Assimilating Ideas

Towards the end of class we mentioned assimilation. I have always found this concept to be vital in how people think and operate. Assimilation starts at birth. The relationships formed within early childhood development will have lasting influences over a person's life, although assimilation could occur at later ages, but often many of the ideas within one's psyche will root within their childhood. For instance, a person would not be a Catholic unless they grew up in a Catholic household or a society permitting the practice of such a religion. In general, this just makes me think it is horribly indecent to hold higher a particular belief over another. That is because no matter what someone's perspective is their actions or thoughts are responsible from the relationships around them.

Peerenboom writes about harmony of the state within the ideas of Confucianism. This places emphasis on the relationships of individuals apposed to individuals themselves. As the social order of Chinese ideology requires interconnection, assimilation is then merely the union of various influences that constitute itself. Assimilation is then a dynamic systems of relationships that seem to resonate the Buddhist idea of interdependency.

I don't know where I'm going with this . .  but maybe it can spark an idea or a thought.

Naturalism to the Extreme

Reading about show trials made me think about performance in general. The major purpose for these trials is to ultimately give a recount of the truth. This is very reminiscent of theatre, which according to Aristotle, tries to perform universals [within the action] which will then show the truth. These mass trials are in effect trying to present something to the audience, which they will hope, will create a form of impact of the audience of those involved. In this way, besides the outcome of the victim if charges are placed against them, show trials are merely a form of propaganda. This doesn't mean show trials are necessarily bad, they could be, but if done correctly and justly then it is propaganda for the good of humanity. This is the same dilemma theatre faces; if you are not philosophizing about the ultimate goal of the production itself then it could lead audiences astray, which is what most media today does anyway, but if it confronts and grips it audiences, challenges them, gives them a sense of novelty through a powerful experience, it can then lead to rationalizing actions in the future, which will lead to the well being of society and men. In a way the, these show trials are a form of performance which takes naturalism to a new level (naturalism being different than realism).

Enforcing Morals

Devlin seems to associate the collective conscious of a society on placing the morals of a country. Morality is then enforced through the laws that revolve around it. This is to say if society disagrees with something that it has the right to be 'eradicated.' Devlin quickly demonstrates that this is a rather extreme measure, but at the same time, he still gives eradication a sense of validity. This seems to be dangerous. As much as I'd like for people who I consider immoral to go away, if one is to reject them altogether it doesn't seem to fix anything. Instead it could create backlash. This is comparable to the United States using drones to quickly eliminate terrorist threats. An unknown danger is created through a new generation that fears and hates America even more. If someone's father was killed, as a suspected terrorist, the morally just thing to do in the eyes of their children would be to eliminate the evil within the world, a.k.a America. The 'good guy and bad guy' 'ideology, which also runs rampant through American society, is a very dangerous notion and also is associated to some degree with morals. Nations like Iraq or Afghanistan are then only being reinforced with diverse cultural views and the potential demise of anyone you know and love by the dystopian-like reality that drones create. Just because we think something should be eradicated or removed does not justify the act. Even if all Americans believed the Middle-East should be bombed because it is an 'active threat' does not create the incentive or rationality to do that act. Or if the act of trying to eradicate a potential threat was completely legal, it still would not justify such actions.