We are all masters of logic. When we think of logic, it’s helpful to think of “the logic of,” because all of us are good at the logic of certain things. Some things are obvious and prosaic: the logic of how to cook an omelet, the logic of how a car works, the logic of how computers run, the logic of how the body works, and even the logic of the arts, which are a unique category in that one first has to understand the rules— the logic of— in order to break through and create a new logic that might follow an emotional insight. The logic of the arts is fluid and based on intuitive understanding, so that form follows intuition and the “logic of” might only be grasped after insight is gained.
It’s my contention that virtually all human beings are reasonable creatures able to understand the essence of logic, which are the ideas of “identity” and “contradiction.” To understand the identity of an omelet is easy, and to understand cooking so bad that it’s not even an omelet (“does not identify”) is easy, too. One also doesn’t use a hammer to change a light bulb: “obviously.” That’s basic logic.
What about the logic of living in civil society? Is civics taught these days? Children are taught to respect and be polite to others— good so far as that goes— but are they taught the logic of civil discourse as a collective engagement aimed towards understanding our world, the problems we face globally, and potential solutions?
The logic of civil debate is that individual perceptions and judgments are required and necessary, as we all have unique education and experiences and outlook: no two of us is the same and no two of us will agree on everything. We debate among ourselves and in so doing gain new insights and perspectives on what others think, even if we still disagree on certain points. This understanding fosters an attitude of “live and let live”: tolerance for others and their views.
This perception and intelligence are now under attack as monolithic institutions presume to stand as authorities over us all: this is what the WHO, for example, or the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) pretend to be. These institution have been roundly criticized and should frankly be dismantled yet for many governments they serve as a supposed shining beacon of truth. But the assertions of institutions such as these have many times contradicted actual facts, and have already been exposed.
We’re marching into a world of intolerance exemplified by the rabid adherence of some to the completely false theory of CO2 catastrophe and statements such as Arnold’s Schwarzenegger’s, “screw your freedom” in relation to Covid restrictions, implying that obedience to monolithic medical authorities is the highest duty we owe to each other. Perhaps Arnold forgot that these medical authorities became monolithic because they actively censored professionals who opposed their views? That they created medical police states to ensure that citizens obeyed myopic authorities?
The logic of freedom is that we are all individuals, we’re all intelligent, we all understand logic even though we might think we don’t, and we’re all perfectly capable of assessing situations and questioning situations through a thought process that might end up with a simple, “that don’t make no sense at all!” A valid observation. We know when things contradict human decency and goodwill, or when someone is trying to feed us BS, except when we choose not to know by turning off our brains and blindly following authority. But this turning off is what they— the people who want to destroy a free and open society— want. They want us to hate anyone who doesn’t agree with the annointed “experts” and to become intolerant toward independent thinkers and those who defend freedom— “screw your freedom” might even be their motto. They want a collectivist hell wherein the people they agree with are in charge and dictate to the rest of us. Instead of allowing each to follow their own greatest good, by their own lights, within the broad constraints of the law (no violence toward or theft from others, etc.,) these people want to decide for us what our greatest good is, and demand that we follow it.
The logic of freedom tells us— if we’ve advanced far enough away from the monolithic pronouncements of “the news” and the reality that seems increasingly off-kilter— that we do indeed live within a type of Truman Show wherein those who would impose a collectivist, militaristic, police-state reality on the rest of us have decided that the best way to do that is to simply to create realities for us that will herd (“nudge”) us in the desired direction. Not the world that we know is true, wherein most people are people of goodwill (even if sometimes this has to be coaxed from them) but a world of strife and hate and bombings and drugs gangs and shootings and war … perhaps this is all scripted? A Great Narrative, as our friend Klaus Schwab has said, although the real, insidious, narrative is cloaked by cloying platitudes? A manufactured reality to replace the one we knew of as people of goodwill? A seeming progression toward a one-world, totalitarian government because this is “necessary” to save the world? Is the “necessity” merely a script, part of the Truman Show? Is so much that we see merely staged, enabled by the power of technology and corporate coordination directed behind the scene, Wizard-of-Oz-like, to make us believe in this creation, that it’s really real?
I think, yes. We need to reclaim our own logic of freedom. We’re individuals who perceive, think, experience, and have unique outlooks on life, and for the sake of humanity this is not to be crushed and distorted by the dark logic of a Truman Show directed by those who wish to determine the logic of our lives for us.
The solution? Essentially it means dismantling top-down authoritarianism and top-down governance of individuals.
On cue, the authorities conjure up a Disinformation Governance Board in order to direct the show and ensure that everyone has right-think. Their goal is to convince us that we have no ability to reason and thus need government authority to protect us and save democracy, when democracy is all about free individuals speaking freely, and able to criticize their government without penalty or censorship.
You ask "is civics taught these days?" It is not, and by design of course. Seven decades behind me, I'm just learning it for myself! But I must disagree with your statement that "children are taught to respect and be polite to others." Many are, but at least just as many are not, in the current social climate. Anyway, great article.
I immensely enjoyed the last paragraph. As always, THANK YOU for sharing your thoughts Jim.