Teun A. van Dijk:
“This editorial appeared in Volume 2 (1) of The Semiotic Review of Books.
Editorial: Discourse Analysis With A Cause
by Teun A. van Dijk


The history of the humanities and social sciences in general and that of semiotics, linguistics and discourse analysis in particular, occasionally witness periods of specific social and political engagement. The late 1960s are a prominent and much cited example and there are good reasons to assume that one generation later, at the beginning of a decade of antemillennium soul-searching, a new period of critical research may develop. This is particularly true for the study of discourse which, during its 25 odd years of existence, has matured into an independent and rather successful new cross-discipline in many domains of the humanities and the social sciences. Of course, this "critical" or "political" phase in the development of discourse studies is neither unexpected nor unprepared. Since its foundation in the mid-1960s, and in close connection with French structuralism and the development of semiotics, several scholars have been engaged in critical or socio-political studies of text and talk. However, the major paradigms in the many varieties of discourse analysis were still inspired by linguistic, semiotic, anthropological, sociological or psychological approaches that focussed on the structures or strategies of discourse understanding and interaction. Even when social contexts were examined for instance in work associated with the other new discipline of these same 25 years, sociolinguistics, truly critical or political work was the exception. Discourse analysis, like other emerging disciplines, was too busy developing its own goals, orientation, methods and theories to bother with pressing socio-political issues. In that respect, it proved hardly more engaged than one of its influential mother-disciplines, linguistics itself, although at the end of the 1970s there were isolated attempts, principally in Great Britain and Australia, at "critical linguistics".


During the 1980s, "critical linguistics" merged with similar approaches in social semiotics, pragmatics or what will here be called critical discourse analysis. More systematically than before, this new orientation placed critical, socio-political and socio-cultural issues on the agenda. One important factor in this development is, of course, the feminist approach in women's studies. In the analysis of language use, discourse and women's communication, it became increasingly legitimate to ask questions about inequality, power and dominance in group relations and about the ways these are reproduced and legitimated by text and talk. By asking such questions as "Whose Language?", the study of language and discourse went beyond the sophisticated analysis of sentence or text grammars, speech acts, conversational interaction, text processing, communicative events or sociolectal variations. Beyond the social microstructures of situated text, understanding and interaction, such questions address the macrostructures of society including those of group relations, organizations and institutions. Socio-political "positions", of women, ethnic minorities, classes or world regions, as well as the ideologies that sustain their subordination, and their resistance, also required a discourse analytical approach. The nuclear arms race, ecological disasters, the continuing exploitation of the Third World and the political developments in Eastern Europe, have been among the issues that have similarly demanded attention also from discourse analysis.


The time has come, therefore, to put these scattered developments into a more homogeneous perspective. One way to do this, as usual, is to create an international journal. Such a journal, Discourse & Society now exists, and its success shows that it provides a much needed independent forum for research that hitherto remained rather marginal in a large number of linguistic, pragmatic, discourse analytical and social science journals. Obviously, this is not enough. Some 30 articles a year do not suffice to define a paradigm. For Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to become a prominent approach in the humanities and social sciences we should expect dozens of books, hundreds of articles and conference papers, and special symposia or conference sections, yearly.


It is even more important, however, to formulate explicit goals, principles, methods and theories that sustain such critical inquiry. That such foundations for the new direction in research should satisfy the usual criteria of scholarship should be obvious if we want to please the "others" in our discipline. However, critical research is always also, if not primarily, self critical about scholarly research. It does not merely change the prevalent methods, challenge a theory, or disrupt a paradigm. Rather, it asks questions about the very foundations and goals of science, and even deals with the sociopolitical positions of scholars themselves. Again, feminist theory formation and practice have shown that scholarship is inextricably linked with the position of women in general and female scholars in particular. The same is true for Blacks and other minorities in their critical analysis of racism and its manifestations in academia. Third World scholars daily experience what it means not only to carry out research in shabby conditions, but also to be marginalized if not ignored by "our" (north-western) journals and "our" (north-western) conferences. Politically no less relevant has been the close encounter between critical research on the international arms race, on pollution, refugees and war and peace in the Middle East on the one hand, and everyday resistance and political position-taking on the other hand. In other words, the study of discourse is part of this social, political and cultural world and the time has come to reflect systematically and extensively about its position in this world. In a world and a period where not only the fundamental problems have grown to a global scale, but in which also text, speech and communication have reached a scale of influence and power that directly signal the measure of dominance of those who "own" them, control them or have access to them, critical discourse analysis has a vast field of practice. Thus our special task is that of what I shall call analytical resistance. By analyzing the mechanisms of the discourses of power that reproduce and legitimate the many forms of inequality we may be expected to contribute our share to the struggles of resistance and change. Critical discourse analysis, thus, aims at the formulation of effective counter-discourse and the persuasive development of counter-ideologies. It does not simply speak about this world, but in this world. It does not indulge in the fashionable, postmodernist rejection of "old-fashioned" words such as "solidarity." Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) does not believe that Ideologies have come to their end. On the contrary, its task is to show that, more than ever, but more covertly and subtly, and hence more effectively, they are alive and kicking.


If we should have learned one thing from the late 1960s, it is that within the socio-political and cultural context of the 1990s, the effectiveness of CDA does not merely depend on the enthusiastic engagement or the ideological principles of its practitioners. Analytical resistance is pointless, for instance, without solid theories, powerful methods of research and persuasive applications that "work". One essential condition of theoretical renewal is that it should be multidisciplinary. Serious social and political issues do not respect the traditional boundaries between different fields. During the last 25 years, increasingly sophisticated analyses of text and talk, thus, may have elevated the new cross-discipline to a level of academic respectability, but its socio-political effectiveness has remained slight. One of the causes of this lack of effectiveness is our limited insight into the details of the very role of discourse in society, polity and culture. That power, ideology, or group inequality is crucially reproduced and legitimated by text and talk, may have become a trivial insight. How exactly these processes operate, however, we hardly know.


Theoretically, this means that we need to examine the details of the contextualization of the many structures and strategies of discourse we have learned to analyze in the past decades. Societal structures, however, do not immediately influence text and speech, nor does discourse, or communication directly affect such structures of society and culture. We need at least the important interface of social cognitions, that is, detailed insight into the structures of knowledge and belief representations of language users as social group members. We need to make explicit with what cognitive strategies speakers translate such social cognitions into the many structures of their discourses and, conversely, how discourse structures in specific contexts affect such social cognitions. This will, at the same time, provide the necessary understanding of the processes of the other dimension of the socio-cognitive interface, that is, how social cognitions are being acquired, used and changed in the first place. In other words, social, political and cultural structures can operate through discourse only through the minds of language users, not as individual speakers, but as members of groups or cultures. This means that the discourse analyst should work in close collaboration with the socially oriented social psychologists as easily as with sociologists and political scientists, and conversely, that social scientists should not hesitate to integrate into their work cognitive or linguistic research results. There are vast fields of theoretical inquiry at the boundaries of these disciplines that remain virtually unexplored and that need to be investigated if we want to contribute to a truly effective critical discourse analysis.


To illustrate this general call to engage in critical discourse analysis, let me offer the example of the kind of issues I have been engaged in since 1980, the study of racism and its reproduction through various kinds of discourse. First a general observation, or rather question, that should be familiar to any scholar working on serious social and political issues: Why are so few scholars in discourse analysis, linguistics, semiotics and related disciplines actively interested in such a fundamental problem of "our" north-western society? Indeed, a similar question was asked by women who several decades ago took the initiative to again study the position of women in society and the power relations between men and women. Despite the complexities of the sociology of science, the answer boils down to the simple fact that most leading or influential scholars were men. The same is true for the lack of interest in the many fundamental issues related to the problem of racism; most prominent and influential scholars in "our" society are white. This means that, even if they have personal sympathy for equal rights, affirmative action, the struggle against Apartheid or anti-racist action, very few of them are deeply and personally concerned and motivated to engage themselves in that field of research and action, often leaving it to their few colleagues in the rather marginal Black Studies or Ethnic Studies departments. A brief inspection of the contents of 36 prominent journals in the social sciences and the humanities, including those on discourse and communication, pragmatics, political science, sociology and psychology show for instance that the term "racism" occurs in only 3 of the 5,783 titles of articles published during the last five years. The term "discrimination" occurs 24 times, "prejudice" 8 times, and "racist" only 3 times. More than half of these studies appear in specialized journals of ethnic and racial studies. True, papers may deal with racism with other words in their titles, but we may safely conclude that hardly more than 1% of all articles in the social sciences deal with the fundamental social problem of racism. This is also true for the many books and papers in the fields of discourse analysis, linguistics, semiotics or communication. Social psychology may often deal with "stereotypes", but carefully avoids the (unscientific?) concept of "racism".


One of the most salient results of my present work about the reproduction of racism through elite discourse and communication is that racism is systematically denied, mitigated or otherwise marginalized as a problem by many white scholars, even those working on "ethnic relations." In this framework, then, it is essential to investigate more generally how white societies establish, maintain, reproduce and legitimate an often highly subtle system of white group dominance, featuring not only systematic discrimination in everyday life, but also the accompanying social cognitions (attitudes, ideologies) of own group preference if not superiority.


It is a major task of critical discourse analysis to examine in detail the many forms and strategies of white text and talk that contribute to such processes of reproduction. From everyday conversations with friends,-to textbooks, literature, movies, advertising, news reports, a multitude of institutional (including scholarly) reports and dialogues, among many other forms of discourse and communication, we witness the defensive or persuasive expression of underlying ethnic or racial prejudices developed to sustain the status quo of white dominance. Overall topics, narrative structures, argumentation strategies, lexical style, rhetoric, semantic moves, and conversational features may thus all contribute to the expression and signalling of white group membership, self-serving face-work ("I am not a racist, but..."), and the systematic, though subtle derogation of the "others". We thus witness how discourse expresses and confirms the racial or ethnic status quo more overtly and crudely in spontaneous and unmonitored "street-talk" or conversations among friends or family members, but certainly more influential in the more guarded and hence seemingly "tolerant" public texts of the political, corporate, media, academic, legal, social or professional elites. There are few areas where the term "silent majority" is less adequate than here.


The complexities of such a study of the discursive reproduction of racism are considerable. It first requires the creation of a sophisticated "diagnostic" battery of structures of text and talk that are preferred in the expression or legitimation of ethnic prejudices or dominant group relations. Even pauses, repairs and hesitations in conversation may be relevant to detecting underlying processes of self-monitoring speech on "delicate" topics. Narratives about personal experiences with "them" may suddenly not only lose their Resolution category--thereby signalling how the "unresolved problem" of "foreigners" in the neighbourhood or city is cognitively represented in mental models--but also essentially become embedded in an argumentation in which "lived" personal events are used as persuasive premises that support a generally negative conclusion: "They" do not belong here. Tolerance is generally proclaimed, also by the most outspoken racists: "We have nothing against them but ..". Even representative of the Front National in the French Assemblé Nationale, as well as their friends in other European parliaments, may often be heard claiming that they are of course not racist. Thus, a vast discursive framework is being set up to signal compliance with the "official" norm, while at the same time seeking the strategic subterfuges that allow them to "speak the truth" about their fellow citizens of colour.


These discursive structures and strategies should be seen as the external, and hence social, manifestations of the underlying representations and processes of social cognitions shared by many or most white group members. These cognitions allow them not only to master and explain the social world of ethnic and racial diversity around them, but are also brought to bear in the practices of everyday racism. From the apparently trivial, but in effect highly demeaning "irregularities" experienced by minorities in the everyday life of shops, public transport, work or school, to the more structural and consequential practices of political decision-making about virtually all the aspects of their social life, corporate or public hiring and firing, education, research, media coverage, and other practices of the elites, we witness the system of a dominant consensus (with its many varieties and contradictions) that can only be kept in place by a powerful framework of corresponding social cognitions. Discourse--and especially elite discourse--is the key of this reproduction process, while combining social cognitions with social practices at the level of the everyday implementation of the overall system of racism.


Racism is but one example among many. Critical discourse analysis has a long agenda. It is not a fashion, but a mission. It is a mode of research and not a passing paradigm. By definition, it combines theory and practice. It is multidisciplinary and does not fear to explore everybody's backyard. Its practitioners know they sometimes get into trouble. When "formal" linguistics, text analysis, semiotics or psychology appeared to be leading to rather easy grants and subsidies, the monies for critical research suddenly appear to be less available. Critical discourse analysis is difficult, theoretically, analytically and practically. At the same time, it is rich and challenging. It is real scholarship. It may make a difference.


Selective bibliography
Chilton, P. (Ed.). (1985). Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak today. London: Pinter.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fisher, S., & Todd, A.D. (Eds.). (1986). Discourse and Institutional authority: Medicine education and law. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. London: Polity Press.
Kedar, L. (Ed.). (1987). Power through discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kramarae, C., Schulz, M., & O'Barr, W. M. (Eds.). (1984). Language and power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mey, J. (1985). Whose language: A study in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Seidel, G. (Ed.). (1988). The nature of the right. A feminist analysis of order patterns. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating Racism. Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989). Language power and Ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wodak, R., Nowak, P., Pelikan, J., Gruber, H., DeCillia, R. & Mitten R. (1990). "Wir sind unschuidige Tater". Studien zum antisemitischen Diskurs im Nachkriegsoterreich. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.


Teun A. van Dijk is professor of discourse studies at the University of Amsterdam. After earlier work in literary theory, text grammar, discourse pragmatics, and the psychology of text comprehension, his work in the 1980s focused on the analysis of news in the press and the study of the reproduction of racism in discourse and communication. His major books in English in these latter domains are Prejudice in Discourse (1984), Communicating Racism (1987), Racism and the Press (1991), Discourse and Discrimination (edited with Qeneva Smitherman, 1988), News as discourse (1988), and News analysis (1988). He is now preparing a new book on discourse and racism. Teun A. van Dijk is editor of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis (4 vols., 1985), founding editor of TEXT and founding editor of Discourse & Society.�


With ever-increasing sophistication of mind control and neuro-psycho-linguistics as well as Thalami and other neurophysiological scientific studies there can be much hoped for. Unfortunately such things and the archetypes or templates they create may be used for entirely questionable ends by those who might have something other than our freedom in mind.

Dear Lindsay

It is you.

Basically he is saying there needs to be an awareness of how the macro scoiety is managed by the arts of Spin and all the varied ways it is done. I quote

such questions address the macrostructures of society including those of group relations, organizations and institutions. Socio-political "positions", of women, ethnic minorities, classes or world regions, as well as the ideologies that sustain their subordination, and their resistance, also required a discourse analytical approach. The nuclear arms race, ecological disasters, the continuing exploitation of the Third World

Now you would have to have read a number of things I have recommended before you might see just how the symbols and systems Manufacture Consent (Chomsky) and utilize people against people (Fukayama's The End of History and The Last Man) to grasp why I say this - or point out he has missed the Poly Sci and Business studies of Organizational Development usages beyond mere ritualistic hierarchy (Plato and standard structures of army or church).

Nothing in his paper is over my head or esoteric at all.

Will everyone who finds the discussion of Semiotics exciting, raise their hands.

Thank you!

Now will those of you who find it boring, like I do....

Thank you!

Now, I challenge those who find it exciting, and significant to human progress, and of value to the average reader to do so.

Thank you.

Dear Lindsay

Thus you might be exposed as the person who talks a good talk but has no interest in addressing the real issues of Brotherhood and society.

If you cannot agree that these points are important and thus exciting why do you talk about making this world a better place or ecumenicism?

Quoting Dijk "such questions address the macrostructures of society including those of group relations, organizations and institutions. Socio-political "positions", of women, ethnic minorities, classes or world regions, as well as the ideologies that sustain their subordination, and their resistance, also required a discourse analytical approach. The nuclear arms race, ecological disasters, the continuing exploitation of the Third World"

The reason I suspect, is you are trained to think along a specific line that allows you to pound pulpits ranting about G-d but meanwhile taking part in the hegemony of terror against the soul.

Now perhaps your pubescent comments here about raising your hand if you find it exciting to read about Semiotics were just in good sport - then I will accept your apology. In the event it isn't then these comments are my opinion and it would appear Jasper was right and I was wrong to defend you.

The truth is within if you get rid of the SPIN or programming and experience that makes the ego and supports the individual. But all is within the universe as the Buddhists say - and thus like Jesus and others who studied long and hard - the truth is also 'without'. There are many paths to Nirvana and each person must find their own WAY (TAO or 'The Way').

way to stick it to 'em, RTB

Even your own words speak the confusion of more than one path when you say

Unfolding the many ‘truths’ that program the egos inner reality (that creates his outer world of experiences) is the inner journey… it unfolds all that has been enfolded

So we see there are many truths - I wonder if you got truths mixed up with paths to those truths. It would be better if you said there is only one truth. And I wonder if you intend to tell us this PATH of yours which only you know?

Who and what did the 'enfolded' part of your statement?

And then there is this

egos inner reality

The ego is a seductive thing - but it is never really real even though it must first develop before you abandon it's carrion call.

The rest of this whole statement of yours is equally flawed and if you wish it to be deconstructed through Discourse Analysis such as semiotics does - please ask.

There is no one truth…truth is a mere perception that creates appearances, in which you like to play…I did not contradict myself…but by your response you answered my inquiry…

namaste

Au contraire - I did not say there was one truth. I asked if you maychance have mis-quoted your programming. I have said in many places that Nils Bohr got it right when he said 'A great truth has an opposite which is also true, and a trivial truth has one that is simply false.'

You maintain there is one PATH and the 'inner 'thinker'' is your chosen path. But there are many PATHS - as many as there are people. There are also many similar disciplines and many of them were designed by the same people. But Semiotics seeks to lay bare the hypocrisy of those who are often willing to state there is only one Path or they are 'chosen'. Semiotics will not allow such deceit of disingenuity and mere ridicule of commentary stand as argument.

But I did say it would be better if you said there is only one truth. I said this because there is a convergence of knowledge in a hierarchial model that makes some sense. But that is not really the matter under discussion in this thread - it would fit under Inteligent Design.

Blessed BE (lol on the Namaste as you deflect and accuse rather than factually address the matter)

The art of communication is indeed fraught with issues but when people do not address the facts and merely ridicule a fine academic posting from the editor of the discipline's Journal without stating why - it behooves me to say - what good can come of any discourse. But if you study that piece and where it will take you then you could do something with your experience that might actually change the state of things that have been created by those who are encouraged to pursue the vain rewards of me-too think.

Are you certain I was using ridicule? Perhaps I was trying to call attention to the simple fact that certain writers and their writings just do not COMMUNICATE to me. I have the same problem with certain kinds of music, and art. And I am blaming myself for this, not just others.

By the way, I have the same problem with trying to understand Jacques Deridda. And, as an obiit from the NY Times indicates, I am not alone. Are you and JD talking the same kind of language?

Jacques Derrida, Abstruse Theorist, Dies at 74
By JONATHAN KANDELL

Published: October 10, 2004 (NY Times)

"Jacques Derrida, the Algerian-born, French intellectual who became one of the most celebrated and notoriously difficult philosophers of the late 20th century, died Friday at a Paris hospital, the French president's office announced. He was 74.

The cause of death was pancreatic cancer, according to French television, The Associated Press reported.

Mr. Derrida was known as the father of deconstruction, the method of inquiry that asserted that all writing was full of confusion and contradiction, and that the author's intent could not overcome the inherent contradictions of language itself, robbing texts - whether literature, history or philosophy - of truthfulness, absolute meaning and permanence. The concept was eventually applied to the whole gamut of arts and social sciences, including linguistics, anthropology, political science, even architecture."

For the full obit, click on, http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/

NOW, the following article, from the same NY TIMES, makes it easy to understand what Deridda was saying. Perhaps MCT should have written a book made up of a dialogue with JD.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
What Derrida Really Meant
By MARK C. TAYLOR

Published: October 14, 2004

Paris (France)


"Along with Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, who died last week in Paris at the age of 74, will be remembered as one of the three most important philosophers of the 20th century. No thinker in the last 100 years had a greater impact than he did on people in more fields and different disciplines. Philosophers, theologians, literary and art critics, psychologists, historians, writers, artists, legal scholars and even architects have found in his writings resources for insights that have led to an extraordinary revival of the arts and humanities during the past four decades. And no thinker has been more deeply misunderstood."

You can click on the whole article on the link I gave you.

Derrida is one of the French Structuralists that Dijk is referring to in his piece and the comparison with Derrida and I is OK. However, I am more inclined to be what you would call communicative - if you see my commentary on Heidegger and Hegel you might understand why.

And you also know how you have been attacked for DOing the things you can DO.

Thus we are in the same boat and an understanding of all cultural imperatives and the development of principles and terminologies is paramount.

Here is an entry from my Encyclopedia and my new project on Damanhur.

'LEVIATHAN': - A book by Thomas Hobbes which has continued to spread the spectre of top-down Platonic and Machiavellian misogyny or the slavery of all life. It has the likes of Francis Fukayama in the out-growth of its Hegelian dialectic. He wrote The End of History and the Last Man which we highly recommend all informed people should read. The reason to read this scary and often immoral proposition that appeals to the basest of human urges and power is that he is a top American social engineer of the current paradigm. But let us allow Michael Shermer to give you the conventional viewpoint on Hobbesian ideology. Keep in mind this one thought - these are the people who call us 'conspiracy theorists' because we advocate a conspiracy of Love and Brotherhood with open minds. What is the nature of their conspiracy or contingency plans?
As a lead-in to Hobbes, Shermer is evaluating Pirzig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which serves as an excellent questioning of how we think in terms of our theories about who we are and what is going on around us. But as you read these erudite thoughts of esteemed scholars ask yourself what would our supposed science be if we had not destroyed the Library at Alexandria and all the other libraries that Christendom and those like Caliph Omar or Chinese emperors were burning? Is it possible our thoughts would include the pyramids as power plants and the maps of the whole world dating to pre Ice Age times and that we would have continued the development of computers since the Antikythera or the printed circuit once thought to be embroidery. Is it possible the peer pressure of culture would originate with shamanistic soul and alchemical creativity?
It amuses us to think that Shermer has not pointed out that Newton was an alchemist and he quotes things Newton said to show people he wasn't an alchemist. Newton had to do these things because it was a very dangerous thing to life and limb if one was judged to be an alchemist. Today it is only dangerous to career and relationships. In his proof that ghosts don't exist therefore we find he is proceeding from a theory that reduces all existence to necessarily theoretical constructs that assume the actual sight of something is the only proof of it. Why has he chosen to champion the cause of Toilet Philosophy? Could it be because it assures success in the academic publishing and media world rather than being reduced to fringe and weird accolades from UFO or 'occultist' 'Goths' and other indigents? Even the TV programs that present supposedly supernatural phenomena actually ridicule them and don't give the quantum physical or other best available proof.
"There is a priceless dialogue between father and son in Robert Pirzig's classic 1974 intellectual adventure story, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, that takes place during a cross-country motorcycle tour that included many late-night discussions. The father tells his son that he does not believe in ghosts because ‘they are unscientific. They contain no matter and have no energy {Just as the common perception was that animals or Killer Whales like Keiko had no intellectual acumen allowing communication. In fact in the centuries after the supposed Enlightenment people like Locke thought there was no thinking at all without language [tabula rasa] and other 'convention'.} and therefore according to the laws of science, do not exist except in people's minds. Of course, the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's minds. It's best to refuse to believe in either ghosts or the laws of science.’ The son, now confused, wonders if his father has wandered off into nihilism (1974, pp. 38-39):
'So you don't believe in ghosts or science?'
'No, I do believe in ghosts.'
'What?'
'The laws of physics and logic, the number system, the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real. For example, it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and the law of gravity {Remember our report on advances in understanding on gravity and anti-gravity.} existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity.'
'Of course.'
'So, before the beginning of the Earth, before people, etc., the law of gravity existed. Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy, {Now science thinks it has particulate or photonic interconnects like Don Juan's 'amber waves'.} and not existing in anyone's mind.'
'Right. '
'Then what has a thing to do to be nonexistent? It has just passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence that the law of gravity didn't have, or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. I predict that if you think about it long enough, you will go round and round until you realize that the law of gravity did not exist before Isaac Newton. So the law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads. It is a ghost!'
{The existence of the New World or the great cultures of pre-Inca Peru and Mayan lands are still relegated to near non-existence. Our top of mind awareness and Euro-centric bias is conditioned to think of history as the gradual ascendance toward our present zenith. Even in our discussions about the Pyramid we are catering to this perception to some extent, although we hope we are fairly indicating our belief it was not just Egypt. But when we constantly quote authors who focus their attention on Egypt we allow the mind to forget Peru. Peru might well be the originator of many technological techniques. There could well have been an international research center near Tiahuanaco at the Lake Titicaca site finally being explored by archaeology under the water there. But if an open-mind is maintained such as Pirzig's father and ZEN does recommend, then an awesome interconnectiveness is maintained and allowed to flourish and eventually create rather than regurgitate data to meet the social conventions of 'black and white' reality.}
This is what I call 'Pirzig's Paradox'. One of the knottier problems for historians and philosophers of science over the past three decades has been resolving the tension between the view of science as a progressive, culturally independent, objective quest for Truth and the view of science as a non-progressive, socially constructed, subjective creation of knowledge. Philosophers of science label these two approaches 'internalist' and 'externalist', respectively. The 'internalist' focuses on the internal workings of science independent of its larger cultural context: the development of ideas, hypotheses, theories, and laws, and the internal logic within and between them. The Belgian-American George Sarton, one of the founders of the history of science field, launched the internalist view. Sarton's discussion of the internalist approach may be summarized as follows:
1. The study of the history of science is only justified by its relevance to present and future science. Therefore historians must understand present science in order to see how past science has shaped its development. {Is this also a fair description of propaganda?}
2. Science is "systematized positive knowledge," and "the acquisition and systematization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive" (Sarton 1936, p.5). Therefore, the historian should consider each historical step in terms of progressive or regressive effects.
3. Although science is embedded in culture, it is not influenced by culture to any significant degree. Thus, the historian need not worry about external context and should concentrate on the internal workings of science.
4. Science, because it is positive, cumulative, and progressive, is the most important contribution to the history of humanity. Therefore, it is the most important thing a historian can study. Doing so will help prevent wars and build bridges between peoples and cultures.
By contrast, the 'externalist' concentrates on placing science within the larger cultural context of religion, politics, economics, and ideologies and considers the effect these have on the development of scientific ideas, hypotheses, theories, and laws. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn began the externalist tradition in 1962, with the publication of his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In this book, he introduced the concepts of scientific paradigms and paradigm shifts. Reflecting upon the internalist tradition, Kuhn concluded, "Historians of science owe the late George Sarton an immense debt for his role in establishing their profession, but the image of their specialty which he propagated continues to do much harm even though it has long since been rejected" (1977, p.148).
Science historian Richard Olson, who switched from physics to the history of science, strikes a balance between these positions. Olson opens his 1991 book, Science Deified ~ Science Defied, with a quotation from psychologist B. F. Skinner that succinctly states the internalist position: "No theory changes what it's a theory about." Olson goes on to reject such strict internalism: ‘There is a serious question about whether such a statement can be interpreted in a way that could be true even if the objects of the theory were inanimate; but there is no question that it is false when it is applied to humans and other living organisms.’ A more balanced position, says Olson, is seeing science as both product and the producer of culture: ‘In many ways science has merely justified the successive substitutions of more modern myths for obsolete ones as the basis for our understanding of the world, Scientific theory itself arises only out of and under the influence of its social and intellectual milieu; that is, it is a product as well as a determinant of culture’ (p. 3). Such a balance is required because strict internalism is impossible but if all knowledge is socially constructed and a product of culture, the externalist position is subject to itself and must then collapse…
{The Darwinism Evolving authors from MIT that we quoted in 'Science' identified the issue more appropriately for me, when they compared the humanist to the reductivist elements. We see a lot of conflict between Post-Modernist and mechanistic 'expertise' in all of this as well. They said that each side of the argument takes out each others laundry.}
… The belief that all knowledge is culturally determined and therefore lacks certainty is largely the product of an uncertain cultural milieu.
{Is any one in government aware of this? Yes. They are able to maintain this conflict and benefit from the resultant inability of society to form common sense questions and make realistic evaluations. It is an excellent over-intellectualization that boils down to denial of much that innately is perceived; the vernacular phrase about something "baffling brains" comes to mind.}
Extreme externalism (sometimes called 'strong relativism') cannot be right. Yet those of us trained by Olson's generation of historians (Olson was one of my thesis advisers) know all too well that social phenomena and cultural traditions 'do' influence theories, which, in turn, determine how facts are interpreted; the facts then reinforce theories, {This is referred to as 'direct inference' and/or self- fulfilling prophecy. Our belief or opinion is that a far greater amount of this is at work than any scientific method of observation and conclusion - dealing with FACT!} and round and round we go until, for some reason, a paradigm shifts. Yet if culture 'determines' science--if ghosts and the laws of nature exist nowhere but in people's minds--then is science no better than pseudoscience? Is there no difference between ghosts and the laws of science?
We can get out of this circle of questions by recognizing this about science: despite being influenced by culture, science can be considered cumulative and progressive when these terms are used in a precise and nonjudgmental way…
{But surely Mr. Shermer is very judgmental and how precise can anyone be in this realm of philosophy, that saw students dueling and Fichte declaring that Kant was clearly for the existence of immortality when other saw it differently? Fichte is the person the Scientologists finger as the prima progenitor of psychological mind control. They are equally ensconced in such acts of aggression against freedom. The over-intellectualized academics are eminently capable of fooling even themselves and thus we can be allowed to think few if any people really know what is going on. Shermer makes it clear he thinks the 67% of Americans that Gallup determined believe in psychic experiences, must have had delusional experiences and that HE is the precise arbiter of truth. That poll taken in 1990 might be re-done today with even more convincing evidence that the majority is against the will of the so-called science Shermer employs due to the existence of 300X light speed. This once thought ‘absolute’ limit which has always been crucial to the debunkers saying ESP and psychic things can't exist. But now we know there is no absolute speed of light and we know that history has hidden the truth of many more things that space shots and other metaphysical reality such as Hubbell and NASA as well as water on Mars [etc., etc.]. When will a scientist of Shermer's ilk come forward and admit they were wrong about time and they know little about consciousness, the soul, electricity and other things connected to variable light speed and String Theory? Where is there any precision or even science in such abject DENIAL?! IT is made into a semantical debate that obfuscates the matter to the delight of those who think they understood serious philosophers like Kant, as misbegotten as he may have been, he at least endeavoured to pierce the veils of 18th century scientific certitude. Remember the professor of English we quoted from a recent newspaper who says all Literary Theory is seeking "sinister" plots and avoiding teaching in favour of closing the minds of students?}
… Scientific progress is 'the cumulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge'. By this definition, science (and technology by extension) are the only cultural traditions that are progressive, not in any moralistic or hierarchical way but in an actual and definable manner. Whether it is deified or defied, science is progressive in this cumulative sense. This is what sets science apart from all other traditions, especially pseudoscience.
{But the quantum physicists and metaphysicians like Faraday who have been acknowledged as the most real and correct technicians; or the inventors like Tesla and his non-force info packets are the object of ridicule with words like atom-mysticists! Where and who are the truth tellers who can do anything to stop the name-calling such as 'pseudoscience' and get past having to have black and white answers? Mr. Shermer is entirely too certain and his heroes include some power-oriented and almost revolting authorities that remind us replacing Christian authoritarianism with some technocracy is not a good trade-off.}
Resolution of the internalist-externalist problem--Pirzig’s Paradox--follows from semantical precision and study of historical examples. One example will serve to illustrate the fascinating connections between science and politics. Most political theoreticians regard Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) {Surely this alone shows how archaic things are, yet in reality it all goes back to Plato who was an aristocratic elitist of secret knowledge.} as one of the most important political tracts of the modern age. Most do not realize, however, how much Hobbes' politics built upon the scientific ideas of his time. Hobbes, in fact, fancied himself as the Galileo Galilei and William Harvey of the science of society. The dedicatory letter to his De Corpore Politico (1644) has to be one of the most immodest statements in the history of science: "Galileus...was the first that opened to us the gate of natural philosophy universal, {Only because he said the church control should be thrown off like the shackles that bound prisoners in dungeons. Clearly Harvey didn't discover the circulatory system either. Just watch Morgan Freeman as an Islamic, deliver a baby by C-section in Costner's Robin Hood and ask yourself how the blood of sacrificial victims cut open while alive in the classical and 'savage' cultures alike wouldn't have seen the heart pumping. Or read ancient Chinese medical books!} which is the knowledge of the nature of motion...The science of man's body, the most profitable part of natural science, was first discovered with admirable sagacity by our countryman, Doctor Harvey. Natural philosophy is therefore but young; {Paracelsus and I are flushed and biting our tongue along with the alchemist Hippocrates and herbalist Maimonides.} but civil philosophy is yet much younger, as being no older... than my own DE CIVE" (1839-1845, vol. 1, pp. vii-ix).
{While Incans performed brain surgery and English didn't allow inoculations?! Please?! This is pure propaganda! It's like the Russians and Americans of the 70s declaring their ascendant ego each and every day. Solon was a great political or civics student and ancestor of Plato but one has to understand the need of English ego to prejudicially assert itself before becoming outraged and then one can get a real chuckle out of this claptrap.}
Hobbes' introduction to scientific thinking came at the age of forty, when he happened upon a copy of Euclid's Elements at a friend's home and turned to a theorem he could not understand until he examined the preceding definitions and postulates. In one of the flashes of insight common in the annals of science, Hobbes began to apply geometrical logic to social theory. Just as Euclid built a science of geometry, Hobbes would build a science of society, beginning with the first principle that the universe is composed of material matter in motion. His second principle was that all life depends on "vital motion", just as, in Hobbes' words, "the motion of the blood, perpetually circulating (as hath been shown from many infallible signs and marks by Dr. Harvey, the first observer to it ( in the veins and arteries" (1839-1845, vol. 4, p.407). Through the senses the brain detects the mechanical motion of objects in the environment. Since all simple ideas come from these basic sense movements, complex ideas must come from combinations of simple ideas. Thus, all thought is a type of motion in the brain called memories. As the motion fades, the memory fades.
Humans are also in motion, driven by passions--appetites (pleasure) and aversions (pain)--to maintain the vital motion of life itself. To gain pleasure and avoid pain, one needs power. In the state of nature everyone is free to exert power over others {The crux of the fallacy without soul.} in order to gain greater pleasure. {This is the Machiavellian bluntly stated appeal to basic human urges rather than potentials which has driven the political forum in a top-down Platonic fashion for far too long.} This Hobbes calls the 'right of nature'. Unequal passions among individuals living in nature lead to a state of "war of all against all." In the most famous passage in political theory, Hobbes imagines life without government and the state: ‘In such condition there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain… no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (165-1) 1968, p.76). Fortunately, Hobbes argues, humans have reason and can alter the right of nature in favor of the 'law of nature', out of which comes the social contract. The contract calls for individuals to surrender 'all' rights (except self-defense) to the sovereign who, like the biblical Leviathan, is responsible only to God.
...the connection Hobbes made between politics and science is not dead yet.� (1)
Such a negative view of humanity is reflected in uncreative and un-loving economic models like the Malthusian 'one pie theory' or the entropic 19th century degradation of all systems. We must throw off these soulless shackles which assume "simple ideas come from these basic sense movements," and especially "complex ideas must come from combinations of simple ideas." It has lead to the fear of the very Hobbesian and Machiavellian "war of all against all". The big question that remains is why do we have educators selling us this bag of worms? We need a conspiracy of LOVE, like Teilhard de Chardin called for in the early part of the postwar period when we had proven how stupid war really is; don't we?
I am sorry to have to wax so philosophic and it would be nice if we could just say what should be as the theoreticians in academia do when they proclaim 'the way it is'. But if we don't tear the essence of the debunkers need to create a following (or cult) apart, then we will continue to endure the their slings and arrows as they assert our lack of knowledge or our "unsubstantiated speculation" as Professor Wiseman said in his manifesto against 'cell diffusion' theories and the Post-Modern right of individuals to have an opinion with some element of validity. (His article in Archaeology Magazine from early 2001.) Is it coincidence to make note of the fact that I just miss-typed following and saw FOOLowing?
If we haven't convinced you we use facts yet, then perhaps you will never be convinced; if you have read the first volume and what we have covered so far. We love to deal in facts and take great joy in learning. Kant is not one of our favorite metaphysicians but the tribulations he faced and the ethical integrity he espoused is a good thing for the rational person to follow. In the end of all philosophical approaches we find what people actually do or the fulfillment of their potential reflects the wisdom of their real beliefs.
Pelagius and Jesus had the same perspective and there hasn't been a great 'cumulative' progress in science or history and there will not be unless our ethics are guiding right action and vice versa. We believe Shermer is right about the influence of social and political forces on the interpretations of science and that vicious circle. This is not news either - so what can I do to show the essence of our good intentions. Should we openly admit we're wrong to denounce 'occultists' and metaphysicians who believed in quantum world consciousness, the soul and psychic things? Is the discovery that light has no absolute limit or the use of Thalami and non-force info packets and String Theory in quantum teleporting gates within computers and the pronouncements of mathematical designs showing an intelligence beyond individual ego and the rational processes enough to ask our teachers, why they lead us away from thinking. Yes, that is what Professor Good who we quoted earlier on Literary Theory thinks is afoot and we agree. The only 'sinister' thing is the divisive and abortive attempts to make our human potential acquiesce or "surrender" (to quote Hobbes) to a collective state without soul. Not the kind of soul that ensures profit for industry and claims responsibility 'only to God'. Here is part of a book review on a recent book dealing with Kant and his life.
"It is hard to see, today, how anyone could object to the dignity and rigour of Kant's ethics; but it was highly controversial at the time, in part because of its implications for Christianity. Kuehn shows that Kant was raised in an atmosphere of Pietism, the German evangelical movement that was especially strong in the Königsberg of his youth. Like many a bright child of evangelicals, he looked back on his school days with revulsion; {Though he kept the insecure guilts and repressive scars on his soul that led him to reclusive celibacy.} the enforced prayer and constant interrogation of conscience left him with a lifelong distaste for religion. And his mature ethical system more or less discounts Christianity; the only important thing is morality, which is self-imposed and discoverable by reason alone. {What no priests or ministerial interpreters for the soul? No wonder he wasn't favoured by the monarch or the ecclesiasts.} Indeed, he wrote that "any service to God over and above 'good life conduct' is 'mere religious delusion and counterfeit'." Pronouncements like these earned him a warning from the devout Emperor of Prussia, and he was forced to promise never to write on religion again.
Still, even this episode of Kant's life emphasizes his distance from us. After a century in which millions of people have been imprisoned and murdered for their beliefs, this moderate reproach, like Kant's stern pursuit of the rational itself, seems to belong to another world. Yet that very distance means that Kant's uncompromising liberal {This is the original meaning of catholic} faith, as expressed in his works and his life, is more valuable now than ever.� (2)
"Devout" and "Pietism" or piety are words charged and full of an energy mostly fraught with prejudice and separation between people at the management or hands of someone. There are few symbols of culture whether scientific, historical or theological which pack greater power in the annals of our 5,000 year nightmaze that James Joyce talks about and Joseph Campbell quoted in his foreword to Marija Gimbutas' Language of the Goddess. Can an "Emperor" even be considered for such a title as "devout"? Will our surrender or succumbing to the forces who claim to answer only to God ever end? Nietzsche and his negative nature deconstructing all ethical connectivity of the 'Brotherhood': and numerous other intellectual progeny who have sought to wend the magic of writing and literature over the souls of all life still resonate the disharmony and musical intervals of Pythagorean 'spheres' which are both "Above and Below" our everyday internalistic quest that only true humanism can integrate through purposeful 'piety' which is seldom found in academia.





Chapter Bibliography and Notes:

1) “Nicholas de Vere’s long-awaited book, The Dragon Legacy, is far more than a history. It is a down-to-earth account of a family whose roots go back to the times of the Egyptian Pharoahs whose influence has come, directly through the ages, to us today. It is not a book for those who are slavishly attracted to “New Agers� - de Vere does not have much time for them. The academic but sometimes humorous work includes extracts from the Dragon Court archives, and amounts to the official history of the Dragon peoples, and the persecution that they have undergone throughout history. Some of the secrets of “Vampirism� are revealed in the context of the ancient history of the family, and we are told the truth behind vampiristic rituals. The impact of the myth and truth behind Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is also discussed. The book is written to answer questions, which it does well. However, it goes further than that, and inspires the reader to re-evaluate all that is most familiar in Western history and religion.� From nicholasdevere.com.
2) National Post, Sat. May 26, 2001, Book Reviews, B9, review by Adam Kirsch on 'Kant: A Biography' from Cambridge University Press written by Manfred Kuehn.

RTB, would I offend you if I asked you to : Please, go slow.!

I find it almost impossible to digest so much good food, no matter how nourishing it is, all at once.

Do you find it impossible to break your servings down into paragraphs and manageable bites?

Dear Lindsay


I usually do put paragraph spacing in on these posts - but frankly I have not received much indication that it matters and I see increasingly few evidences that people read the stuff anyway. Reading requires poring over it until you are sure you can debate or argue the presentation - it is not a simple matter of reading until you have reached the conclusion you do not agree. Unfortunately the bulk of humanity has lost the ability to concentrate and we have a sound byte emotional milieu.

Also this post has many breaks due to the ending of sentences that fortuitously occur.

But if you will actually analyze this I will try to remember to put spacing between paragraphs.

And this is just one of thousands of entries on this subject I could dump here. Fetch has a lot more.

You mention Thomas Hobbes (1588--1679). He was born during the threat of the Spanish Armada. He was a vicar's son; attended Oxford.

Influenced by Ockham, Rene Descartes and the science of Galileo, who he later visited in Italy; became a master in classics; a teacher of a numbers of nobles, including the future Charles II who came after the Protoectorate of Cromwell. Lived in Paris for awhile. However, he was also a rabid protestant, but of the Anglican persuasion. In 1651, as a supporter of Cromwell, it became safe for him to return to England. As to his religion, he was an independent. But he was a severe critic of the Presbyterians and Catholics. Despite the stress of his times, he lived to be 91.

In his Leviathan--and I have a copy of it in my library--he argues that we human beings are not naturally social beings, we are moved only by selfish considerations. Therefore people as servants to the state. Oddly, despite his devotion to the practice of his religion, he was a materialist. Some even accused him of being an atheist. Overall, he raised fundamental and challenging questions about the relationship between science and religion, the relationship between thought and the physiological processes on which is based , and the nature and limitation of political power. Hobbes was a philosopher with many questions and very few answers.

The following link gives all the details of Hobbes life and ideas

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/phi...ers/hobbes.html


The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes is perhaps the most complete materialist philosophy of the 17th century. Hobbes rejects Cartesian dualism and believes in the mortality of the soul. He rejects free will in favor of determinism, a determinism which treats freedom as being able to do what one desires.

He rejects Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy in favor of the "new" philosophy of Galileo and Gassendi, which largely treats the world as matter in motion. Hobbes is perhaps most famous for his political philosophy.

Men in a state of nature, that is a state without civil government, are in a war of all against all in which life is hardly worth living. The way out of this desperate state is to make a social contract and establish the state to keep peace and order. Because of his view of how nasty life is without the state, Hobbes subscribes to a very authoritarian version of the social contract.

Another fine line here - what do you think of it?

He rejects free will in favor of determinism, a determinism which treats freedom as being able to do what one desires.


Note also the Cybernetic Determinism of the likes of Heidegger (Nazis are very much the nature of elitism and Nietszche never corrected those who called him a 'radical aristocrat'). All these philosophies are anti-spirit and soul and they seek to be the new sword over the souls of men that the Bishop in the Joan of Arc mini-series is properly said to have 'wielded a sharper sword over the souls of men' by the Dauphin.

Note Pelagius and Augustine had the same debates about Free Will and Destiny or Determinism (by the elite). But it really doesn't need to be argued much today - because man has given in to the Hobessian Neo Platonic or Machiavellian control of their soul.

And though Machiavelli was a far better scholar than a mere cursory appraisal of his bought-off treatise directed by the De Medicis; we can say Hobbes was made just as useful to his Lockean Physiocratic Merovingian brothers like Pierre Dupont de Nemours.

Robert, your comments remind me of the rider who, "jumped on his horse and rode, madly off, in all directions." Just JoeKing--the name of my oldest brother Joe (born in 1906).

Where do I stand in the debate between those who favour free will versus determinism?

I am in the exttreme middle, and in danger of being run over by both sides.

Dear Lindsay

All of my comments are targeted to the actual fact of the Free Will issue and those who 'play both ends against the middle' so I do not get your reference to the rider or Joe King.

You admit you are that rider when you say you are squarely in the middle and pressured by both sides.


Of course I can say that in itself proves my point. They seek to create just that in their 'play both ends against the middle' or Hegelian Dialectic.

If you - a well-educated theologian in the field quite connected to the issue of Free Will (per Augustine etc) have this difficulty you can easily see why others with less time and effort spent to openly consider such things are even more malleable to their purposes.

This is why Discourse Analysis or Covey's Seven Steps on empathic listening beyond active listening is so important. This is why the head of The Club of ROme says there is no terminology for discourse or Principles. This is why the world is in the hands of those who negate human potential at every turn in order to keep control.

There is no problem with free will. Anyone who advocates determinism merely needs to prove it.

We are free, but to prove the opposite, one must simply demonstrate the chains that bind us. I don't think that can be done because there are no chains.

Those who prove deterministic controls exist are well aware of those controls which they are part and parcel of.

Those who show that Good Acts are what we must achieve to enhance the potential of God or any higher moral energy are on the side of the soul.

I use the name 'Joeking' to mean that I am joking. It is a kind of tribute to my oldest brother who died in 1925. He was going on 26. I was 2, but I remember him. Sorry if I misled you. This is the problem posed by writing. It is not easy writing exactly what one means.


Oct 21 2004, 06:50 PM

Warren Farr comments on the following I wrote. Now not only is there Pascal's Wager, there's King's Wager. Not bad!:

Dear Lindsay

Actually I did get the Joe King being a joke and what I meant was - what is there to joke about in your comment that projects upon me that which you later admit to suffering in relation to your own position on Free Will.

Did you note the Heidegger piece I brought up for you?

Here, below, are some very interesting pages about the "negative-theology" of Heidegger, who said--and I think he was wrong--that he was not writing "theology". Of course he wrote theology, but of the unitheist kind.

http://www.southcom.com.au/~gjd/heidegger.html

IMHO--an acronym I love to use meaning, in my himble opinion--IMHO, I think that when Heid... eschewed theology, he was eschewing the theology of the theists.

Garry Deverell July 2001 writes:

Rick, is what you say a statement of faith? If it is a fact, how would you go about proving what you say?

What about people who say at 74 (my age): If I knew then--when I went off to university at 17--what I know now, I would have done some things differently. Was I as free at 17, as I feel that I am now?

BTW, I find the following facinating. It is from http://www.webcom.com/paf/hlinks/btlinks.html

It is said that MH was the father of modern existentialism. So what does this mean?

It's not a statement of faith, but can be proven several ways, some of which I have already described at this site: arguments from chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and the theory of computation. It is a statement of fact, and the task of argument falls upon the one who would state that we are not free. Hence, my statement above: if someone says there are chains, let him show them to me.

Our reasoning minds make us free. We are not merely a set of automatic responses, but we can evaluate alternatives in the light of our own personal interests.

Faith is actually one of the things we must overcome to be completely free. That we can overcome things like faith, tradition, and beliefs from childhood is why we are free.

I don't think the question of free-will is rationally answered by the 'burden of proof' argument. While it is clear that I can feel free, I also observe that my mind is a function of apparently causal physical structures and constraints. In light of this apparent paradox, the question to me becomes, "what is it to be free?"

Dan, IMHO, the only truly free people--and there were and are others- are those who, like Jesus, were and are willing, to die, physically and mentally. [More to come on this].

Rick

lgking, using my friend's 'puter.

Rick, you wrote: