The PROBLEM of EVIL

Ways we Talk series (cont)

Dear Dialogue & Dialecticians and
Colleagues Across the Curriculum,

What follows is a loose attempt to suggest an idea
(organization) that is at the heart of Gregory Bateson's
thinking-across (dia) the curriculum of mental process.

Maybe you can turn it up, put it in play, make it your own.


The idea of a hierarchy of logical typing





etc.

as characterizing mental process (organization)
and its “levels” is central to Bateson’s thinking
about “mind and nature” and the relationship,
and the “pattern that connects” and the generation
of paradox and contradictionthat necessarily
develops as we talk across (dia-lectic) all these
logical “levels.”

He got this from Russell and Whitehead—two
mathematician philosophers of the early 20^th c.
(Google-worthy: them and this concept).

Consider this mundane & trivial, non-profound
illustration:

Interstate Nafta-like Trade & Exchange
Happy Valley Community Development
Farmer Brown & Wife
Goose & Gander

Levels of “ecologic”—on all 4 “levels,” say, a
conversation on “What’s Good, damnit!” going on.
These represent (stand-for) 4 radically incommensurate
“levels” of logical typing (call them contexts, if that’s
more comfortable).

And words like GOOD and all contextual “values” wil
flip-flop in “value-sign” (+/-) as they moves across (dia)
levels of the logic (organization: organnon, orgi)--so that
what's "good" for goose and gander isn't even close to
what's "good" for interstate trade & exchange (industrial
good) let alone Happy Valley and Farmer Brown, yes?
So GOOD is a weasel word.

Consider:
our CLASS itself: an entity on another “level”
me: ex-officio co-orinator/arbitrater/moderator
you guys: members of this class

(3 level, mini-hierarchy)

What’s “GOOD” below isn’t the same “good” for
above— not to mention the in-betweener-weiner
in the middle. Say you organized and decided to
foist your "member" values up the hierarchy onto
the Class as a Whole (I’m mixing metaphors here:
mental process and political—don’t be confused) .

Well, that would descriptively constitute an
UP-FROM-BELOW movement (I.E. upos) also
known as EVIL. Descriptively speaking of course,
if one is in Jane Goodall mode and not too attached
to any of those "levels.".

And so: right there—“the problem of evil” in a nutshell:
when the parts “take over” the WHOLE (or think they
have: it’s an impossibility, true? Evil is not possible except
in the human “world” of values, true? Need we argue? )

As some of you know from Tony or Mark: A CLASS is NOT
a member of itself. (In fact: it’s a “whole” which is MORE
than the sum-of-its-parts— and to consider it (projecting)
in the terms and terminologies of it’s parts is typical but
still AN ERROR OF LOGICAL TYPING--like a mixed
metaphor, which Engteachers abhor, but we use/abuse it
all the time--how could we NOT? .

(You can have a lot of fun and create considerable
consternation playing-out this logical-levels notion
on folks who are innocent and just go ahead using
words-across-the-universe-of-converse-action
without a sense of this mental structuring. Got to
be patronizing though ("noblesse oblige:) for they
know-not-what-they-do and will likely get pissed
at you if you point it out ungraciously.

(Note: this is mental hierarchy being described here:
do not conflate, and collapse and confuse it to the idea
of political hierarchy. That would be an error of logical
typing right there.)

ENRON is immoral!
Big Business is Greedy!
Warren Wilson is Striving to be Sustainable!
THEY ought…..

All perfectly conventionally structured sense-sounding
statements (unlike this statement is false) that won’t
offend the common-sense use/abuser (maybe the content
—but that’s not what’s important here), and all of them
beautiful examples of Errors in Logical Typing: confusing
something like CLASS (Category, Name) with its members
(parts, thing named).

They are all ok as “manners of speaking”
but they conceal a part-to-whole type confusion
that is at the heart of our epistemologyand languaging.

I presume it's BETTER to know about this, than NOT
(like it's better to know my biases/beliefs, prejudices/
convictions and how they twist experience and
expression--than NOT) True?

But we could argue. . We can play with this a lot more,
if you’re interested. Do sticks and stones break your
bones? Of course they do.But words will never harm
you—true? Except in manners of speaking? Or even
more interesting than that?

Words Words Words!
Can't live withem can't live withoutem
Got to Lovem or I'm screwed.

xxxooo, Sam