Monday, June 09, 2008

Selective Implication

I noticed something new today, arguing as I often do with people that I generally agree with about most things because we disagree on some small thing. And I'm struck with the realization that it seems to be remarkably easy for people who don't want to think about something to not think about it.

A useful term to describe the specific phenomenon I'm encountering is "selective implication". This is a phenomenon where a word has certain implications and connotations that are selectively applied. This can be a good thing if used correctly; sometimes for lack of a better word, we use one that implies something slightly different than what we actually mean, and it gets the point across. We leave it up to the plausibility and context to determine what was actually meant by that word in that case, and which connotations or implications might not be intended. For example, the phrase "Capitalism has brought great wealth to the world" is not using the word "capitalism"'s capacity to imply exploitation. The phrase "Gravediggers of Capitalism" is not using the word "capitalism"'s capacity to imply prosperity.

In my previous post on my other blog I described a mental filter I use to compare ideas to each other, and throw away useless ones. A variant of this filter is pretty common to libertarians (I think mine developed from the common libertarian version). The difference appears to be that libertarians very often use this filter on words, not on the ideas that the words stand for. Libertarians very often insist on a very strict definition of capitalism to mean "free market" (although I don't know why they use the word "capitalism" when "free market" does a better job with less fuss). In doing this, they strip "capitalism" down to what they believe to be it's core meaning, and throw away all it's other implications and connotations. As I've said, this can be a useful thing. Libertarians tend to be very precise thinkers. Not always necessarily accurate, but precise. In a "2.24885837+2.11358=3.92485263" sense. But this habit often leads to libertarians stripping away some very important implications and connotations that these ideas and words carry that screw with their ability to understand new ideas that they are not familiar with. It also gives a lot of room for people to assert things that aren't true as if they were obvious. Somebody who doesn't care a bit for the word "Capitalism" will rarely be seen defending inanely huge fortunes on the grounds that the free market naturally produces them. Somebody who cares for nothing but the word "Capitalism" will rarely fail to do so. And very often those who believe that inanely huge fortunes are not legitimate creations of the free market will be denounced as "socialists".


"Whatever you do, do not think of an elephant."

The above instruction is impossible to comply with once having heard it. As soon as you read or hear the word elephant, you're thinking of a big gray animal with a long trunk. If I call a rock "the elephant", I'm not trying to say it's a biological, living, breathing thing. It's obviously not. What I'm trying to do is put the implications of the word "elephant" in your head; I trust you to make the necessary connections between the rock I'm talking about and an elephant, or to discover what rock I'm talking about by associating the idea of a "rock" with the implications of the word "elephant". Maybe it's got a trunk-like feature, on the end of an elephant-head shaped bulge on one end, maybe it's just a big rock the size of an elephant, maybe it's a statue of an elephant. Whatever it is, you know damn well I'm not telling you that the rock has a large brain and grows ivory tusks, even though these are quite essential characteristics of elephants.

"I hate going to work."

I don't know about you, but what passes through my mind when I read the word "work" in this sentence is doing things you've done a hundred times before, leaving home every day, being on a schedule, earning a wage or salary, coming home late in the day, the color of dirt and wood, fighting rush hour traffic, dealing with annoying coworkers and customers, going to sleep tired and waking up tired the next morning because that's the schedule, and the fear of not being in control of things and the dependence upon your boss's happiness. These are the images that come to mind.

When I say "work should be abolished" I'm obviously not talking about the definition from physics. I'm not talking about all productive endeavor. I'm not talking about doing something you don't like. I'm using the word "work" because there's no other word that brings up enough and the same implications and connotations (and as few unwanted or extraneous implications and connotations) as I want you to think of when I choose a word to describe it.

When I say I am opposed to capitalism, I am not saying I oppose free markets. I'm saying I'm opposed to at least most of the things that the word "capitalism" implies, centralized wealth and wealth disparity, bosses and workers, consumerism, consumption, the GDP, corporations, pointless extravagance...that's what I'm opposed to. It is unfortunate that "capitalism" has come to imply "free markets" in addition to these things, as there's no reason for it to be so.

When I say I am opposed to government, I am not saying I'm opposed to order, agreement, or control. I'm saying I'm opposed to politics, opposed to making other people's decisions for them, opposed to lies and bullshit, opposed to monopoly, opposed to all the witless slogans and arrogance and raw, unsubstantial imagery that is brought to mind when I hear, see, or speak the word "government".

A lot of the time all it takes to understand somebody is to try to understand them. Not to hear them, not to listen to them, but to actually recognize that there is an idea, probably at least somewhat sensible, that they are trying to communicate to you, and to try, make a conscious effort, to understand what they are talking about. Robots would object to my calling a rock an elephant on the grounds that rocks and elephants are defined in a mutually exclusive manner. People respond by thinking about what rock or what elephant I might be talking about and how the one relates to the other. Don't be a damn robot. Be a person.

12 Comments:

Blogger AzraelsJudgement said...

Your an awesome writer. I have given up on using the word capitalism because to me it has merged with the word corporatism although statists/socialists/communists still attack the term free market.

7:29 AM  
Blogger Kevin K. Biomech said...

Excellent work, as usual.

Like AJ, I'm largely abandoning the word Capitalism, even though a great deal of that system IS the free market. It's also a structural system, economically, whereby the goods you accumulate can be used to produce other things.

Both of these are positive attributes, based on the basic definition of Capitalism: A system whereby the means of production and property are privately held, and investment used as a vehicle for further production. Without those essential elements, an economy whether free or not stagnates and fails.

And yet...

The term conjures up the ideas of corporations (which are NOT private, and therefore in essence not capitalist in the FIRST sense, but only in the second..

It gets too complicated. I've even ceased calling myself an anarcho-capitalist, even though I largely agree with that paradigm, favoring the term free market anarchist, or just simply an anarchist. (I know, I know. I haven't updated my descriptions in my various web endeavors. I'm a busy and stressed out man. Gimme time!)

Keep it rolling, sir. You challenge my mind and my philosophy far more than those opposed.

3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Te felicito por el articluo de wikipdeia sobre el "Arcoexcepcionalismo", gran aporte!!

How can we break down the wall of languages! i wish to read your texts but as my native tongue is spanish, its very dificult to deciifrate it! ajajaj

grettings from the south of USA, Chili- Chile

10:09 AM  
Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

off topic: http://kill-lois.blogspot.com/2008/05/profundamente-anarquista.html

(another Bored´s translation of Spanish)

A3!

4:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you looked into the philosophy of Wittgenstein? he explains all this shit

12:46 PM  
Blogger Aaron Kinney said...

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=4141938&l=http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jan/12/florida-lawmakers-propose-bill-make-bestiality-fel/

Florida lawmakers have again pitched a bill that it would make it a felony to have sex with animals. This year's bill was sponsored by Sen. Nan Rich, D-Sunrise, and Rep. William Snyder, R-Stuart.

The bill was filed recently for this year's legislative session.

It would make bestiality a third-degree felony.

It includes anyone who would "knowingly organize, promote, conduct, advertise, aid, abet, participate in as an observer, or performing any service" to further the act of bestiality.

Last year, Rich and St. Petersburg lawmaker Frank Peterman sponsored the bill. But that bill died in committees. At the time, Rich said bestiality is a serious crime that deserves strong consequences and that she thinks there is a direct correlation between animal abuse and child abuse.

The bestiality bill was pitched to Peterman at the behest of the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society, Rich said last year

1:53 PM  
Blogger lindseypallred said...

交友104速配網,視訊交友,成人韭南籽,18成人,ut男同志聊天室,成人圖片區,交友104相親網,0951成人頻道下載,男同志聊天室,成人貼圖,成人影片,tt1069同志交友網,成人視訊,aio交友愛情館,情色視訊,情色視訊,色情遊戲,交友戀愛小站,jp成人,熊貓貼圖,成人圖片,成人文章,正妹,成人小說,杜蕾斯成人,ut 聊天室,熊貓貼圖區,交友聊天找e爵,ol制服美女影片,777成人區,bt成人,女同志聊天室,貼圖片區,一葉情貼圖片區,6k聊天室,69成人,成人貼圖站,色情影片,聊天室ut,免費成人影片,

6:18 PM  
Blogger KarlLHailey said...

0204視訊交友s18x論壇aio辣妺視訊做愛聊天視訊聊天室影音視訊交友免費影片aa片UT聊天室打手槍日本免費視訊aaaaa片俱樂部影片百分百貼影片區UT女優免費影片UThome聊天室日本ab女傭影片情色論壇性愛aa片av女優金瓶影片交流區

6:23 AM  
Blogger 香覽 said...

看到你的好文章真是開心 加油囉.......................................

1:51 AM  
Blogger 嘴唇 said...

成功是一把梯子,雙手插在口袋裡是爬不上去的。........................................

3:48 AM  
Anonymous DB said...

Their are many forms of Capitalism the form involving completely free markets is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Crony Capitalism is an opposing example to Laissez-faire and could be used to define our present system in the the US. The problem you are running into is semantics, Capitalism is not one thing, it is a word when used alone defines a very broad economic system, starting at Laissez-faire and ending somewhere around Cronyism. So, use Laissez-fair in front of the word and you get your point across, use Capitalism alone and you leave your listener or reader slightly confused as Capitalism alone does not mean a completely free economic system

5:38 AM  
Blogger Home Loans NSW said...

Hey I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your blog. You have good views, Keep up the good informative info. About new things with helping concept.Thanks............... http://www.newstarthome.com.au/

2:43 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home