Hi All,
Thanks everyone for the commentary. I would weigh in, but I am dealing with an unexpected family situation, thus I might not be replying for 24 hours or so. I do think these exchanges will be valuable in us shaping what this list is about
and the direction of the TOK.
Take care,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Bradley H. Werrell, D.O.
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Regarding politics,
We come to the uncomfortable situation in which we are all living on this planet together as a physical fact and unavoidable association/affiliation, with which we must certainly come to terms with.
This is necessarily coupled to political potentials, which we may arguably dissociate ourselves from.
Using the language of the great Influence Matrix, we are in a situation, say, with Covid 19, in which certain Political Elements are seeking to Dominate the rest of the population with "Scientific Authoritarian" Justifications, expecting popular submission
to such rule.
The purpose of my posting the post which caused me to be named is to show that such justifications are not universally accepted, or acceptable by people who are properly qualified to make such judgements. This is an act of overt independence from that Justification
System being employed by such Political Actors who are seeking to dominate the discussion and to cause everyone else to submit and certainly to maintain their silence if they disagree.
Such restrictions as have been forced upon the (at least) partly willing population has been a matter of forced affiliation based upon political preferences, and is bound to generate anger and perhaps hostility from those who do not accept the justification
employed in the pursuit of such policy, it would seem.
The purpose of my post was to call into question the Authoritarian (Blue Church) Justification system employed by those Political Actors (of the A Game) that are seeking to dominate the population into proper juxtaposition with the (B-Game) expression of scientific
counterpoint brought forth by as counterjustification by those who will not be so dominated.
Thank you for reading this.
Bradley
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
On Saturday, October 10, 2020, 11:14:50 AM MST, Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION:This email originated
from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi All:
Perhaps this might help.
There is a difference, I think, between political
advocacy and a reflective discussion of topics that have political overtones and political implications.
It is sometimes said that the personal is political. This statement is sometimes used, in my view, as a justification to frame issues that are not essentially
political as political or primarily political. The statement is sometimes used to imply that the difficulty or impossibility of separating political content from other forms of content — intellectual, psychological, sociological, linguistic, philosophical,
emotional or what have you.
In my view, there is no issue that is impervious to ethical framing (and thus political framing). However, it is possible to separate the political aspects
of a discussion from non-political aspects. We can separate the structure of an essay from the content of an essay — even though there is no essay in which structure exists independent of content.
And so, I suggest a distinction between advocacy and reflective discussion. This site, I think, should not be devoted to political advocacy. But reflective
discussion about TOK issues with political implications should be acceptable. Reflective discussion about political issues themselves should be permissible, to the extent that they relate to TOK issues (however defined). No doubt, the boundary between the
political and the TOK-ical may be blurry (as all such boundaries are). But that shouldn’t stop us from making the distinctions we need to make.
My Best,
Mike