Conversations on Mottos

Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) / Xu Wei/ Untitled

 

---

 

This Thursday’s post came to you courtesy of an email conversation between Michael and I concerning legislation in Louisiana and the meaning and purpose of such an act.  

 

---

 

M1 Contribution

Motto: A word, phrase, or sentence that expresses an attitude, ideal, or guiding principle associated with the organization to which it belongs. A motto is an official statement that summarizes the character of the person or group.

"In God We Trust" is the official motto of the US. It was adopted by the US Congress in 1956, replacing E pluribus ("Out of many, one").

News article: A new law in Louisiana went into effect Tuesday requiring public schools in the state to display the nation’s official motto, “In God We Trust”, on a poster or framed document that is at least 11 inches by 14 inches” in each classroom.

What is the point of putting the motto "In God We Trust" in every room of a grade school, for example?  

The purpose of a motto is to remind.

What are children aged 5-10 supposed to be reminded of by making sure that they see the motto, “In God We Trust” in every class?

Trust in God is called “True Belief”, which is belief that can never be proved wrong if it is wrong, because it is belief in an explanation that no human has a means to know.

The purpose of the sign must be to continuously remind children that they need to establish a God to trust - because that is how enlightened and learned people get explanations about life on Earth that no human being has the means to know.

Why do adults want to embed this message into the psyche of children aged 5-10?

*****

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti

*****

The motto “In God We Trust” would seem to indicate intention to eradicate any tendency that a teacher or student might have to view the project of learning like the author above.

But is requiring math, physics and biology in public schools not the same type of restriction on how the world is viewed? Everything does not necessarily surrender itself to systematization.

For me the answer is no – IF the material is taught properly. There should be no nonsense about the truth. Scientific knowledge is not truth even if there is certainty about experimental results because all scientific knowledge is understanding of some piece of reality abstracted from the remainder of reality.

What I do not agree with is bringing True Belief into public schools and government, regardless of how the True Belief is classified; the essay does not oppose Christianity unless that happens to be the specific True Belief. The essay suggests that the Golden Rule is sufficient, which has no necessary connection to God.

I personally oppose putting the motto in classrooms for the above reasons, but being a Girardist I also oppose the promotion of negative reciprocity that will only escalate and will never reach a resolution. 

So, the main point of “Adult Signs in Schools” is that it is pointless to oppose a belief when the belief is grounded on True Belief. When you said that you wanted to rebut what is said in the essay, I think this is one rebuttable point that many people will argue, and they will say it is absolutely necessary to fight people who want the signs in schools, for example. I disagree for the simple reason that there is no means of resolution where logic does not apply. That is my philosophy and I believe it aligns with Girard as it happens.

So, if I argue with people who want the law and tell them that I am not being unpatriotic when I oppose the law … that will be a false proposition to the people who want the law, and I have no argument that will change their mind. That is what I am saying – I must accept the fact that I am unpatriotic as far as they are concerned - period.

The best thing I can do is be nice and figure out how to live with the motto. This is what people used to do in the old days. The old days means before profit seekers figured out how profitable it is to generate hate using modern marketing techniques. Twitter, as one example, is literally a machine that creates and perpetuates hate for profit by purposely generating negative reciprocity per its business model. Negative reciprocity produced intentionally for profit, is the nicotine of today – the ingredient added to make a parasite’s product addictive.

*****

So, in my logical world, “In God We Trust” means, “We Do Not Trust People”, and that is all that can be established. An example application is, “We Do Not Trust in a Teacher to define God”.

I think this is a reasonable lesson for a parent to give their kid, and because I do, half of the people in the country will basically hate me just for that – for choosing logic over True Belief. I realize this and just accept it as a reasonable result in an environment where promoting hate as entertainment and news is profitable, and importantly, gets more profitable with time.  

After 68 years of experience, what I have learned about the subject of morals, is that the more well-established a set of moral standards gets, the easier it gets to justify violence against others that would clearly be immoral violence IF the others were not deemed to be in violation of a well-established moral standard.

In the quest to extract a profit from Nature, when all else fails, the human resources that are assigned the role of being (no more than) a means to profit, or the human obstacles that stand in the way of extracting a profit, are considered non-humans, or partial humans, or they are said to believe in false Gods.

So, based on what I have learned, when I see “In God We Trust”, or “All men are created equal”, or worse yet, “the US is a Christian nation”, or worse yet “Make America Great Again” … I smell a rat. Actually, much worse than a rat.

John’s response

Something is fishy in the State of Louisiana.  Really.  You are just starting to notice that?

One of my favorite things is writing about the idiosyncrasies and the just plain dumb shit that the varying levels of government attempt in the course of attempting to keep the train on the track.

I have a mixed bag of feelings about the whole process.  I have a certain amount of pity for anyone trying to get to a place where they can affect real change because no matter what they attempt, the attempt will enrage at least 40% of the population…actually that number is probably low, it probably more like 50%.

The article that prompted this came through Michael.  I always enjoy the articles that he sends because he always accurately and thoroughly explains how the proposed legislation at any level makes no sense.  In this case and in 90% of his diatribes expressing high dudgeon I agree with his assessment.  

But, in my contrary way, I nearly always stand back and look at things from a different point of view.  

Michael always argues from the point of view of what can be considered logical evaluation and assessment.  He is good at that.  But I am not at all certain that politics can or should be approached in such a manner.  I always go through and try and debone my thought/feelings about any political subject and evaluate them in light of the rest of the populace who, being in a polity where near universal suffrage is the ideal, there are a shitpot of other folks/regions who have the same vote as I do.

Now, take a moment to view the picture that headed the article over at The Hill that caused this kerfuffle.  

 

Yep, that is probably a true to life picture of the offending phrase up in the national capitol.  The valid words up top, the flag being front and center in the picture, and surveillance cameras obscuring a part of the flag.  If that ain’t symbolic, I don’t know what is.

Right now, the schools are in a world of hurt.  The best I can figure is that the education received by our pampered chillun’s is degrading faster than usual and there are not really any options available to stem the decline available to the current system of administration.

So what is left are pointless gestures geared more toward making a political statement than solving the problem.  This is such a case.  What I foresee is that the 11x14 framed copy of the magic words will be situated immediately next to the pride flag.  

I think that this kerfuffle does point out the source problem of education in America.  What exactly is its core purpose?  

From my point of view there appears to be a conflict in what should be considered the purpose of education here in the land o’ the free.

1. (Hippies) To emphasize the needs of the individual and to enhance the actualization of the student.  OR

2. (Capitalists) To emphasize the role of the society and to prepare the student to enter the society.

In my mind, these two goals cannot be reconciled.  

When I was sequestered in the public education system, the capitalists were in charge.  Most students were funneled into roles that their families status and best guesses about the student’s abilities suggested to the school.  Rich kids and suckups were directed to the “College Prep” track and poor kids and normies were directed to the trades. 

Currently, the hippies are in charge of the educational process.  This is a pretty new deal in the grand scheme of things, the hippies like the idea of being schoolteachers and having the summer off and thinking they are an example to children.  I find this idea odd and peculiarly out of touch.  My experience in high school was that teachers were for the most part losers and to be ignored as much as possible.  Following discussion with my sons concerning their education, it appears to be a continuing trend.

So what we have is a system that has two potential goals that are somewhat in opposition to each other.  I am certain that someone who reads this will immediately be disturbed by my lack of faith, but I cannot see many educational methods that are appropriate to a public education system that can successfully encompass these disparate goals.

Now, this brings me to the contradiction that I think is at the core of the issue.  Michael will perk his ears up here as I will be talking about Plato’s “Forms”.  I can agree with Michael that a person can go pretty far astray by applying the concept of Platonic Idealism to his individual psyche and belief system.  Game, set, and match to Michael on this one.

But I think that applying the idea of forms in a sociological setting is absolutely essential.  Simply put, I think that without commonly held goals and worldviews, social constructs (E.G. City, County, State, Nation) will be unstable and dangerous.  The strength of belief doesn’t have to be all that strong.  The consensus doesn’t have to be complete, but there has to be at least lip service and a grudging willingness to fit in to make systems work.

One of the issues that has to be resolved is the relationship between individuals and a state.  What constitutes appropriate reciprocity between the needs of the individual and the needs of the state?  I think that schools have made a valiant but failed attempt to focus on the needs of the individual student in hopes that this self-actualization will allow them to better fit into the society.  I am arguing straight up that this appears to have failed.

The pushback at this failure has been gathering steam for a while.  As I stated before, in a federal republic with unfettered suffrage, there are a majority of states (But not a majority of population) that have been weaning themselves away from the failing/failed worldview and theories of the educational establishment.  I support nearly all these efforts.

However, whatever dickweeds came up with H.B. 8 are obviously “Small Bus” folks or posturing to be on CNN or MSNBC as their fifteen minutes of fame.  Because that transient bit of self puffery that they call a piece of legislation just gives the kids another reason to ignore the idiots that are running this country and Louisiana.

Finally, while I sneer and mock this stupid charade, it is Louisiana's business and none of mine.  Hell the damn thing passed 98-4 with three “Who Knows”, maybe it is what the electorate down there wants.