Francis Schaeffer’s “line of despair” model of our civilisation’s intellectual history:

F/N: notice, the concerns in the OP have been confirmed, the leading Russian General had a basis for his concerns and characterisation of colour revolutions as subject to or actually manifesting tainting. This points to 4th gen war in the shadows leading to subjugation and to our need to find fresh means of protecting lawful governance from such subversion. Yes, that means we are far beyond mere faculty debates in seminar rooms. This is a difficult challenge and points to the need to go back to sources and roots, to found frames of thought known to be sound. So, Schaeffer's analysis as extended is relevant. So is understanding that we have a built in framework of core law, the first duties and principles of reason. Much will have to be done if we are to defend our civilisation from a patently ruinous trend; one that already exhibits demographic collapse. KF kairosfocus

SA, yes. The Greeks saw much, and for all his sins Alexander set up a common, Hellenistic space enriched by that insight. That seems to be part of the fulness of time. Ac 17 then marks the breakthrough moment, though Paul was in the main literally laughed out of court. But some few saw the point. Today, the street map shows the road by Mars Hill having the name change from Holy Apostle to Dionysius the Areopagite just there, symbolic. And of course this is the speech inscribed on the Bronze plaque attached to the outcrop, not an excerpt from Socrates' argument. That in itself speaks. KF kairosfocus

That was a critical moment when the excellence of Greek philosophy was transformed by the new dispensation. St. John said the same: In the beginning was the Logos. Silver Asiatic

SA, we are at kairos and many don't realise it. About, as it was c AD 50 in Athens when a stranger came to town seemingly talking about strange gods. And, seven years later on a ship at Fair Havens, Crete. KF kairosfocus

It takes the same intellectual side as Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s great opponent in the debates of 1858, who believed that Congress and the states decided whether blacks had rights, not God or our status as equal human beings. It follows the same logic as Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision, who believed that blacks had no rights because the Constitution forbade it . . .

Well done, by Newsweek of all places. But there was a time when the moderate left talked about "human rights" as if they were objective ideas and not just what a government decreed as permitted or forbidden. The hard-left has been willing to abolish human rights in the name of progress and conformity. As stated, that aligns with the pro-slavery side. Silver Asiatic

KF

That human beings, just by being human, hold fundamental rights and therefore have mutual duties to uphold one another in regards to life, liberty, honestly acquired property, innocent reputation etc, is what allows us to address the lawless oligarchy of the powerful.

Exactly. Because if the judge disagrees that humans have natural rights, then the government can create or abolish rights at will. Because then the government will be the highest authority - there will be no higher authority that one can appeal to. Natural rights are inviolate and even judges like her are subject to them and are required to uphold and defend them. Failing that, any government can act like the CCP does - spying on citizens, jailing and enslaving dissidents, and killing prisoners to extract human body parts for sale on the international market. Of course it can get worse than that, and it's entirely "morally justified" under the idea that the state creates the moral law and there are no natural human rights. Silver Asiatic

F/N: John Yu, , Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley On 4/7/22 at 10:52 AM EDT writes in Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/should-supreme-court-justices-believe-natural-rights-opinion-1695961

[ . . . ] Republican senators may vote against Judge Jackson because she consistently sentenced child pornography offenders to shorter prison times than normal. Other senators might find her refusal to define "woman" as a sign that has no common-sense principles based in reality. Still others may doubt her claim that she has no thoughts about critical race theory—which continues its pernicious effects in schools—or may not take seriously her stated allegiance to originalism as an interpretive methodology. But these reasons turn on the merits of Judge Jackson's decisions and policy positions, and do not involve her personal background, religion or family life. On this score, Republicans would do well to focus less on Jackson's sentencing decisions and more on her eyebrow-raising thoughts about the Declaration of Independence and natural rights. Her most remarkable response came not during the hearings themselves, but in the questions for the record after the hearing. In written questions, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) asked Judge Jackson: "Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?" She responded: "I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights." Judge Jackson's response should give senators pause, because if the judge does not believe that our rights as Americans are "natural," originating from our equal status as human beings, from where does she think our rights come? Perhaps Judge Jackson believes that our individual rights depend solely on the positive law—in other words, the rules enacted by the people and their representatives, such as the Constitution's Bill of Rights, its Reconstruction Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. She does not appear to believe that our rights pre-exist the Constitution or other positive laws. This would be an incredible view for a would-be Supreme Court Justice to hold, though one in keeping with the way law is taught in our colleges and universities today. It stands opposite the views of Abraham Lincoln [--> a highly successful practising lawyer, BTW, before he rose to the presidency], who deplored slavery even in the face of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court decision upholding it. Lincoln insisted that "if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." It takes the same intellectual side as Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's great opponent in the debates of 1858, who believed that Congress and the states decided whether blacks had rights, not God or our status as equal human beings. It follows the same logic as Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision, who believed that blacks had no rights because the Constitution forbade it . . .

Food for thought. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Something I shared earlier today with members of my region's legal fraternity and other stakeholders: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/05/jackson-natural-rights-questions/

The latest issue Republicans are raising: In questions for the record released after her confirmation hearings, Jackson declined to take a position on whether people have so-called “natural rights.” Here’s the Q&A with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.):

Q: Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no? JACKSON: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.

See how Wa Po tries to spin it, not least "The reality, though, isn’t quite so simple — nor is this such an easy call for a judge, as history shows" -- yes, to THEIR shame, too -- but the reality is, our civilisation now pivots on the answer to this, as justice is due balance of rights, duties and freedoms, reflecting our creation as morally governed, rational, responsible, significantly free conscience guided creatures.

That human beings, just by being human, hold fundamental rights and therefore have mutual duties to uphold one another in regards to life, liberty, honestly acquired property, innocent reputation etc, is what allows us to address the lawless oligarchy of the powerful. With reference to the OP, this may well mark the point where the BATNA of lawfulness was definitively breached by the government of the USA. I contrast, the US DoI, 1776, as precisely a key state document that is a successful piece of natural law reasoning -- thus of universal, yes, universal -- jurisdiction, the very charter of modern constitutional democracy (and more broadly, an affirmation of lawful government even before a body politic is ready for constitutional democracy):

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind [--> they were consciously universal in their appeal] requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This is what is now being openly undermined and our civilisation is therefore at kairos. We are weighed and found wanting, can we summon the resources to make up the gap, before it is too late? KF kairosfocus

Sure looks like it. kairosfocus

KF

ponder carefully the question as to whether bad habits of US power brokers overseas have come home to roost

Yes, that's what has happened. Silver Asiatic

F/N: Colour revolution points to the related use of political colours:

Political colours are colours used to represent a political ideology, movement or party, either officially or unofficially.[1] It is the intersection of colour symbolism and political symbolism. Parties in different countries with similar ideologies sometimes use similar colours. As an example the colour red symbolises left-wing ideologies in many countries (leading to such terms as "Red Army" and "Red Scare"), while the colour blue often used for conservatism, the colour yellow is most commonly associated with liberalism and right-libertarianism, and Green politics is named after the ideology's political colour.[2][3] The political associations of a given colour vary from country to country, and there are exceptions to the general trends.[2][3] For example, red has historically been associated with monarchy or the Church, but over time gained association with leftist politics, while the United States differs from other countries in that conservativism is associated with red and liberalism with blue.[2][3] [--> there is evidence of deliberate media reversal of the usual colour assignments] Politicians making public appearances will often identify themselves by wearing rosettes, flowers or ties in the colour of their political party.

Food for thought, and see PS. KF PS, Wiki on black or black and red:

Black is primarily associated with anarchism[4] (see anarchist symbolism). Black can be seen as a lack of colour, anarchism as a lack of a state. It is used in contrast of national flags, to instead represent universal anarchism.[5] Black is used to a lesser extent to represent fascism (see blackshirts and Schutzstaffel) and jihadism (see Black Standard).[2] Anarchists in Germany in black bloc The colours black and red have been used by anarchists since at least the late 1800s when they were used on cockades by Italian anarchists in the 1874 Bologna insurrection, and in 1877 when anarchists entered the Italian town Letino carrying red and black flags to promote the First International.[6] During the Spanish civil war the CNT used a diagonally half strip of black and red, with black representing anarchism and red representing the labour movement and the worker movement. The flag was quickly adopted by other anarchists, with the second colour used to distinguish specific anarchist philosophies: anarcho pacifism with white, green anarchism with green, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism with red, mutualism with orange, and anarcho-capitalism with yellow, while black alone typically represents Anarchism without adjectives. During the golden age of piracy, the black flags of pirates such as Blackbeard and Calico Jack became popular symbols of piracy. The flags representing death and no quarter to those who did not surrender. The black flag of the jolly roger, used by Calico Jack turned into a popular and recognizable symbol of pirates, particularly of pirates of the Americas.[7][8] The skull and bones also became a hazardous symbol to display poisons such as cyanide, Zyklon B and other toxic substances. The black flag of piracy would later influence the symbols of anarchism, such as the symbols of the Free territory and Kronstadt rebellion. The rise of internet piracy led to the symbols of the golden age of piracy becoming widely adopted, becoming the symbols of pirate sites such as the Pirate bay. Black becoming a colour to represent pirate parties. Anti-clerical parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries sometimes used the colour black in reference to the officials of the Roman Catholic Church because the cassock is usually black.[9] In Germany and Austria, black is the colour historically associated with Christian democratic parties, such as the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP); however, this is only customary, as the official colours of CDU is orange while the official colour of the ÖVP is turquoise. In Italy, black is the colour of fascism because it was the official colour of the National Fascist Party. As a result, modern Italian parties would not use black as their political colour; however, it has been customary to use black to identify the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement.[10] In the Islamic world, black flags (often with a white shahadah) are sometimes used by jihadist groups. Black was the colour of the Abbasid caliphate. It is also commonly used by Shia Muslims, as it is also associated with mourning the death of Hussein ibn Ali.[11] It is now known as the flag colour of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In Russia, black was used for monarchism and nationalist movements, such as the Black Hundreds before their defeat.[12] In India, black represents protest. In Tamil Nadu (a state in India), black represents atheistic human rights rebels who follow Periyar E. V. Ramasamy.[13] In Brazil, the right-wing populist and formerly social democratic Brazilian Labour Party uses black. Black is also the colour of the far-left Popular Unity [--> right vs left is archaic and is best avoided or at least one should insist ob clarifying and providing substantial evidence for claims]

Of course, in the US, black is also tied to racism and political activism of afro-americans, which is usually but not solely radical-progressivist or even socialist-marxist. Where the prominent form of marxism today is cultural and critical race theory, project 1619 etc are all cultural marxist. kairosfocus

SA, they just realised new atheism was too shrill and in key parts embarrassingly philosophically illiterate. That universe from nothing something clip with Dawkins is still around. KF kairosfocus

BTW, looks like the Ukraine has pushed back the thrusts that took Kiev under partial siege. KF kairosfocus

VL, I think you are aptly illustrating the marginalisation aspect of the Overton Window. Once a coalition gains power not only can it widen the window by pulling the BATNA on their side closer to their more radical views, but through domination they can narrow it by similarly pulling the other BATNA so what they had to formerly compromise about they now freely stigmatise and may even freely slander. Such follytricks too often has little to do with truth. There is a relevant, sobering, definition of lying: speaking with disregard to truth in hope of profiting from what is said or suggested being taken as truth. Duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence don't vanish because some shout them down or marginalise them, and it remains so that power backed untruth is a gateway to injustice. KF kairosfocus

SA, I looked up, saw at Wiki:

Victoria Jane Nuland (born July 1, 1961) is an American diplomat currently serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Nuland, a former member of the foreign service, served as the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State from 2013 to 2017 and US Permanent Representative to NATO from 2005 to 2008.[2][3] She held the rank of Career Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service.[4] She is the former CEO of the Center for a New American Security, (CNAS), serving from January 2018 until early 2019, and is also the Brady-Johnson Distinguished Practitioner in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. She served as a nonresident fellow in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution[5] and senior counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group.

Wired in for sure and then things get interesting, yes, here's Wiki admitting again:

Ukraine Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for the Revolution of Dignity, establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of non-lethal assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.[17][18] [--> is that the $ billion loan threatened by then US VP Biden?] Along with Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, she is seen as a leading supporter of defensive weapons delivery to Ukraine. In 2016, Nuland urged Ukraine to start prosecuting corrupt officials: "It's time to start locking up people who have ripped off the Ukrainian population for too long and it is time to eradicate the cancer of corruption".[19] While serving as the Department of State's lead diplomat on the Ukraine crisis, Nuland pushed European allies to take a harder line on Russian expansionism.[20] During a June 7, 2016, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing titled "Russian Violations of Borders, Treaties, and Human Rights", Nuland described U.S. diplomatic outreach to the former Soviet Union and efforts to build a constructive relationship with Russia. During her testimony, Nuland noted Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine which she said, "shattered any remaining illusions about this Kremlin's willingness to abide by international law or live by the rules of the institutions that Russia joined at the end of the Cold War."[21] Leaked private phone conversation On February 4, 2014, a recording of a phone call between Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, on January 28, 2014, was published on YouTube.[22] [23][24][25][26][27] In their phone conversation, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should join a unity government that they had agreed to with the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Nuland notified Pyatt Arseniy Yatsenyuk should become the next Prime Minister of Ukraine, while Vitali Klitschko and Oleh Tyahnybok should remain out of the government, the former because of his lack of political experience and the latter because of its radical political ideology. Nuland told Pyatt that the next step should be to set up a telephone conversation between her and the three Ukrainian candidates. Pyatt agreed: "I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it".[23][24]

Looks like Russian General Valery Gerasimov, who in 2014 was Army General, Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation – First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation had a serious point about dirty, McFaul Colour revolutions. I would look very carefully at the rash of such and then ponder carefully the question as to whether bad habits of US power brokers overseas have come home to roost, theme colour, black . . . just check Antifa etc for reference. Where, recall,

* media manipulation, * street theatre agit prop [rent a riot/protest or set up patsies by agent provocateur or play Reichstag fire games etc], * lawfare [including show trials/tribunals], and * dirty elections * etc

. . . are all in the toolkit for subversion, shadow war and subjugation. KF kairosfocus

Jerry, oh well, I was just saying we have to keep it in mind. On this, I'll wait for wider confirmatory results before definitively making such a conclusion. Odd that it came up at a point the 5th force idea came up here. KF kairosfocus

A fifth force of physics?

Shock result in particle experiment could spark physics revolution The result, published in the journal Science, could be related to hints from other experiments at Fermilab and the Large Hadron Collider at the Swiss-French border. These, as yet unconfirmed results, also suggest deviations from the Standard Model, possibly as a result of an as yet undiscovered fifth force of nature at play

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60993523 jerry

I found this part at the end most interesting:

I don't disagree with nearly all that was said. To me personally, ID is about truth. And have pointed out in the past that if ID wins the fight for truth, the real food fight will then begin. jerry

Singham

ID seems to have disappeared from view. One no longer hears from its most prominent advocates.

I think it's more correct to say that atheism has disappeared from view. Who are the celebrities to take over from Dennett, Dawkins and Harris? It's just some little guys with blogs and with obscure youtube pages. And has Mr. Singham heard of Stephen Meyer's recent book which was an Amazon best seller for a while? Let's put it this way, I think a lot more people are a lot more interested in Stephen Meyer than have even heard of Mario Singham. I had never heard of him until today and I read a fair amount from anti-ID atheists. Silver Asiatic

Not on the current topic, but I'll put this here anyway: Mano Singham on the state of the ID Movement I found this part at the end most interesting:

During the period when I was engaged with ID, I was invited by them to many debates and panel discussions so I met many of the key players (Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, J. P Moreland) and we had friendly exchanges. I never encountered William Dembski or David Klinghoffer though. After the Dover trial, Dembski washed his hands of the whole ID movement, especially expressing bitterness towards two religious groups whom he accused of undermining ID. One was the ‘theistic evolutionists’ (people who believe that evolution and belief in a god can be reconciled) who he said attacked ID because they felt that it was bad science and bad religion. The other was Young-Earth Creationists whom he accused of turning against ID when they realized that ID was not going to serve as a stalking horse for their literal interpretation of the biblical Genesis story of creation. The tension between the intellectual approach taken by the ID movement and the YEC group was always apparent to those following the issue. When I spoke at ID-sponsored debates, it was quite something to see the people on the panel talk in sophisticated terms about science and religion and then later mingle with the audience and discover that they were biblical literalists to the core, right down to Adam and Eve, the serpent, heaven and hell. With one or two exceptions, they were nice to me even though they knew that I was not at all sympathetic to their ideas. They seemed to feel sorry for me that I would eventually be stewing in hell. It was clear that the relatively small number of ID intellectuals needed the large numbers of YEC evangelicals to serve as their foot soldiers, while the YEC people saw the ID movement as serving to establish a beachhead against evolution. This uneasy coalition was maintained as long as it looked like ID might succeed in its goal of getting god back into the science curriculum. When the Dover trial wrecked the ID movement’s strategy, the YEC people turned against their failed leaders.

Viola Lee

Ben Shapiro mentioned the Overton Window in his book "The Authoritarian Moment". The ruling elite only keeps open a narrow window of ideas acceptable to them. This channels the focus and prevents opposition. That's what Vanguard and Blackrock do for the US media. In an example recently, I searched for information on this topic:

In 2014, Victoria Nuland supported and even encouraged the 2014 coup of the legitimately elected president of Ukraine, 9 months before the end of his term. Obama immediately legitimized the unelected coup leaders as the legitimate government of Ukraine. First order of business was to cancel the right of eastern/southern Ukrainians to speak Russian. Many Russian speakers in gov, schools, institutions, police were fired and replaced by Ukrainian speakers from West Ukraine.

Searching Victoria Nuland 2014 coup (I don't use google) showed 90% of the entries were from small, alternative media blogs and mini-news sites. I don't recall one corporate media site mentioning this important story. Certainly, none were going to call it a coup anyway. That's the Overton Window in action. There are hundreds of other examples - Covid alone provided very many on alternative treatments or preventative measures. Silver Asiatic

Kf pushes on. It cannot hurt to learn. I admit that I never heard the term “Overton Window” till it became part of one of Kf’s extremely dense OP’s. Only recently I started to read about it. Essentially it’s the slippery slope approach to reach your objective. Propose something a little out of the mainstream and if enough people repeat it, the idea seems possible and even desirable. Especially if they represent elite organizations. This approach is old but became obvious after “Occupy Wall Street” failed. All of sudden, cries of racism and white supremacy appeared everywhere. Then climate catastrophe control was accelerated as absolutely necessary. Now it is gender or sexual identity. Obviously the controls for C19 became a very useful tool. So what are the unthinkable goals and who is controlling the flow of these ideas. A lot of people are pointing to Marxists and academics as the culprits. But are they? If one follows the money, it is not academia who is in control. I would look to those pushing for world government by the elites. That is the WEF and it’s advocates. Two organizations that are intertwined control 18 trillion dollars and essentially own every corporation or news organization in the world. These are Vanguard and BlackRock. Where did the money come from? Pension funds mainly. Extreme irony: the doubling of the stock market under Donald Trump’s policies provided their wealth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window Aside: are the academics who receive so much press as the perpetrators of our downfall just the useful idiots of the elites who are the actual ones with the money and pulling the strings. jerry

PS: Mutinous Ships of State and voyages of ruinous folly:

It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:

>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ --> here we see Plato's philosopher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [--> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>

(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)

kairosfocus

U/D2, a F/N, how to destroy liberty using Overton Window analysis and colour revolution, 4g war operations, of course cultural marxism is a key factor now too in the black theme colour push in the USA. And yes, it is way beyond faculty debates in Uni Seminar Rooms now. The relevant issue is Plato's Ship of State. kairosfocus

F/N: Earlier, I noted, it is time to connect the line of despair model to how the line stair-steps across a community, then at length a civilisation, as the seven mountains of influence model frames. A chain of expressions will help:

WORLDVIEW + POLICY/CULTURAL AGENDA = IDEOLOGY IDEOLOGY + POWER/STRONG INFLUENCE = REGIME REGIME (AKA, BALANCE OF POWER-FACTIONS) + DECISION-MAKING INFLUENCES = BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) BAU + INSISTENT VOYAGE OF SINFUL FOLLY = SHIPWRECK

In short, once a dominant but ill founded worldview is entrenched, a ratchet is engaged that leads through culture and policy agenda onward to a voyage of folly and shipwreck. So, we need to first recognise that the framework of the current dominant evolutionary materialistic scientism is fatally cracked, if we are to build a critical mass that can turn back before it is too late. I am not sure it isn't already desperately late, but we must try. Where, that was Lewontin's inadvertent point and it was what Haldane warned us about. KF kairosfocus

I think we should all say that Christianity is 100% compatible with ID

I have never indicated or suggested it wasn't. I have been commenting here since 2006 and never came close to suggesting it wasn't. I am not here to defend or promote Christianity but to promote ID and learn. I happen to believe promoting Christianity or discussing it too much gets in the way of accepting ID with a lot of people. I emphasize learning because this is a good place to learn about science. It was a great place to learn about the virus and how it could be treated. jerry

The success of the argument, or the quality of the post here should be measured by its effect on the intended audience. If it's for IDists to expand their general knowledge, that's a lot different than writing to try to convince ID opponents. There are also people who know very little about the basics of ID and reasoning. So, you have to give a different approach for them. Silver Asiatic

I am on record as to agreeing with nearly all of your ideas. It is rhetorical style that I disagree with. You are being constantly attacked not because your ideas do not make sense but because they are presented in a way that is hard to understand.

I find KF's posts to be excellent and I enjoy his rhetorical style which, to me, has a literary quality that we don't see very often in science writing. Yes, it takes some effort at times since he embeds complex ideas into a short space (just the opposite of complaints, he actually compresses ideas). To me, it's very worth the time because there's a rich level of detail and a lot of scholarship included. Not everybody has the same taste in writing styles. I've been in corporate-business life for 25 years and business writing to me is shallow and boring. I can't build any kind of meaning out of advertising slogans, except "buy this now because your life is slipping away". Trying to describe, for example, Aquinas' cosmological argument to a newcomer is just going to take more time. Silver Asiatic

BA77

Christianity is, apparently, far more compatible with ID than Jerry tried to imply.

I think we should all say that Christianity is 100% compatible with ID. But the debate would be: Does ID point us directly to the Christian faith? That's where it's more complicated. ID would have to give evidence supporting the teaching on the Blessed Trinity (assuming all Christians accept the Council of Nicea), for example. Even if we said the "personal God of theism" (so maybe Judaism and/or Islam could be included), that's very difficult for ID to show and I don't think ID can do it. We observe "intelligence" and then God is the best candidate. But sorting out Allah from the Jewish ideas from Christian, and even there is a creator God in Hinduism and some Buddists believe that and other non-Christian religions also. Deism believes in a creator of the laws and properties of the universe, so a deist could say everything was front-loaded at the Big Bang and that's good enough for ID. This paragraph by WJM @138 says it very well:

If one means “God” as “the necessarily existent intelligence that designed and implemented the highly fine-tuned, organized, complex, interacting patterns of phenomena found as being what we call the universe, and especially in life,” then yes. It’s a form of forensic and other investigative sciences that can attribute a death to a murderer (or other agent of homicide,) or a fire to an arsonist, or certain objects to a designer, even if those agents cannot be specifically named.

Exactly. We can define God in general terms and then ID shows God as the most likely candidate as the intelligent designer. But ID could support any number of religions. Silver Asiatic

I read the book a few months ago, so I might be forgetting something. I don't remember anything that would indicate a personal God. I think the title goes beyond what ID can support. There certainly could be other things that indicate a personal God, but all ID seems to say is that there was a designer (or designers). I suppose the existence of a conscience could be considered evidence for a designer(s) that want to see certain behavior, but it doesn't mean that there will be any personal interaction with the designed creatures. I thought the book was terrific as far as presenting evidence for design, but the leap to a personal God didn't seem justified. davidl1