Immanent and Transcendental Issues in a Socio-political Philosophy.
A call for a real-time evolving compromise.
Never before did the American voter have to choose between two extreme idealistic political philosophies as consistently evident from opinion polls when viewed by the average middle class moderate as a standard guide for a healthy, happy and convivial life for all NOW. For the first time most voters think both candidates are likeable family guys with what seems to half of the voters as a clear agenda to solve the immediate problems of the nation. If elected, will either one succeed in carrying on their policies on a both a current and a long range basis? We think not for the reasons explained below, unless they veer from their stated course and seriously consider the incorporation of the opposing candidate’s logical viewpoints. To have the best of both approaches succeed we need to eventually let the loser of the election become automatically the vice-president and let the nation benefit from the presence of hybrid ideologies complementing each other as they coexist and evolve with unavoidable circumstances. Presidential candidates need to stop fighting the quixotic windmills of the opposing views as if they were necessarily relevant evils. I hope to provide below not an instant simplistic solution but an analytical insight as to what influential elements are the result of each candidate’s inherited and environmentally acquired data base inputs into their decision-making process plus other relevant considerations as how to escape the subhuman manifold into eventual greater biopsychosocial (BPS) horizons for the human species.
It is naturally expected by the voters that once the national challenges to be encountered are spelled out and compared with the applicable philosophical model the result will provide a moderate landscape for all appropriate adjustments to social contingencies predicted or as they arise; the same priority-based guidance both leader-protagonists would execute themselves in response to identical circumstances. As individuals, their intellectual fitness to the socio-political challenges ahead is of the essence and it depends on the genetic and acquired baggage they bring on to bear on the specific circumstantial challenges confronted and how they may logically transcend their BPS default responses in benefit of those they aspire to serve. Now get ready for the flight of fancy to follow. J
Two individuals may have equivalent levels of fitness even when having very different sets of physical characteristics because intellectual fitness for a leadership job is an irreducible primitive trait that derives its meaning from the quasi axiomatic formulation of current/ongoing socio-economic evolution theory that both candidates should have adopted in principle regardless of trivial priorities in their possible execution. Both candidates together and with the assistance of experts in economy and philosophy should be committed to distinguish the conflicting strands in the debate and minimize the unnecessary confusion that controls the media on the methodological role of economic optimality assumptions, and the explanatory goals of socioeconomic theory.
Besides, it has to be understood that individual hopefuls are not to be taken necessarily as instances of the general conceptualized human species anymore than Charlie Boy, my dog, should be taken as an instance of the generalized dog species. Every human being always carries with him/her the circumstances of their individualized biopsychosociology wherever s(he) goes and it would be misleading to assume that such individualized recipe will necessarily control their decision-making process. But, we need not a new set of natural laws for each individualized member of the human species. We need instead a compromise between the immanent satisfaction of real-time exigent circumstances and the assurance that such is consistent with the transcendental viability of the human species. Oil and vinegar won’t mix unless you keep shaking the mixture or adding a common element with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic features and then crossing your fingers. For starters, the expert advisers need to identify which essential and specific exemplar mechanisms in one model are equivalent, not necessarily identical, to mechanisms in the other model adopting the same, or equivalent interphases representing the fundamental units of consensus and compromise whose usefulness may conceivably extend into a wide range of multidisciplinary solutions. Now that I have outlined the predominantly biological imperatives that control the subhuman aspects of our existential reality I am moving into more complex psychosocial variables.
Anyone that has analytically observed the social behavior of any subhuman species must have noticed the human equivalent of ‘nationality’ in the territorial ‘behavior’ and the human equivalent of racial discrimination when a given species keeps away any other differently looking intruders into their turf which they will defend like modern terrorists do. Contrary to the popular classical interpretations to the effect that racial discrimination is exclusively learned, I dare say that the inherited and acquired aspects of BPS survival of the good but uneducated or unemployed hungry are manipulated by the special interests, whether political or economic which in the USA unfortunately identify the elected politicians which seem as if they surrender (for sale) before the clever manipulations by the special monopolistic capitalism economic interests that seems to control the elected government. The only way to escape that unintentional subhuman trap often imposed on the needy is the early indoctrination in ethics and morality by parents and organized religions for the benefit of those blessed with the natural talent to transcend the immanent biological imperative and become responsible leaders in their chosen disciplines. Who is at fault, the responsible self conscious business entrepeneur and libertarian idealist or the socialist leaning idealist? Neither one, even dogs and cats can learn to live together in the feral relationship of a healthy, happy and convivial compromise. It is a falsifiable fact, the rule we humans can make it to work just by trying. For those few prophets that recorded history has given that role, it seems like natural intelligence is necessary but not sufficient. Do we need the mediation of now unknown transfinite sources of righteousness inspiration to mediate in behalf of human survival as a viable species? Quare. The last two centuries have witnessed unsuspected ‘miracles’ in science and technology, and the show goes on with the help of quantum theory, metaphysical logic and an undefined mechanism of reciprocal information transfer between our prefrontal cortex space phase and transfinity as outlined elsewhere by the undersigned.
Continuing with the justification for a hybrid model approach to reconcile two worthwhile idealistic models of effective biopsychosocial survival of the human species we now try to understand better why we all need to appreciate why there is an ethical and moral obligation beyond self gratification even though we recognize the subconscious pressures for a BPS equilibrium survival within the current and ongoing existential reality. We need to briefly examine the meaning of liberty for the two extreme functional ideologies. A dispassionate analysis will show that both extremes can properly claim the convenience of been guaranteed an unrestricted freedom from unjustified obstacles, barriers or constraints on free speech and peaceful demonstrations in act or potency. After all it should be the aim of all normal and consciously responsible citizens to invoke free will and take control of their lives and realize its fundamental BPS purposes. To negate these fundamental freedoms to others is symptomatic and/or diagnostic of the pursuit of unearned conveniences at the expense of innocent others. We see this behaviors more often associated with abusive individual agents or their collectivities, at both extremes of the ideological spectrum. These extremes are both the expression of a free conscious ideal about political liberty and autonomy, however incompatible the respective interpretations may be but they both necessarily agree on the pursuit of liberty for the individual to realize his highest aspirations individually or with the intervention of the state machinery. Can these two conflicting concepts of liberty be reconciled? Once we identify their common denominator what remains is to catalogue their differences as fundamentally essential or operational conveniences. Having identified their common lofty goal to pursue, how do they get there? Is getting there a mere possible or probable outcome? Obviously it depends on the individual and his real time circumstances to effectively deal with the anticipated or new constraints and the assigned priority, all things considered, to realize that goal. One can for instance rely on realizing one’s true self, health or diseased, inside an underdeveloped socioeconomic environment or taking advantage of more sophisticated resources to plan your honest or corrupt strategies based on existing rational and well informed data bases. The big problem is not to realize that both conditions coexist in the same nation and consequently it is futile to use same remedy for different diseases when present. It is like importing a constitutional form of government and parliamentary elections after a constitutional assembly referendum among the Australian aborigenes! For those that argue that self realization attitudes, not environmental constraints is the determining factor are denying the fundamental plurality and diversity of the USA and consequently equating push genes with racial superiority. But, as sociology statistics records reveal, the shy impoverished citizen in backward communities becomes the entrepeneurial leader of the next generation given the opportunities and help from tax funded governmental programs. The beliefs, desires and values as taught at home, organized community and religious groups, government endorsed or not, and all together will play a major role in strengthening the shared commonalities. It is this real time diversity that negates the exclusivity of the free individual that takes the initiative to develop and take control of his essential needs and convenient desires and interests autonomously and from within. What about those who, through no conscious choice of their own, cannot enjoy that status as ‘free individuals’ that triggers autonomy and self realization? Should they continue in their perpetual role as in Alexander Dumas ‘Les Miserables’, or Raspails “The Condemned of the Earth.” For those who, through no conscious effort of their own, inherited their socioeconomic status as ‘free individuals’, their lasting entrepeneurial success depends on reaching out to the ‘miserables’ not only as paternalistic and/or authoritative potential consumers of their products but as potential future happy partners in business. Instead, business leaders should join elected government in providing workfare opportunities, not welfare handouts. It is very difficult to formulate decisions on the basis of calm rational reflection on all the options available in the presence of socioeconomic pressures, manipulations by the combined forces of politicians and special interests or outright ignorance. Why insist by indoctrination or clever manipulation, e.g., arbitrary taxation, that there is only one American socioeconomic, sociopolitical and religious way of life instead of providing outlets for healthy, civil and moral expressions that do not compromise the basic values of ethical and moral conviviality and thereby taking into consideration the individualized needs and content of his cultural desires, whatever they are? Denying these outlets of expression negates constitutional freedom. In a free pluralistic society the national interests need not necessarily equate the individualized interests of its members in all respects and with the passage of time evolutionary pressures will control the direction of peaceful change and bring more creative uniformity, if any, by free choice or peaceful consensus. Just like there exist ecumenical theosophical convivialities, why shouldn’t there be the sociopolitical equivalent? One could even conceive the extreme situation where an ecumenical partnership between free enterprise and a government of different political ideologies as suggested here could even impose specific and relevant dictatorial restraints to effectively deal with a temporary emergency without exercising arbitrary restraints on the liberty of the majority with impunity. There are historical records of these creative experiments of peaceful coexistence during the interface of an evolved and mature ancient Roman Empire and the surge of Renaissance forces of renewal and change. This should not be construed as an endorsement of one party society. Basic political differences should always have their separate for a of expression as we now have with independent Republican and Democrat parties each ideally committed to freedom and liberal democratic institutions free from the self-serving influence of powerful private enterprises of monopolistic capitalism waving their international green dollar flag of a global imperialistic economy state where its members have no country allegiances. We are suggesting this hybrid model on the premise that there should not be a fundamental difference between the Republican and the Democrat conceptualization of essential freedoms. The alternatives to peaceful ecumenical and political coexistence are clear and well documented by the Middle East tribal wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the brewing expectations of economic instability of the Euro currency as triggered in no small context by the massive infiltration of ‘indocumented illegals’ in Central Europe.
Summary and Conclusions.
The Constitutional guarantees of individualized freedom to all members of a pluralistic society like ours should be the goal of any elected ideology. When different socioeconomic ideologies can constructively and creatively interact it guarantees that all people enjoy minimal equal freedoms. By stimulating pre-election debates on socioeconomic models to solve the problems of all citizens in either side of the political debate and assuring that the presidential loser will become the automatic vice-president. It guarantees a healthy consideration of strategies to attend the basic needs of all represented as a function of available resources and established priorities.
1. Erich Fromm. Man for Himself. 1947 Fawcett Premier Book.
2. Anthony Storr Human Aggression 1970 Bantam Books
3. John Oesterle Ethics. The Introduction to to Moral Science. 1957 Prentice Hall
4. John L ocke Essays on Civil Government (Spanish) 1969 Aguilar
5. Dr. Angell de la Sierra Cabeza de Cordero o Rabo de Leon 2000 (Novel) Lulu
6. ” …de la Libertad y Otras Ilusiones (Novel) Lulu
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. Deltona, Florida Summer, 2012-09-16