As scientific advances in medical diagnosis accelerated during the second half of the nineteenth century, the physician confronted by a person complaining of undiagnosable ills faced a very serious dilemma: What should he tell such a person? And what should he tell himself? The most obvious option open to a physician in this situation is to tell both the patient and himself the truth: namely, that with the methods and knowledge presently available to him, he cannot find anything wrong with the patient’s body. Such a stance, however, frustrates both patient and doctor: the former, because he wants to be legitimized in the patient role; the latter, because he wants to find disease so that he can prescribe treatment. This is why physicians rarely chose telling the truth in the past, and why, as the medical profession and the public have redefined the rules of the medical game, doing so has ceased to be an option altogether.(Insanity: The Idea and Its Consequences
(Syracuse University, 1997) by Thomas Szasz :36)
This willing blindness with respect to the Truth becomes a blindness to the Word. For you have to begin lying.
Clearly, if disease means bodily disease, then mental diseases are metaphoric diseases, just as priests are metaphoric fathers. But this is precisely what is denied by all contemporary authorities and institutions that define the terms by which we must play the medical game. They unanimously declare that mental diseases are bona fide diseases, that metaphoric diseases are literal diseases. Conceptually, psychiatry (except insofar as it addresses bona fide brain diseases) thus rests on a literalized metaphor...(Ib :37)
I did some research on the Nazi use of proverbs because as socialists they will be literalizing/naturalizing things. This is the socialist's science, science! They deny transphysical being. That has no "substance" and does not "exist." Once you do that you have denied the metaphysical. You have denied Maker because He is transphysical. The old word for that is "spiritual" but that's "religion."
Hitler says:"(“Don’t you saddle us with humanity. The German folk does not want its concerns to be determined and governed by an alien race”). "
By the Jewish mind an alien race was made known, the Maker of the universe and his son. The American Founders noted that some rights are an unalienable Right this Way.
He continues:
"...das Ergebnis dieses Krieges die Vernichtung des Judentums sein wird. Zum erstenmal wird diesmal das echt altjüdische Gesetz angewendet: ‘Aug’ Aug’, Zahn um Zahn’!" (Domarus 1962:11, 1829) ("the result of this war will be the destruction of Jewry. This time, for the first time, the authentic old Jewish law will be applied: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ "). Hitler and his comrades did not take this old proverb figuratively, but they applied it literally and acted it out, one gruesome and inhuman step after another. The proverb was no longer a metaphor under the Nazis, but rather became crude reality (see also Frind 1964:21—23).(Proverbs in Nazi Germany
Most Germans did not notice how Hitler and his propaganda machinery manipulated them with such popular expressions. But the Austrian cultural critic, Karl Kraus, had already analyzed the Nazis through their language in 1933 and attempted to show through satirical analysis that Hitler was in fact negating the metaphorical nature of proverbs and proverbial expressions. The expressions that refer to parts of the body especially were interpreted not metaphorically, but realistically. The result was a brutality and inhumanity of language that became progressively worse as time went on....
[.....]
.....the terrible expression: “To rub salt into the open wound.” It must have happened once upon a time, but one repressed all visions of the concrete action until such a point that one couldn’t possibly consciously conceive of it. One used it in order to refer to the gruesome memory of a personal loss or to the contact with a particular anguish. Such cases always existed; the action from which the phrase stems remained unthought. Here it is:
'When the old comrade cut his hand deeply while peeling potatoes, a sneering group of Nazis forced him to hold his profusely bleeding hand in a sack of salt. The painful screaming of the old man gave them great pleasure.'
One can’t imagine this; but since it happened the expression is no longer useful. . .
The Promulgation of Anti-Semitism and
Stereotypes through Folklore
By Wolfgang Mieder
The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 95, No. 378.
(Oct. - Dec., 1982), pp. 435-464)
3 comments:
I mention socialist professors or professionals. Mainly, they do seem to rely on their mode of communication. It's a certain type of talk or jargon. One can learn it and then you come to the conclusion that more than a few are actually pretty stupid people. I do not say that as, "Look at me, me smart!" No, it's a free forum here and anyone can come on and try to make me look stupid if they want. I say that because it seems true to me, after discussing things with a lot of the scientists, etc.
James Watson put it this way,
"In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
Or on the blog Left2Right were socialist professors write, they rely on a mode of communication. They say the dumbest things but have a "civil" mode of communication or toss some words like salubrious into what they write.
Once another person actually gets through the mode of communication one would hope that they can see how stupid what is being said is. This is where deconstruction can be helpful.
"I don't see the MTV generation being influenced very much at all by professors and PhDs."
I do, because it is increasingly common for the youth to go to college. They do not seem to be learning much about how to think. But they do tend to come out with a set of prejudices that match the professors, imagine that.
Then, maybe they get married and grow up. Then they realize the difference between indoctrination and education.
I noted that difference once to one of my old professors. He said, "Could you repeat that?" And it looked like his little wheels were spinning. But all that will most likely happen is that he will repeat it to his students later implying that they have been conditioned by their parents or what not to believe what they do. But supposedly now, they are being educated. To believe in education over indoctrination one has to actually believe that the metaphysical is over the physical. The problem is, a lot of American university professors do not believe that anymore.
It does not matter how "well trained" one is if that is the case. Being well trained will only help one's mode of communication, not the veracity of the message itself. So there will always be a weakness in the scholarship. For instance, note that you shifted from dealing with viewpoints and ideas to dealing with status or collectives of people.
"Everyone relies on a "mode of communication". ....To me, "civil" means "polite and respectful", and I see nothing wrong or stupid about that."
You can say something wrong or stupid in a polite and respectful way. Then you can hide behind the mode of communication while saying that pointing out that what you said is wrong or stupid is not being polite, etc.
"And what's wrong with the word "salubrious" anyway?"
Nothing, it's just a mode of communication. And sometimes one can find the writer with their emotions, wants or neuroses hidden away between the lines of their words and their civility.
"I'm struck by the irony of that comment. Most deconstructionists...."
Yes, I know. There is a big difference between saying, "Deconstruction can be helpful...." and saying,, "I agree with most deconstructionists." In general, deconstruction can be applied to those who believe that all is matter in motion. They are those who believe their own symbols to be an arbitrary construct. So that is how they will put them together and so how they generally must be deconstructed.
"When I read "MTV generation" I don't think "college student". I think of dead-eyed, brainwashed fans that obey the marketing they are constantly subjected to as they consume their TV, movies, internet, etc, etc."
I don't know when you went to college. But the two are increasingly merged, booze it up and party on Thursday night, skip class on Friday, etc. I do not know what the percentages look like but it seems, in my opinion, to be a trend.
"When you say "over" you mean "better than", right?"
I mean first in the order of things. Example, to think through the brain, etc...and generally not to put one's own visceral reactions first and instead, have them be second. They are still there, just refined and defined by thought.
"I was just responding to what you had originally said, picking out just a few of your points that immediately struck me."
I know, and the type of points you picked and pick deal with "Most deconstructionists...." this and that. "Most professors...." It is more collectivist. This was not at my direction in the comment supra, etc., but rather indicates what points you will pick up on, what "strikes" you. Perhaps that which can make you or someone else a Victim. So now we happen to start talking about the groupie groups rather than concepts. That is fine with me, in some ways. That, in fact, can be deconstructed.
But it is something that you brought about.
And I suppose, that here is why you did it:
"...it seemed to me that you are simply trying to insult those who have viewpoints and beliefs that don't match your own."
Well, I suppose you have to bring the focus down to some groupie groups and pretend that I am victimizing them. Oh, the poor Victims, they just can't change their mind about anything. They have an immutable status and that is that. Why even bother discussing viewpoints when it is all status and discussion makes Victims?
And so on. That little collectivist template, that censorious pattern of the left by which they become the New Thought Police is all very banal. Read the book by Tammy Bruce going by that name.
My comments have to do with views like leftism and socialism and next to nothing to do with immutable statuses or collectives.
"And by the way, why do you capitalise "the Truth" and "the Word"? Are you talking religion here?"
This blog is about Good and Evil. That is a religious topic. So I will talk religion here.
This is more of a tangent about generalization than the Nazi use of proverbs by the literalized metaphor and modern medicalizers similar misuse of metaphors.
And that is fine.
"You seem to be criticising civility itself, as if it's a tool to be used by idiots...."
Sometimes it is. Besides that sometimes people who deny or undermine civilization try to claim civility even as they do so.
"You're hiding behind the same modes of communication used by leftists and socialists."
Then what am I hiding?
I will tell you what some others are hiding. Those who undermine civilization itself while trying to claim civility are hiding things. Example, Peter Singer is intellectually honest about the full implications of philosophic naturalism, etc. However, others make a habit of supporting philosophic naturalism, yet balk at the manifestations of their own philosophy.
"Are you saying you use deconstruction to make personal attacks?"
I am applying philosophic naturalism to those who believe in it, first. That is all. Like Karl Kraus said of psychoanalysis, it generally applies to those who believe it. And they should be willing to live by their own philosophy. Yet, they often are not and instead will say that one is making a "personal attack" against their status or identity, almost a physical thing. That is because they do not believe in the metaphysical or transphysical. They may use it for the sake of argument or mistakenly pick up on phrases that go against their own philosophy but they do not really believe the mind exists, or that anything spiritual exists. All that is left of them is their person, nothing transcendent. So every disagreement is turned into a "personal attack." For what else is there to disagree with in the context of a socialist's philosophy? That's why their own answer is so often a form of physical liquidation, after all.
"Symbols ARE arbitrary constructs, aren't they?"
I should have said, nothing more than arbitrary constructs.
As to what I believe, I think that symbols are the creation of a mind and have meaning, as signs of design. I could go on but I'll move on to a few other points you raise for the sake of brevity.
"Your example sounds more like the visceral reactions come first, and then they are refined, restrained, censored by thought. My own view is that neither "comes first", but rather that there are varying degrees of emotion and thought that we can express...."
My example assumes civilization, in the state of nature it will not be the case that people can always refine and define crass appetites, etc. Nor will every person actually be educated, etc., even in an ideal situation. The example here is from the end of civilization, the type of things one will find at the end of it. Note that the definition of civilization is fairly simple, the beginning of written language. Deconstructionists who deconstruct everything are undermining civilization just as philosophic naturalists do.
You can, of course, break civilization and have groups of people ruled by their own visceral reactions, the Founders called it mobocracy.
"You're just insulting people in place of real discussion."
If applying someone's own philosophy to them is an insult to them then they had best take a look into their own philosophy. And the simple fact is, I am not insulting people in place of real discussion.
"....Seems a little out of place in discussing "views like leftism and socialism" (even though you are mostly talking about Nazis and somehow equating them with socialists--talk about modes of communication!)."
It is apposite. For socialists attack religion because it is the only thing that can stand against the philosophic naturalism (a sort of idolatry of Nature) at the root of socialistic ideologies.
I do not equate the Nazis with socialists. I say that they are a hybrid of the worst of the Right combined with the worst of the Left too. It is like a bunch of socialists suddenly turning nationalistic. They are not about God and country but instead about nation, nation, nation. There is no limit there, nothing first or transcendent. Socialists do not honor anything but immanence anyway, then when they turn nationalistic you have the National Socialists. Note also, fascism did not come up out of the Right. Rather, the fascists came out of the worker's parties, the socialists....I can cite the history on this and their philosophy as well. Fascism is the heretical branch of socialism in the same sense that Christianity is a heretical branch of Judaism. They are built on the same foundation. And there can be a deep hatred between them, especially at the schism.
It would be fair to say that socialists are proto-fascists. Sometimes it is those who fundamentally agree on a foundation to things that fight amongst themselves the fiercest, like Catholic and Protestant.
Maybe I will put some of the history and philosophy dealing with socialism and proto-fascism on the front page sometime.
Later...
Post a Comment