[MD] Hippies (and Humour) in the Middle East

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Ian said]
I see this "easier" aspect a recurring theme in these complex debates
where simple politics are wishful thinking. It's one of the reasons
I'm passionate about the idea that whatever metaphysics / philosophies
we end up sharing (here or anywhere) they absolutely must be pragmatic - easy to
apply - starting from where we are now, not in idealised ivory towers.

[Arlo]
Understood, Ian. I am guilty of being somewhat faceious. I am thinking more in
line with Peirce's hierarchy of belief fixation, where at the level of
authority, the effort required to sustain belief is minimal, because one places
that burden of effort on the Authority of Others.

Of course, I'm sure Peirce would argue, that this minimal effort is a result of
the proportionality said Authroity held sway. Believing in Catholicism in Italy
(if one relies on Authority) is much easier than believing in Catholicism in
Iran. So it is a function not only of transferring effort to others, but of
being in the circumference of that Authority's power. (What would be "easiest"
for the displaced Catholic would be to reject Catholicism and embrace Islam.)

The trouble is, of course, fixing one's belief by virtue of the ideology of the
authority necessitates abandoning all historical perspectives that challenge
the ideology. The "other" becomes at once and always deceitful, threatening,
biased, and villified, because "others" pose a threat to the diameter of
Authority's influence. One then has the choice to become an agent of agression
for the Authority, or face the path of finding a new means to fix belief (for
doubt is, to Peirce, an "irritating" condition).

I know this isn't exactly what you are saying, I think what I'm getting at is
that I recognize "easy" to be a relative term, and wasn't asserting an absolute
on those who adhere to the Will of Ideology, and those who challenge it. This
ease, I'd say, is relative to the actual power wielded by the Ideology at any
historical point. So for Platt, its "easy" to abandon all perspective to
whatever the Ideology demands, because that ideology maintains viable power and
popular support in our nation. Were Platt living in Stalin's Soviet Union, his
adherence to the will of his ideology would take great effort.

But even Peirce would say that an abandonment of will to Authority is not an
effortless position, no matter the depth of power wielded by the Authority, and
even if there is unanimous adherence to that Authority in one's culture,
because it demands that any given individual who encounters any fact or
suddenly has a moment of questioning, must expend energy to push that aside and
to bury it deep in one's mind.

Alright, mate. Now I am rambling. Blame it on the fact that I am only half way
through my first cup o' joe. Glad you are planning on joining us in the bunker.

Arlo