Pragmatism, Language & Mindless Conformity

I don’t care or desire to work with pragmatism, and here is why: pragmatism accommodates mindless conformity becoming a kind of secret mindless conformity itself (likely aided by psychological ideologies that resist stateful reasoning in favor of dogma that is allowed to do so, to include tax exemption).

First of all, pragmatism is less of an articulate dogma or ideology than it is tenacious habit. Pragmatists from day one, however, would have you take your pick how to ascertain meaningful pragmatism, itself, apart from its actual aversion for criticism (not to be confused with all the paradoxes that make errors of language and logic). In other words, philosophy, the escape from ignorance made possible by loving wisdom, though not inherently skeptical of knowledge (especially objective knowledge that doesn’t depend on expression of thought or language), may enjoy skepticism nevertheless. How does one expect or anticipate coherently meaningful communication without coherently meaningful logic? Pragmatism, that’s how.

Choosing to use language (rather than carry presumed mind control, e.g., mindless conformity, which I presuppose of ideologies that are psychological, or sociological, eliminating the need to reason with shared language, communicating) achieves a choice of concepts to use to communicate with (which is favorable to brute force, but also ideological worldviews that pretend to understand the world simply on recognizing useful words, phrase, idioms, etc). So, we choose to use language, precisely to communicate something, and to do so toward a range of appropriate or adequate reception. Otherwise, we are mindless as the words mindless conformity demands (which includes all the alienation of reasoning and reasonable people).

So, of course, creationism and evolution presuppose development, but is it cognate development, or merely superficial attempts to conform to actual understanding? Politics is an obvious development, but its language is hardly ordinary, given the vastness of government and its necessity to control developments in opposition to anarchy. Not being able to describe development is the perpetual problem of not desiring to know anything, or minimizing knowledge to mindless conformity, always having to be told what to do, and always having to eat humble pie for every meal assuming that’s what everyone must like, in the least, due minimal understanding that somehow survives mindless conformity.

But contradictory concepts are barriers to understanding, and it is obvious in creationism (an ideology akin to fundamentalism, or coherentism, pragmatism, whatever demands acceptance or abeyance to some fundamental belief, or language and its imitations, presupposing its own superior status among billions of possible beliefs people have), or such otherwise understanding that may be expressed with gratifying confidence in it, alone, defying ideologies all the time, like evolution or science that presupposes it.

So, what if you can say that you want to believe in both evolution AND its negation? Does that make evolution or beliefs we have over the course of a life time intelligible? Contradictory beliefs resemble faked dichotomies, much like the Conservative Republicans fake being articulate Americans (subjectivists subjecting anyone to their subjects, e.g., ALEC manufactured catch phrases, like “right to work,” or “right to life” as if these were being depraved of the labor to survive as Americans enough).

So, drop creationism and the contradiction remains contradiction, except that evolution may be recognized by developed scientific wisdom and knowledge. Why do people have to live like refugees of faked politics?

I have been thinking of some of the terms we use to discredit rational awareness, e.g., “fake” things, “hateful” words, or whatever language amounts to real bullshit passing as understanding that should otherwise be received as bullshit understanding only mindless conformity. Freed of it, I feel my own progress. I don’t feel obliged to improve the ideological mind in order for it to merely fake and hate actual understanding, with language imitated to impress, like spray on shower scented aerosol. So much of it in American culture demands rescue, but is driven only to produce more, because Americans are optimistic, not simply “faithful” that mindless conformity may achieve autonomous correctness.

To admire pragmatism is nevertheless more difficult than its study, or any search for its truly useful meaning, may as well be genuflect synonymous, in spite of its having given American philosophy its character by sheer neglect of an education in logic altogether. When was logic compulsory education in America? Resting my case on that matter of fact, I say no more. Pragmatism failed logic education, or education in logic. Specifically, pragmatism failed productive rationality maintaining a presence of errors in political “freedom of speech.” The many catchphrases inspired by the American Legislative Exchange Council makes this clear and obvious how little concern there is for rationality and freewill.

(to be continued)