Why do politicians espouse freedom, when the job - a universal clone of politics - is a fixed structure?

[trokanmariel]

Why do people become politicians, to espouse freedom, when the job - a universal clone of politics - is a fixed structure?

[henry quirk]

Why do people become politicians, to espouse freedom, when the job - a universal clone of politics - is a fixed structure?

Power.

[trokanmariel]

Why do people become politicians, to espouse freedom, when the job - a universal clone of politics - is a fixed structure?

Power.

I sometimes wonder, whether people in power are aware of the dichotomy: that their being in power is due to their not using the intellectual data, such as the question, Do atoms want nations to exist?

And then, while doing the wondering, I realise the reality that this dichotomy need not hold people in power to ransom. People in power can arguably still value their media attention, and their historic sense of narrative built up over time, without having had to have used intellectual data.

[Skepdick]

Why do people become politicians, to espouse freedom, when the job - a universal clone of politics - is a fixed structure?

This question is not specific to politics. It's general to all people who fall into the trap of symbolism. The stupid idea that language/ideas/symbols represent; or stand for somethign. That they stand for something.

This is the main point of debate between the representationalist vs anti-representationalist camps.

Principled people are the worst in this regard. They confuse principles with morality - they are incapable of navigating life without abdicating reason to rules.

It's not just politicians because Mathematicians do exactly the same thing. They invent a system of rules/structures. Then they surrender to it.

[trokanmariel]

Why do people become politicians, to espouse freedom, when the job - a universal clone of politics - is a fixed structure?

This question is not specific to politics. It's general to all people who fall into the trap of symbolism. The stupid idea that language/ideas/symbols represent; or stand for somethign. That they stand for something.

This is the main point of debate between the representationalist vs anti-representationalist camps.

Principled people are the worst in this regard. They confuse principles with morality - they are incapable of navigating life without abdicating reason to rules.

It's not just politicians because Mathematicians do exactly the same thing. They invent a system of rules/structures. Then they surrender to it.

The intriguing concept, of your commentary, is the versus part, of representationalist and anti.
If I were to guess, as to why it's the most intriguing, I would say that it's the concept that most invokes the concept of when, and in a fantasy way.
It's actually a fantasy reality - the versus that you mention. And by fantasy, I mean not that it doesn't exist, but rather that its "imagination politics" is exempt from criticism.


What is imagination-politics - again, if to guess, I'd say that it's the vindication of the theory, that psychology is a battle between different ideas.

[henry quirk]

I sometimes wonder, whether people in power are aware of the dichotomy: that their being in power is due to their not using the intellectual data, such as the question, Do atoms want nations to exist?

I see no dichotomy. Man inherently is powerful, he's an agent (a point of creative and causal power), he's a free will. He's free.

What he turns his creative and causal powers to (furthering himself, preserving his freedom, or, leashing other men) is a matter of conscience, not data.

For example: one doesn't have to be a political scientist, or have access to perfect information, to understand what's goin' down in Ukraine, right now, is a clear violation of every person livin' there. We focus on the machinations of The State (this nation did this so that nation is entitled to do that) as though any iteration of The State were legitimate and more important than the folks who live in its shadow. We've been hoodwinked into believin' The State is sumthin' more than snake oil. We're taught to trust folks who we ought to hang.

Data is not in short supply: common sense is.

[trokanmariel]

I sometimes wonder, whether people in power are aware of the dichotomy: that their being in power is due to their not using the intellectual data, such as the question, Do atoms want nations to exist?

I see no dichotomy. Man inherently is powerful, he's an agent (a point of creative and causal power), he's a free will. He's free.

What he turns his creative and causal powers to (furthering himself, preserving his freedom, or, leashing other men) is a matter of conscience, not data.

For example: one doesn't have to be a political scientist, or have access to perfect information, to understand what's goin' down in Ukraine, right now, is a clear violation of every person livin' there. We focus on the machinations of The State (this nation did this so that nation is entitled to do that) as though any iteration of The State were legitimate and more important than the folks who live in its shadow. We've been hoodwinked into believin' The State is sumthin' more than snake oil. We're taught to trust folks who we ought to hang.

Data is not in short supply: common sense is.

Thanks for the response.
The part of your commentary, about "matter of conscience, not data", is the part that grabbed me. You're basically saying that people aren't influenced by data, I think.

Insofar, as data is a sequence, meaning that data can be daylight's sequence, of the 24 hour period, people have no choice but to be influenced by it.

If time weren't 24 hours long, but say were 10 hours long, it would make sense that a much greater percentage of the Ukrainian population would find it logical to just let the Russian army take over the Ukraine. Or should it be the other way around? Instinct tells me no.

The reason, why instinct tells me no, is because the logic of culture is based around the 24 hour period.

[henry quirk]

The part of your commentary, about "matter of conscience, not data", is the part that grabbed me. You're basically saying that people aren't influenced by data, I think.

What I'm sayin' is: you don't have to be a perfect analyst or have perfect information to assess, for example, the Ukraine incursion.

Some say Putin is justified; some say he isn't but all are assessn' based on the false notion The State is legitimate.

Russia is justified cuz of NATO encroachments; Russia is not justified cuz of Ukraine's national sovereignty, in other words: several iterations of The State vy for status among themselves and to hell with what individuals think about it.

No, the individual, is expected to rally behind his party or faction or government, and never mind that he might *not give a flyin' flip as to to the agendas of any iteration of The State.

If time weren't 24 hours long, but say were 10 hours long, it would make sense that a much greater percentage of the Ukrainian population would find it logical to just let the Russian army take over the Ukraine.

Not seein' how the length of the day has anything to do with it. And, in the same way The State is illegitimate, so is this Ukrainian population. Each person has got to decide what he's gonna do in the face of an aggressor ...doesn't matter if it's cops bustin' down the door at 3am under cover of a no-knock warrant, or a sociopath crossin' into the country with his military, or a thief who waylays you in the park demandin' your wallet...the principle is the same: you are your own. The cops, the sociopath, the thief, they all violate you. Defend yourself, or not. The choice is yours.



*which is distinctly different from bein' aware of those agendas so as to navigate around them

[trokanmariel]

The part of your commentary, about "matter of conscience, not data", is the part that grabbed me. You're basically saying that people aren't influenced by data, I think.

What I'm sayin' is: you don't have to be a perfect analyst or have perfect information to assess, for example, the Ukraine incursion.

Some say Putin is justified; some say he isn't but all are assessn' based on the false notion The State is legitimate.

Russia is justified cuz of NATO encroachments; Russia is not justified cuz of Ukraine's national sovereignty, in other words: several iterations of The State vy for status among themselves and to hell with what individuals think about it.

No, the individual, is expected to rally behind his party or faction or government, and never mind that he might *not give a flyin' flip as to to the agendas of any iteration of The State.

If time weren't 24 hours long, but say were 10 hours long, it would make sense that a much greater percentage of the Ukrainian population would find it logical to just let the Russian army take over the Ukraine.

Not seein' how the length of the day has anything to do with it. And, in the same way The State is illegitimate, so is this Ukrainian population. Each person has got to decide what he's gonna do in the face of an aggressor ...doesn't matter if it's cops bustin' down the door at 3am under cover of a no-knock warrant, or a sociopath crossin' into the country with his military, or a thief who waylays you in the park demandin' your wallet...the principle is the same: you are your own. The cops, the sociopath, the thief, they all violate you. Defend yourself, or not. The choice is yours.



*which is distinctly different from bein' aware of those agendas so as to navigate around them

I'd like to address your third comment, about the individual not caring for the agenda of the state: I would posit, that the individual should be empathetic towards the state, or more accurately, the group of people defining central government, because those people are the inevitable meaning of any data.

Now, what's the curious thing about this data, is the impossibility angle of it: replace group of people defining central government with central government, and the concept of empathy related to inevitability becomes much more feasible.

In the end, it just means that people's empathy is 100% correct, because the framework of society is inevitable hardwired so that the empathy's opposition has no reasonable angle.

[henry quirk]

I'd like to address your third comment, about the individual not caring for the agenda of the state: I would posit, that the individual should be empathetic towards the state, or more accurately, the group of people defining central government, because those people are the inevitable meaning of any data.

No, they're not. They're parasites & slavers. They create problems then sell the solutions. They aren't to be empathized with. They ought to be hung.

[trokanmariel]

I'd like to address your third comment, about the individual not caring for the agenda of the state: I would posit, that the individual should be empathetic towards the state, or more accurately, the group of people defining central government, because those people are the inevitable meaning of any data.

No, they're not. They're parasites & slavers. They create problems then sell the solutions. They aren't to be empathized with. They ought to be hung.

All people are representations of parasite behaviour. The units of language, that people use are always based on cynicism and pseudo, the latters always being the definition of parasite behaviour.