From
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatbiography/
My ideas on this subject then lead me to invent a philosophy that I call Integrationism. Integrationism seeks to achieve the best outcomes in dealing with non-valued dualities. I applied this logic to many subjects, including:
Nature and Civilization
Individual and Humanity
Men and Women
Public Sector and Private Sector
Art and Business
Thinking and Feeling
Objective and Subjective Investigation
Analysis and Experience
The Inspired and The Methodical
Philosophy and The Creative Process
and some others.
I stated among other things that the best way to investigate social phenomena is to both observe them and experience them. The first sees the external effects but misses the experience of the participants. The second understands the experience of
participants while failing to see its external effects. When you have both the external perspective and the internal perspective, you understand both; and you have a full picture of the phenomenon.
With thinking and feeling, my recommendation has been to encourage and develop both. Thinking by itself leads to coldness and lack of compassion; feeling by itself leads to mindlessness and self-absorption. I see no reason to see one as better or worse
than the other; both are there either by evolution - in which case they evolved for the benefit of the species - or by divine design - in which case they are there by will of the Creator. And if human nature is fallen, then that would extend to thinking
and feeling equally. In either case both are equal - either in mutual virtue or in mutual sin. So my recommendation is to train people in both. That way the two correct errors in one another and synthesize with one another to achieve wisdom faster and
fuller than either would by itself.
Neither do I see any reason to see business and government as better or worse than the other. Both are there to serve demand - one in the marketplace, the other at the poll booth. Both are capable of doing right, and both are capable of doing wrong. So I
recommend having both a vibrant private sector and a functional government.
Hobbes made a hideous error of thinking that the state, composed of people, would be better than other people. Libertarians make the opposite error: Thinking that the government is the only possible source of severe wrongdoing. Both are completely wrong,
while coming from opposite sides. The state consists of people; so does the rest of the country. I see no reason to see one as being better or worse than the other. I have known people in the Soviet Union who suffered horribly under the government. I
have known people in America who suffered horribly from bad parents, or the mafia, or destructive religous sects. American government is checked, balanced, and subject to accountability. Private family, community, and corporate power is not. This allows
the same to get away with greater abuses than are allowed the government. And while the libertarian spends all his time scrutinizing the government, genuine corruption grows up right under his own nose. The correct solution to this is to see the
potentials for wrongdoing both in the government and in the private entities, and to correct these potentials.
I also advocate having both education and life experience. That would give one a much fuller understanding of life than either would by itself. The merely educated are constantly accused of a lack of common sense, and the merely experiential are
constantly accused of ignorance. Having both would correct both problems.
There is also the methodical approach, used mostly in science and philosophy, and the inspired approach, used mostly in art. The two need to feed into one another. Sometimes inspiration precedes and guides reason, and sometimes the verbalized ideas shape
the inspiration. I advocate being both scientists and poets. That way the two modalities are fully developed and feed into one another to achieve wisdom and understanding fuller than either one by itself.
Then there is the issue of bigotry and artificial blindness. Most social stereotypes have a root in reality. If something exists at a rate greater than chance then there will be a reason for it, though it may not be the reason that you expect. The
correct solution is to find out the real reason. Bigotry and artificial blindness feed into one another. The bigoted person would see a social phenomenon and propose a wrong reason for it. The academic would say that it is a stereotype. The person would
look and say that the phenomenon is in fact real, so he will decide that the academic does not know what he is talking about and then go on with his bigoted explanation. The correct solution is to acknowledge reality of social phenomena and then find
real reasons for them. This will actually defeat bigotry, which artificial blindness completely fails to do. The black people are not at all helped by people claiming that what is happening in their communities is not happening. They are helped by people
finding out real reasons for their situation, and then based on that knowledge coming up with real, informed solutions.
There is also the issue of knowledge and responsibility. Responsibility presupposes knowledge. Without knowledge people do things that they think are responsible but aren't, such as poisoning the oceans and flooding the atmosphere with CO2. Without
responsibility the people who are into knowledge come up with various destructive ideas and behave in a manner that is parasitical or worse. It is vital to have both knowledge and responsibility, resulting in informed and rightful action.
With men and women, I have come to this conclusion. Anything capable of choice can be good or bad. Men are not better than women, and women are not better than men. Among both there is capacity for various kinds of behavior. Both misogyny and misandry
are wrong. And the biggest problem with both is that they take it out on precisely the wrong people. The misandrists take it out on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are the least misogynistic men out there; the misogynists take
it out on women in conservative or Muslim or inner-city communities who for the most part are better than are themselves. This creates a perverse set of incentives within society, in which it pays to be a jerk and does not pay to have good will. The
result is both men and women becoming worse and worse, as the better ones in each gender are being mistreated and the worse ones in each gender rise to leadership. These then lord it over their betters and coerce their betters toward asinine behavior
while claiming, wrongfully, that they speak for 50% of humanity without the 50% of humanity having voted for them to do so.
My solution to this problem is two-pronged. One is conviction, convincing people through both words and example to treat their partners rightfully and produce movies, songs and suchlike that encourage good treatment of one's partner, as opposed to the
nastiness advocated by the likes of Eminem. The other is to invert this process through real-world methods that do not require military action or expenditure of taxpayer money. It is to create a rightful set of incentives within society by encouraging a
large cross-cultural flux for intermarriage. That way men who are willing to be good to women will get together with women who are willing to be good to men; and men who want to beat women and women who want to attack men will have to change their ways.
The result will be better relationships, better men, better women and better world.
With nature and civilization, the solution is to make the most of both worlds and allow them to synthesize. Maximize technological progress while minimizing destruction. Do least harm to nature and restore it wherever possible. At the same time
vigorously pursue scientific and technological progress to make people's lives better while confronting natural threats. And bring more trees and suchlike into centers of human habitation, so that peope will be able to enjoy nature while living in
technological comfort. The result will be people benefiting from both nature and civilization and both worlds being in the best shape that they can be.
I will now float an opinion that I made at the time that does contradict the faith in which I find myself now. There are some people who think that the flesh is evil. There are others who think that spirit is a delusion and that all we are is flesh. I
think that we are beings of both, and I am of the opinion that the two may not necessarily be in irreconcilable conflict with one another. As anyone who has been in love knows, love is a passion of both spirit and flesh; and when it produces children the
result is new life. I want to see a synthetic scenario in which people have both healthy spirit and healthy bodies. And I want to see the two work together to produce such things as poetry and art.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)