In going through some of Hegel's work on the concept of the State etc (and so
favouring of a more 'totalitarian' perspective when viewed from the realm of the individual) One can notice an
underlying pattern which seems to demonstrate how some concepts are 'out of context' when applied locally and others
'out of context' when applied non-locally.
Hegel's comments on the State etc focus on a particular (influenced by his local context of Prussia) but when reviewed
through IDM eyes we can identify its 'true' focus as being on the general.
A State, as such, despite any attempt to generalise, to abstract the term, is still something WITHIN the realm
of the species and as such Hegel's words can appear 'extreme' at times (gets into the whole concept of 'warrior
states' etc etc) but his texts can 'resonate' with some in that they intuitively pick-up the 'true' context in
which the writtings seem more 'comfortable', BUT there are many who cannot pick this up and as such strongly oppose/write
off Hegel.
When we take Hegel's prose 'as is' other than change ONE word so the prose takes on a different colouring that
is more 'acceptable'. The word change is of 'State' to 'Species'. Some examples, taken from Hegel's Philosophy
of Right (further comments after the examples):
(1) - section 322:
"Individuality is awareness of one's existence as a unit in sharp distinction from others. It manifests itself
here in the state as a relation to other states, each of which is autonomous vis-a-vis the others. This
autonomy embodies mind's actual awareness of itself as a unit and hence it is the most fundamental freedom which
a people possesses as well as its highest dignity"
Becomes:
"Individuality is awareness of one's existence as a unit in sharp distinction from others. It manifests itself
here in the SPECIES as
a relation to other SPECIES,
each of which is autonomous vis-a-vis the others. This autonomy embodies mind's actual awareness of itself as a
unit and hence it is the most fundamental freedom which a people possesses as well as its highest dignity."
and
"Remark: Those who talk of the 'wishes' of a collection of people constituting a more or less autonomous state
with its own centre, of its 'wishes' to renounce this centre and its autonomy in order to unite with others to
form a new whole, have very little knowledge of the nature of a collection or of the feeling of selfhood which
a nation possesses in its independence.
Thus the dominion which a state has at its first entry into history is this bare autonomy, even if it be quite
abstract and without further inner development. For this reason, to have an individual at its head - a patriarch,
a chieftain, &c. - is appropriate to this original appearance of the state."
becomes:
"Remark: Those who talk of the 'wishes' of a collection of people constituting a more or less autonomous SPECIES with its own centre, of it 'wishes'
to renounce this centre and its autonomy in order to unite with others to form a new whole, have very little knowledge
of the nature of a collection or of the feeling of selfhood which a SPECIES possesses in its independence.
Thus the dominion which a SPECIES has at its first entry into history is this bare autonomy, even if it be quite
abstract and without further inner development. For this reason, to have an individual at its head - a patriarch,
a chieftain, &c. - is appropriate to this original appearance of the
SPECIES."
(2) - section 323:
"This negative relation of the state to itself is embodied in the world as the relation of one state to another
and as if the negative were something external. In the world of existence, therefore, this negative relation has
the shape of a happening and an entanglement with chance events coming from without. But in fact this negative
relation is that moment in the state which is most supremely its own, the state's actual infinity as the ideality
of everything finite within it. It is the moment wherein the substance of the state — i.e. its absolute power against
everything individual and particular, against life, property, and their rights, even against societies and associations
— makes the nullity of these finite things an accomplished fact and brings it home to consciousness."
becomes:
"This negative relation of the SPECIES
to itself is embodied in the world as the relation of one SPECIES to another and as if the negative were something external. In the world of existence,
therefore, this negative relation has the shape of a happening and an entanglement with chance events coming from
without. But in fact this negative relation is that moment in the SPECIES which is most supremely its own, the SPECIES' actual infinity as the ideality of everything finite within it. It is the moment wherein
the substance of the SPECIES
- its absolute power against everything individual and particular, against life, property, and their rights, even
against societies and associations — makes the nullity of these finite things an accomplished fact and brings it
home to consciousness."
(3) - section 324:
"This destiny whereby the rights and interests of individuals are established as a passing phase, is at the
same time the positive moment, i.e. the positing of their absolute, not their contingent and unstable, individuality.
This relation and the recognition of it is therefore the individual's substantive duty, the duty to maintain this
substantive individuality, i.e. the independence and sovereignty of the state, at the risk and the sacrifice of
property and life, as well as of opinion and everything else naturally comprised in the compass of life."
becomes
"This destiny whereby the rights and interests of individuals are established as a passing phase, is at the
same time the positive moment, i.e. the positing of their absolute, not their contingent and unstable, individuality.
This relation and the recognition of it is therefore the individual's substantive duty, the duty to maintain this
substantive individuality, i.e. the independence and sovereignty of the SPECIES, at the risk and the sacrifice of property and life, as well as of opinion and everything
else naturally comprised in the compass of life."
(4) - section 325:
"Sacrifice on behalf of the individuality of the state is the substantial tie between the state and all its
members and so is a universal duty. Since this tie is a single aspect of the ideality, as contrasted with the reality,
of subsistent particulars, it becomes at the same time a particular tie, and those who are in it form a class of
their own with the characteristic of courage."
becomes
"Sacrifice on behalf of the individuality of the SPECIES is the substantial tie between the SPECIES and all its members and so is a universal duty. Since this tie is a single aspect of
the ideality, as contrasted with the reality, of subsistent particulars, it becomes at the same time a particular
tie, and those who are in it form a class of their own with the characteristic of courage."
(5) - section 326:
"The matter at issue in disputes between states may be only one particular aspect of their relation to each
other, and it is for such disputes that the particular class devoted to the state's defence is principally appointed.
But if the state as such, if its autonomy, is in jeopardy, all its citizens are in duty bound to answer the summons
to its defence. If in such circumstances the entire state is under arms and is torn from its domestic life at home
to fight abroad, the war of defence turns into a war of conquest."
becomes
"The matter at issue in disputes between SPECIES may be only one particular aspect of their relation to each other, and it is for such
disputes that the particular class devoted to the SPECIES' defence is principally appointed. But if the SPECIES as such, if its autonomy, is in jeopardy, all its citizens are in duty bound to answer
the summons to its defence. If in such circumstances the entire SPECIES is under arms and is torn from its domestic life at home to fight abroad, the war of
defence turns into a war of conquest."
(6) - section 329:
The state's tendency to look abroad lies in the fact that it is an individual subject. Its relation to other states
therefore falls to the power of the crown. Hence it directly devolves on the monarch, and on him
alone, to command the armed forces, to conduct foreign affairs through ambassadors &c., to make war and peace,
and to conclude treaties of all kinds.
becomes
The SPECIES' tendency
to look abroad lies in the fact that it is an individual subject. Its relation to other
SPECIES therefore falls to the power of the crown [alpha male/female].
Hence it directly devolves on the monarch, and on him alone, to command the armed forces, to conduct foreign affairs
through ambassadors &c., to make war and peace, and to conclude treaties of all kinds. [the alpha male/female
focus dominates nature and moves us into the realm of charismatics being the 'leaders' of collectives and as such
the charismatics of the SPECIES
being more likely to set the direction of species development etc]
By doing this State->Species conversion, so Hegel's text on the abstract State becomes more of an essay on evolution
theory - which is what the realm of integrations, of species-ness, focuses upon. Thus Hegel's focus on the State
is TOO PARTICULAR for many and so too focused on subordination of, deferrence of, and so surrending of freedom
to, the 'State' (and so some other group of individuals - a group of one's peers etc and that can elicit 'tension'
for the more 'freedom-seeking' individuals)
What Hegel is trying to 'get at', from the IDM perspective, is the process of transformation, of shape-shifting,
that allows one to integrate fully with a context and that includes surrendering one's 'freedom' in the form of
sacrifice to ensure the remaining integrity of that context.
As such, Hegel's text is too focused on the 'State' and more particular the properties of the state of Prussia
and the needs of its then king, king Frederick William III. But the roots of his thinking are in the IDM-identified
realm of integration and so of protection (note at the times Prussia was at war, a number of wars!)
The response of a reader will particularise the concept of 'State' to their local context and in doing so can drift
away from the generality of what Hegel is getting at. BUT when we introduce the replacement term 'Species' so we
cannot imagine 'being' another species and as such the text becomes more palatable, even to 'freedom seekers' in
that WITHIN the species we can be 'free' and so Hegel's prose is no longer interpretable as 'anti-[personal]freedom'.
This difference in perspective, focusing Hegel's prose where it should be initially focused - at the SPECIES level
- is also applicable to any collective (as Hegel does) AND TO ANY INDIVIDUAL such that the prose is multilayered
in that we can replace STATE with the term 'species' or 'collective' or 'individual' (the latter term requiring
some modifications in other parts of the text but not much - try the term and see!).
This replacement focus reflects the context-sensitivity of 'transformation' thinking where each level allow for
the same concepts other than the integration is more and more local. For Hegel his thinking was local, at the local
collective level, and as such he focused on that BUT our brains dont work that way in that each level is but a
repeat of all others, local nuances will give us local differences but in general it is 'all the same'.
Being 'all the same' one needs to be wary in focusing GENERALS at the level of PARTICULARS first. Better to focus
on the SPECIES level and then 'zoom-in' and in doing so cover all bases not particular bases. This process means
that, at the level of the SPECIES Hegel's prose can 'make' sense. CHANGE THE TERMS as you zoom-in and it still
can 'make sense' in that at the level of the individual so we have such assertions as:
(from 322)
"Remark: Those who talk of the 'wishes' of a collection of people constituting a more or less autonomous INDIVIDUAL with its own centre, of its 'wishes'
to renounce this centre and its autonomy in order to unite with others to form a new whole, have very little knowledge
of the nature of a collection or of the feeling of selfhood which an
INDIVIDUAL possesses in its independence.
Thus the dominion which an INDIVIDUAL
has at its first entry into history is this bare autonomy, even if it be quite abstract and without further inner
development. For this reason, to have an individual at its head - a patriarch, a chieftain, &c. - is appropriate
to this original appearance of the INDIVIDUAL."
[note how this latter part reflects 'being one's own boss' and as such very against Hegel's perspective and yet
easily derived through changing a label]
Hegel's perspective is general enough to focus on a property of that general
perspective - superpositions. In this realm prose is layered where context-dependent elements fit into the one
space (here the {individual-state-species} space). Hegel's idealism, his focus on
HIS perspective ment he did not see the superpositions and he focused
on a particular AS IF a general but in doing so he touched on general concepts and so encoded the patterns of the
brain in his prose but with a surface level 'skew' to the State - his 'universals' where local, too particular
in that the non-local nature of reality means context-dependence encoding even if 'unknowingly'.
The IDM perspective allows one to 'see behind' the facade and so put things in their 'true contexts'. To an evolution
theorist the above prose of Hegel becomes 'acceptable'. As you zoom-in but dont change the context labels so the
prose becomes increasingly 'unacceptable' to many. Change 'State' to 'individual' and all of sudden it becomes
'acceptable'. The point here is that all that was needed was the change in one word - reflecting the integrations
focus of the prose where the act of differentiation, of selecting ONE of the possible values (individual/state/species)
means a DISTORTION of 'reality' in that the attempt to move context-dependence to context-free (or more so, context-universal)
will 'fail' - you have to cover all contexts in the prose; Hegels focus works within the context of 'States' and
so of thinking as a 'collective' but without changing context markers so becomes an issue at the context of the
'individual' etc.
To continue with this theme:
What the above shows is that Hegel was saying 'nothing'. To emphasise his point
about the State 'uber alles' what he wrote would have to be applicable to the State ONLY. My comments are that
what he wrote is applicable to all three categories, individual, state,
species, and as such is 'meaningless' in the context of being specific
about the uniqueness of the State. What he wrote was acceptable in all three contexts and as such not applicable
to any ONE context which is what he was intending.
Biases in perspective would mean that one person favours one of the versions over another. Since my perspective
is at the level of the Species so I find the insertion of that term makes the prose 'palatable' IN THE CONTEXT
OF the Species. Someonelse (e.g. Hegel himself) would find the prose palatable in the context of the State. Someonelse
may find it palatable at the level of the individual. Reading the 'as is' prose *from* the context of the individual/species
makes the prose not palatable.
Overall this ability to fit all three contexts by just changing ONE word in all of that prose means that what is
being asserted is meaningless in that the attempt to localise the assertions to the State and the State ONLY have
failed (he was trying to DIFFERENTIATE but coming from a mental state that was more INTEGRATING in perspective.
IOW his method of writing was context sensitive at a fundamental level, a focus on integrating with the context
(in particular, the State), such that his attempts to differentiate 'precisely' would be a problem - his focus
on dialectical over analytical would distort his analytical - as demonstrated he got caught by the superpositions
inherant in integrative thinking (Hegel was very much into 'fitting in')
Now, if Hegel had focused on 'flocking behaviour' etc where you cannot associate
it directly with the individual then he would have been saying something, differentiating something, unique to
collectives (so the review would then have to be on the differences of state/species terms) and so clearly differentiated
a State property over those of the individual.
My thinking is rooted in neurocognitive processes etc and not on any one philosopher or group of. Thus ALL philosophers
come under review, no biases determined, no philosopher 'refused', since they are all talking aspects of IDM and
THAT is the main focus on this list.
Thus, Hegel's derivation of some aspects of dialectical logic are of interest but are limited in their scope and
distorted towards his idealism. No problem. It all says 'something' about (a) Hegel and (b) those who are biased
to his perspective and his perspective alone, and (c) one of many perspectives on the 'dimension of precision'
in our brains. IOW there exists a context where Hegel is 'accepted' and that needs identification from the IDM
perspective. Whether he is 'right' or 'wrong' is not my concern - that is focusing on some ideal, some universal
perspective that, at the level of the particular, is always a distortion.
The IDM focus enables you to pick-up patterns in MEANING that are 'behind' the words and as such come up with the
analysis I made where the overall context of what Hegel wrote 'fitted' into the label of "species" easier
for me than "state" but OVERALL you could in fact slot-in any of the terms and what was said could seem
applicable. Thus we identify in a part of Hegel's writing a 'problem' in deriving meaning that is a problem of
the BRAIN, not something unique to Hegel. It is like the IDM identification of the consequences of over-precise
thinking where the ONLY thought in problem solving is on REPLACEMENT. Take a step back in the precision and all
of a sudden 'compromise', integration over differentation, becomes an option.
In modern-day perspectives, reflecting Socratic methods, there is a hypnosis technique called the "Erickson"
model. It deals with the dissemination of information using vague terms - IOW using superpositions where you let
the individual 'fill in the dots'. Thus if I get up in an audience and say "well, we all know who THEY are
dont we!?" there will be nodding of heads as each person inserts into the "THEY" their personal
interpretations that, upon interrogation can be VERY different for each person in the audience! This use of superpositions
makes the prose/oration 'hypnotic', acts to
integrate, where only close, precise, analysis will bring out the use of this technique.
The benefit of the technique is that it spans all personal contexts and as such there is no need for details, just
the ' right' rhetoric to motivate, to stir, the audience. Hitler did it well. So did Churchill. So did JFK. (an
overall emphasis on charisma)
To identify differences/sameness you need to be precise, local, with differences (as in A XOR B), and general (field
precision), non-local, with sameness (as in A AND B). What my analysis showed was the prose had within it an underlying
A AND B perspective (subconscious/unconscious biases in thinking processes shine through) when the intent was A
XOR B.
In IDM this is an ID perspective [A *context* of A AND B (integrate - I) within which operates A XOR B (differentiate
- D)] and that perspective deals with security seeking, 'us' vs 'them' from a moral/ethical perspective, from a
focus on 'good/bad' rather than 'true/false'. Other associations are a focus on 'to serve Man' (in Hegel's case,
the King/State). Being Guardians. A focus on Structure and Control etc etc In the pure template terms the overall
focus is on BOUNDING - enclosure. Refine the distinctions and you move to BOUNDING & BINDING. The bounding
side focuses on conservation, protection. The binding side focuses more on leadership through 'proper' management;
the use of cultivation to become influencial - which is what happened in Hegel's personal development where he
'rose' to become 'state philosopher' etc. and as such administered 'state thought' - all properties of the basic
ID perspective (security seeking) and favouring a more 'totalitarian' perspective - state over individual, might
is right. (In the I Ching this area includes such categories as 'The Army' and 'Conflict/Compromise' and 'Persuation/Seduction',
'Correcting Corruption' etc etc etc)
TO continue....
ALL perspectives from an INTEGRATING approach are applicable to all elements
of the set of 'perspectives'. As such the prose is all-encompasing and so general and as such not applicable to
focusing only on a specific level. Hegel's "error" was in thinking integration but using it to assert
a differentiation - fail.
To focus on the State alone requires differentiating thinking, a focus on REPLACEMENT (and so Hegel would be to
someone's more argumentative style a 'problem' in that their focus of differentiating will pick-up the vibe intuitively
and so feel as if Hegel was 'nonsense'.)
The specialisation we label as "Physics" is a metaphor for describing objects and relationships IN A
SPECIFIC CONTEXT where the terms, e.g. 'fermions' and 'bosons' etc are labels for PATTERNS of objects&relationships
activity WITHIN A SPECIFIC CONTEXT. These PATTERNS are those identified by our senses and/or their extentions in
the form of instruments etc. As I have said before, WITHIN the specific discipline the terms allow for a literal
interpretation of events where their metaphor nature starts to appear the moment you step-out of the box. As such,
stepping-out to the species box means all we know 'literally' are objects&relationships, differentiations&integrations,
the WHAT&WHERE. Move into the box of "Physics" and spend a couple of years working in that box and
all of the terms become 'things', map is interpreted as if the territory it represents.
Since the set of meaning patterns is FINITE, as in all that is possible WITHIN the bounds of our senses and so
mindset, so all possible 'meanings' as feelings are already 'known'. It is context that allows us to relabel these
'knowns' and so derive 'difference' which we can use to communicate in a precise manner. New contexts can bring
out feelings we have not has before but they are still pre-defined.
My point is that, when thinking in an integrating manner, as Hegel seems to do, so writing prose in that manner
will apply to all levels and as such, to try and emphasise, to try and differentiate, a particular over all others
you need to write from a differentiating manner.
Hegel tries to be 'differentiating', as in the State 'uber alles', but uses an integrating style such that his
attempt to assert ONE over ALL OTHERS will 'fail' in that the style of his prose is basically integrating and so
can be applied to EACH element in the {individual, state, species} set. (and so we see an inherant "ALL IS
ONE" perspective of integrating but it is IMPLIED). His logic perspective reflects this where, as IDM has
identified, the dialectical perspective is that of thermodynamics and so of TIME and a definite LINK of begin-end
etc, an integration rather than differentiation.
Differentiation focuses attention WITHIN ONE element and as such aims to identify something exclusively. Integration
will focus more on inclusive and so at least a PAIR. Differentiating = A XOR B, Integrating = A AND B. IOW the
basic superposition of integration has two 'waveforms'.
IDM covers all interpretations and that includes the perspectives of others who
'agree' with him. TO describe ALL meaning we have to cover all meanings regardless of your personal preferences.
Trial and error in the local context will then determine if a perspective 'fits' or not.
From IDM we can identify properties and methods of deriving meaning that enable us to review the works of Hegel
and all other philosophers in that we have identified differences in expression derived from unconscious perspectives
- e.g. Hegel focuses on integration and in doing so tries to use it as if differentiating. Error. If he was writing
for the SPECIES and so allowing for the SAME prose to be applied all the way down to State and then individual
(and so maintaining an INTEGRATING perspective) then his prose would be 'acceptable' BUT that was obviously not
his intent - he was obviously totally unaware of these differences in thinking style and their affects on the process
of expression and in being unware wrote is 'natural' style that was integrating and so said 'nothing' in the context
of his trying to be particular (state REPLACES all else)
These 'errors' in thinking was also applicable to Marxism-Leninism etc where the high precision focus FORCED a
perspective of socialism REPLACING capitalism etc - error.
Hegel's totalitarianism (as does Plato's) reflects a developing Fascist perspective and as we know, contexts keep
emerging that allow for the development of these mindsets. IDM identifies the source of these sorts of 'misconceptions'
and as such indicates possible paths through/out-of these states (as in addressing the thinking style issue in
works that influence the 'rulers' etc etc)
What we see in all of this is the DIFFERENCES in differentiations/integrations as demonstrated in the need for
different statistical methods for fermions(diff) and bosons(int) where these methods derive patterns of meaning
and as such our use of these two different styles has to be done carefully.