Theory and Criticism Education As always, all comments are welcomed and encouraged.

Lay of the Land.

In the school of symbolic propositional logic we have: five constants, p, q, r,s and t:

five operations: and, or, if/then, if and only if, and not. We also have five operational connectors:

Negation, if one then not the other;

conjunction:  one and the other.

Disjunction: Either one or the other.
Mutual Conditional: if one, then the other.
Bi-Conditional: One if and only if the other.
We will now apply these constructs to our current
argument for subject object interposition.

Application

When we say: "there is a necessity of error in perspective and illusion, we are employing the first operation "and" in an implied conjunction between the possibility of perspective vs. illusion, a range of which exists relative to the variable of either perspective or illusion. In this light, the classical, All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal, becomes much more relevant  in terms of codifying our efforts. Why?

Because now we have parsed into our framework, the binary nature of  what we have argued is at once an integration of  known perspective (perspective) and projected perspective (illusion). While at the same time, we have incorporated a plus/minus quasi-element of Potential Error, a Negation (<*+@-*> perhaps) as a natural descriptor of the inherent space in between either Perspective or Illusion as counter-interactional quantities within the same relational system. In other words, we are establishing P for the specific purposes of this argument.

This is how we arrive at the conclusion that the Subject =P  is that which is inherent. Object=Q as probable and that which is constructed from that which is inherent on the other hand,  implies a disjunction (either/ or) that relies on the material conditional set forth by P.

The way I see it then from this point we have the remaining constants of r, s and t which represent, for our purposes here,  the bi-conditional connector which substantiates our conclusion that there is the Constancy of Occurrence of either in Joint, Direct or Inverse Relation to the other.

I understand that these ideas may appear to intimidate the casual observer, and I am not sure at this point, if all my logical calculations are without "error." But essentially what we are arguing is that there is an unidentified bridge between pragmatic Science, abstract Mathematics and  deliberative Speech Communication and through the Symbolic Language of Symbolic Propositional Logic, which all three disciplines have in common, a new and deeper, more comprehensive understanding can be realized.

I am not going to explain the implications of this line of reasoning at this point, but if anyone chooses to comment and discuss this approach, then the reader is both welcomed and encouraged to do so at her or his leisure. Be advised I am still, only a cab driver here in Ann Arbor.

Now,  to conclude this post,  The Constancy of Occurrence, which we have spoke of earlier, describes a principle of Subject Object Integration which is bi conditional and truth functional but is also jointly conjunctional, Direct as disjunction and Inverse as inherent Negation. In other words, what I am asserting here is that not only is there a relationship between observable fact, interpreted meaning and  actual reference, there is a predictable systematic code from which we can predict a limited range of outcomes in any given situation of Subject Object Interposition integration.

                              Immediate Implication

Based on the argument thus far, I propose human thought and behavior can be modeled and based on that construct  shaped according to the greatest common general circumstance of subject or object occurrence to the least common individual circumstance of subject and object integration.

This assertion moves us into the realm of predicate logic which we will discuss at a later time.

Krawford's Perspective on Propositional Logic in Literary Criticism part 1 : Inherency

First, let's just review from the earlier posts. Incidentally, although hard to understand, the following constitutes a core of  a kind of criticism I have termed "counter interactional."


 There is a necessity of error in perspective and illusion if and only if the subject is necessary: that which is inherent, and object, that which is constructed from that which is  inherent, is probable.

Thus, there is a Constancy of Occurrence of  either in Joint, Direct or Inverse Relation to the other, relative to the Greatest Common General Circumstance of either Subject or Object to the Least Common Individual  Result of Subject and Object Integration.

Now, according to the Wikipedia, Propositional Logic, sentential logic, deals with the ideas represented by symbols in a specific sequence. The term is a more specific example of  General Symbolic Logic which gives us the tools to understand the formal properties of  symbol groupings that represent both words and rules which define binary relationships.


Don't worry if none of that makes much sense right now. For the purposes of this post, we are only going to focus on clarifying how do we understand error, perspective and illusion: our first principle of inherency.


In future posts we will see how literature and the visual image demonstrate this dual system of qualitative and quantitative equivalence.


Let's start with three letters  p, q and r. In the next post I will explain more about these letters, but for now, we will call them "letters."


We have been talking about "error" as something that is necessary.
We have also discussed the idea of quantity and capacity. So, let p stand for error: not p= error. What does that mean?  

It means that an important part of what we are saying is inherent is neither capacity or quantity. It is negation.


As negation then, which ever way we move, either towards capacity or quantity, essentially we are talking about a "counter interaction." Since we are still discussing Inherency, we are bound by a closed system of variables eventhough we do not yet know what those variables and their quantifiers are at this point. 


Of course, we do need to point out that a negation is not necessarily negative. It is more a canceling out of extremes:  as black and white are neither colors nor the abscense  of color, negation is a "neutral" of capacity and quantity. Or in Sir Isaac Newton's words, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.



In terms of Inherency,  that which we all have in common as greatest common general circumstance of capacity as error, is illusion quantity pi. 

In this regard, let's let r= illusion.

However, that which is the least common individual result of  capacity and error integration, quantity sigma over 1 or quantity, is perspective. 

In this regard let's let q=perspective.

So, what we have so far is: a 'negation not p (necessity of error as "not") NAND "r" the least common individual resultive integration of quantity and capacity as illusion EQ (equal to) "q" the greatest common general circumstance of illusion or perspective ocurrence.


Like the ripples in a pool of water from a dropped pebble, our argument unfolds along the lines we have described.


We will go over this concept of Inherentcy  again, but that is enough for now.

she said

she said, "love is a human right." and then she made coffee.
she said even skeptics can dream, and then she made the bed.
she said the world is a small place growing smaller everyday, and then she painted
he nails this deep forrest green.
she sang and danced when the President was elected and then she wanted
a pint of Guiness and a ciagarette.

she yawned when 30,000 troops flew in a Lear Jet to Central Asia
and then she cried...

she jumped into the pool on that hot day back in June after
the Art Fair and then she smoked a joint.

she walked barefoot across the lava of the White House lawn and
protested the travesty of justice in
"Gitmo."

she wore a rainbow bracelet in October and fell in love
with her girlfriend by November.
she said that now she knew why love
was a religious experience.
 i asked her how she prayed.

she said the personal  stays personal and
that too is a human right..

Human Rights, How Much is It Worth?

Today we breathe and sigh once more, did the miracle happen?
How can we be sure? How can our skeptical loose cannon wit aim
for a vapor, a whisp of subjectivity and a smug shrug of :
"So who pays for it?"and is it worth it? How much then oh
all ye exalted ones who sit on most high
How much is worth to find the hidden cancer of
an American with no money before
they die? How much is it worth to make sure
all children and adults can read and write?
Wouldn't it be cheaper if
people did not exist?

And all ye who sit so safe and secure
at the right hand of the most high
how much is it worth to train an unemployed
auto worker who probably lives or did live
in Michigan? How much is it worth to give
Doctors a fair shake to give school kids promised
a future something more than a fart
in the wind? Maybe it would be cheaper if
people did not exist?

Maybe it would be cheaper if
there were no Bills, no evil boogie bad guy allegories no
topsy turvy rollercoaster lullaby reasons recalling our
fear and nightmares when our towers
fell and we needed a hero to save us from
the heathen darkness. But
how much is a world without fear worth?
A world without "Truth" spelled with a Capital "T"
and conformity was more than a stock
option or a billionaire's boy's club bailout?

Really

What would the cost actually be if
Human Rights were no longer this year's hot
debate resolution and became
almost as if by magic something as simple
as
breathing?

Oh all ye exalted ones who sit
at the right hand of the most high,
I was once sitting in the seat you have grown
so comfortable in and I
know that for
those who sit at the right hand of
any divinity
pride does indeed cometh
before the fall.

Did the miracle happen?

Bhopal is Right Down The Street

Those of us who remember believe Bhopal is a long way from here
a long way from Ann Arbor East Williams Street Tommy and Janey Boy hanging
out at the Diag puffing up brave and bad while all the time
you can hear their empty stomach growling.  "America ain't no Bhopal"
Janey Boy whines as his thick calloused fingers fumble for a handrolled.
"They blew them off in Bhopal," I tell the two barely whisps of ragged
straggly sidewalk sultans. "They gassed them and killed
a lot of them and got away with it," I try to say. I try
To say but the kids aren't hearing any of it.

Those of us who remember Bhopal, can still see Peter Jennings describe
how the creeping gas crept out, let out like a snake, like
a rabid slithering pet. The boys on the corner don't care, even though
they wheeze and whine and wrinkle in the hot street sun bleached
bonfire of drugged out vanities and songs of  substance slaves bouncing
back and forth, up and down the streets of Ann Arbor when  HVA
has grown too tired to rescue painted pony damsels dying
dreaming of Halidol and Stelazine and self-medicated realities. I try
to tell the boys on the corner how  they gassed them and
killed them and got a away with it. I try to say, I try, but
the kids aren't hearing any of it.

Those of us who remember Bhopal and the pictures
of the lifeless limp ragdoll people thrown away as if
refuse and poverty and sin were all the same thing, also
remember the pictures of orphanages where children
have no faces, of gutters and empty tanks sitting silently
like drunken sailors pissing in the pool,
on the people and the lives of those who can't fight back, and
the bums, swigging Jack and Johnny and Smirinoff Blue
waiting at the bus station, invisible, just like the ragdoll refuse
living and dying and living in a hell called
Bhopal.

Rewritten Personal Statement as an Example of Subject and Object Integration Theory

The following post is a rewritten personal statement. I am posting it here as an example of The Subject as inherent capacity integrated with Object quantity as that which is constructed from that which is inherent.

 

Student Teacher Statement

 

Among the many things the United States Marine Corps taught me was to put my best foot forward before it makes me trip. This kind of common sense approach to trying new things or approaching things already familiar is why I see myself in a Speech Communication or Contemporary Literature and Writing classroom: listening, learning and teaching.

 

Why do I want to Teach

 

At St. Hugo of the Hills Elementary School in Bloomfield Hills Sister Patricia David, my science teacher in the seventh grade asked me to lead a lesson she was giving on the Law of the Conservation of Energy and Matter. She pulled me out of Mrs. Thomas' English class. At the time, Mrs. Thomas was sharing with the class a story I had written about going through a car wash. When the student Sr. Patricia had sent appeared at Mrs. Thomas' door, she agreed and went on with her reading. At first, I was confused but I taught the section she requested nevertheless.

 

It was not until I took an a College Algebra course at Washtenaw Community College last year that I learned why Sister Patricia asked me to teach her class that day. Steve Eisenberg, my Mathematics instructor explained how the rules we use to communicate are the same for Mathematics and Science as they are for Speech. In other words, Mr. Eisenberg showed me how all the disciplines interconnect through a common language of logic. He also showed how that common language is accessible to everyone.

 

Currently I am a frequent "listener," reader, and contributor on several community blogs. Organize for America http://www.barackobama.com/learn/about_ofa.php, is one such blog where I have listened to Americans from all over the country voice their views about the President's plans and policies. Since the summer, I have read and understood all three Health Care Insurance Reform Bills and then shared my opinions in the community forum.

 

In the classroom, I am aware that Computer Literacy is essential for student success. In my current experiences on the Internet, I am learning a great deal about the role social media is playing in the lives of today's student at all levels and I have no doubt that incorporating technology into the classroom will give all students a better understanding of speech, writing, and reading comprehension in these contexts.

https://www.livetext.com/misk5/c1/welcome

https://c1.livetext.com/doc/5342209

 

 

What experiences I have had with young people

 

After leaving the Marine Corps, I volunteered at S.O.S. Community Crisis Center. There, I worked with young boys and girls and their families helping put their lives in order. A couple of years later I worked with Ric Hunt, Becky Zarna Fox, and Jan Koengetter in the Ann Arbor Public Schools System. We were an after school traveling Children's Theater Group working mostly in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. One of the shows we performed in the elementary schools was an adaptation of Androcles and the Lion.

 

In the past few years, I worked with Norma McCuiston as a volunteer teacher assistant in the Ann Arbor Public School's Partner's for Excellence Program. Recently I have enjoyed volunteering at 826Michigan as an after school tutor for children third grade through seventh.

At present however, I am actively involved in getting my own Blog up and running by online publishing E-articles for Bloggers Unite, among others.

 

 

What I Offer to Both Students and Curriculumhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayKqTypQH80

 

The first thing I offer is passion for the content material. Since the summer of 2009, I have written, read and created a number of resources that will be useful models in lessons about the relevancy of social media in education. I also offer a wealth of self-knowledge on issues ranging from students with disabilities to the specific challenges facing minority students in education.

 

Secondly, I offer real world expertise. Through carefully constructed Power Point displays and specially made, yet easily understood corresponding graphic organizers I developed while working closely with Dr. Silva Goncalves at Eastern Michigan University's Access Services for Students with Disabilities Office, I have figured out a way to help illustrate several key concepts of Maximum Performance Management, a current concern in Human Resource Development.

 

Lastly, I offer vision. Throughout my experiences in the classroom, in the public eye or in the taxicab I currently drive, I have come to understand that in order to feel functional; a person needs a commitment to serve others by freely giving something of value back to the community, my home. At a recent meeting of the Minority Achievement and Retention Scholars, an on campus professional group to which I belong (M.A.R.S.), the subject of minority retention in education came up.

 

The discussion question: "How do we as educators help to retain minorities in math and science programs?" drew a number of responses. I reminded the group of the lesson Steve Eisenberg taught me. In other words, I feel Speech Communication and similar studies are important in helping all students understand how Mathematics and Science use a language of logic fundamental in any study of Speech Communication.

 

Yet, I feel the single greatest strength I offer students in particular, is the value of persistence.

In some of the articles, I am writing for Bloggers Unite, for example, I am creating an ongoing personal narrative that illustrates many ideas about Speech Communication and English Language and Literature from a perspective of a "lived" and "living" experience.

I believe the points I have highlighted here, thoroughly illustrate what researchers such as Patricia Avery have argued is "authentic education."

 

Equal access to knowledge is critical in a democratic society. I believe an active understanding of communication is among the best tools that will help students figure what any symbol means in any context.

 

Thomas Krawford, December 3, 2009 for more information please follow the links below:

 

References

http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc1.livetext.com%2Fmisk5%2Fmylabels%2Fview%2FMy%2520Work#/posted.php?id=100000489931566&success

http://tkrawftek.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-this-side-brief-opinion.html

 

In this particular example, what is inherent as Subject is of course my experience. What is constructed as Object is the initial narrative based on the text itself. In terms of The Constancy of Occurrence discussed in earlier posts, the rewrite exists as three simultaneous elements. Jointly, the rewrite is a result of collaboration between writer and proofreader. "Direct" describes the nature of the collaboration. In addition, Inverse gives both writer and proofreader a beginning, middle and an end, maximizing the process of an overall and specific narrative clarity.

I argue that one possible application of this method of counter interactional deliberation is in the successful mediation of Conflict Resolution; especially when two or more hostile parties representing competing interests are involved.

from this side: a brief opinion

The following is an example of the principle of inherency I talked about in earlier posts.

In this particular example, I am online at an Organize for America website designed to air views regarding President Barack Obama's policies.

Here, I have grounded my opinions on that which I believe is inherent in the particular situation regarding the President's recent decision regarding Afghanistan:

namely, the Afghanistanian People themselves: starting with the poor and disenfranchised Farmers in the region, to the municipal and regional authorities in the Provinces and the District Chiefs and finally ending with the general Administration centered in Kabul are the main source from where resolution must come.

Unlike many who have come before him, our President has taken a Stand. After doing a little bit of research, I have found some points I wish to share.

First, the comparison to Vietnam is only partially correct. The current situation in Afghanistan more closely parallels this country's activities in Cambodia and Laos in early 70's.

 

If some of you will recall, Special Forces had approached the Hmong in Cambodia in an attempt to enlist and then train the native population there at the time, in an effort to mobilize the grassroots against the National Liberation Front in North Vietnam. But then President Nixon wanted quicker results so he took control and before he was through, he had effectively emboldened the indigenous Communist movements in both Cambodia and Laos to seize power instead of the Hmong.

Fast forward to today.

 

Our current President has elected to follow a strategy that is specifically designed to work in a similar situation where our country's past efforts failed.

Combining military effort as lowland and major road containment and support, allows Reconnaissance, Airborne and Navy Seal Teams to effectively deploy and infiltrate Al Qaeda and Taliban Mountain Positions. They are the anvil in this sense whereas; the general troop concentration and technical support will be the hammer. This appears to be the most effective strategy and if Nixon had not interfered in Cambodia and Laos in the early 1970's, there may have been an entirely different outcome in that region.

 

Debatable? Of course. However, consider The President's plan also calls for Civilian and Municapal Improvements as well as strengthened ties with Pakistan.

In the research I have done so far, this was the plan in Cambodia and Laos until Nixon stepped in and decided to make South East Asia, his crowning jewel in his so called "law and Order" Administration.

 

The main thing we all must understand is President Obama is attempting to literally fly in the face of the Truman Doctrine.

Yes, I know that was all about Communism and the "domino theory" But consider how "terrorism" especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 has taken the place of this country's "unseen" enemy. We are still wrestling with that ghost of Cold War mentality here. I do not know if the President is fully aware of this. Osama Bin Laden's location is still unknown. Al Qaeda continues to enjoy unlimited Internet access and we still do not know where they are. Organizationally, they get their money from somewhere; we still do not where or how. Our President's position is not perfect, but the world we have inherited is not perfect.

 

He is brave, our first African American President: I will give him that, and like all of us, he is prone to his share of mistakes. Yet, in an imperfect world who among us can begin to claim we could do better?

 

Thoughts from

Tom.

 

 

 

Human Rights: Towards the Greatest Common Circumstance

A far away land on the edge of Cuba
where the bear guards the walrus so sure so safe and yet
so afraid. Of forgotten attics in Beirut and Iranian wisps of
proud yet empty Egyptian smokey corrupt triumphs
glad handed whispers and baby rattling tantrums terrorfied
of human frailty equal in world of no man's land measures magnifying
manipulations imagined while glaring false truths and
CNN sound bites.

The bear sometimes looses to the walrus. Sometimes
instinct is not enough.Sometimes storms arise,  truths are challenged,
winds blow as a small world rushes in
like the Time Machine Moorlocks and the holy ones who
chose to stay on the surface in a not so bad movie from the sixties.

A far away land on the edge of Cuba  where,
theories about thought and behavior mean nothing,
where protest songs about Israel and the Palestinian question
hang heavy on the lips of languishing potential doomsday prophets
who took up arms against a shadow;
who screamed religion, religious virgin warrior doomsday martyr
leaving humanity behind,
leaving "who is innocent" and "who is guilty" behind.
No thought, no question. The only thing left:
The old and the weak. The sheep and the cattle.
The dead and those lucky enough
to make the YouTube Funnies.

A far away land on the edge of Cuba, where American
proud and truly loyal safe citizens so safe and secure in their judgement
and perfection, so sure of who deserves the West Bank
so certain about Health Care Insurance Reform,
so confident in righteousness and
rightness and reality  comprehension and dominance.
Ah Dominance! The Right of the holy,
the province of the saintly,
the certainty of the superior.
The inherent face of inevitable possession for those who are born
to possess. And what of the Earth?
If she in all her wisdom suddenly decided to join her human
children declaring:
"Where's mine?"

And what of the bear?

The bear who grows too weary for the chase,
too tired, too sick too black or too white,
to rich or too poor     or
not  "bear enough?"
What of the wretched bear who
no longer can hunt the seal,  who
no longer wishes to drink the blood of Dawrinian holy
exactitude? The hunter, the warrior who only wants
to come in from the cold?

What if  what is true was a meal served only to skeptics?
What if human rights was purely
a question of who is asking?
What if the bear who can longer hunt, then became food
for the seals, for the down trodden,  for the ones
for whom revenge indeed is a "dish best served cold?"
And then, what of human rights?

A far away land on the edge of Cuba,
where any one who takes the the time can plainly see, that
The world can still end:
not as the poets say, with
a bang or whimper but
with a single common plaintiff

cry:

We are better than all of this so
why
why does it end
                            like
                                this?

Tom
Fall 2009

dedicated to Vance Denard
someone from memory.