Diversity, Quality of Science, and Cartalk

March 21st, 2014

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, bronchitis though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, page this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, bronchitis though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, page this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, pill though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, adiposity this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, bronchitis though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, page this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, pill though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, adiposity this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, sale though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, dosage this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

This morning (March 21, information pills physician 2014) NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a rather smh story on ethnic diversity of authorship of scientific papers and the quality of science as (supposedly) evidenced by the weak proxy of quantity of citations. As I was shaking my head (smh) and considering a paper in response as they concluded the piece, malady I was rescued from that task by a promotion for the weekly favorite: “Cartalk” where one of the click and clack brothers serendipitously offered the perfect rhetorical refutation of the preceding segment. I quote: “Do two people who don’t know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn’t know what he is talking about?” In any case, commenters at the embedded link cover basic challenges to the segment and it’s premise.

True Face of Television?

March 29th, 2013

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

Secede?

November 13th, 2012

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, store or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, glaucoma and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, store or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, glaucoma and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, more about or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, store or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, glaucoma and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, more about or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, prothesis or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, refractionist and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, store or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, glaucoma and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, more about or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, prothesis or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, refractionist and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.
Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, more about devastating the environment, viagra 40mg and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

Holding up Half the Conversation

November 5th, 2012

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in