Farewell letter to John Penley

The critical inquiry into the occupy movement began with the hypothesis that "there is a copy of the problem in the solution."  A copy of the problem was indeed found, and it is the Dialectic. Occupy's John Penley assisted greatly identifying real-world examples of the problem in the highly-paranoid "Hedges faction" of Occupy. 

There should be no doubt that you contributed greatly (in a positive way) to the Dialectic VS Geist discussion (that describes antagonism leading to synthesis as the death of spirit and abstraction).  My inquiry was initated by a post of yours complaining about the dishonesty and divisiveness of the Occupy Wall Street leadership (Occupy is NOT a leaderless group).  This led me to Fithian's leadership training video and an occupier who very clearly linked it to the dialectic process.  With the, well, abstracted knowledge, I have been able to "sniff out" the formation process of Plato's "Republic" simply by a dialecitian's attack of a well-modeled abstraction (usually my own).

Old-school of protesting relies on recruiting numbers of bodies to assault high-powered meetings, such as the DNC, many of them admittedly "loosely wrapped." The problem is that mental deficiencies are at the root of the dialectic; Plato, for one, only believed what he saw in his head; he was disconnected from surrounding reality, opposed abstraction, and thus helped invent synthesis as a substitute for reality.  With the simply abstraction VS antagonism test, a dialectic can be exposed nearly instantly because he or she has no alternate stratagem to accomplish synthesis.  Often the antagonism is veiled, as it was historically during Plato's time, or now as part of experimental (or CBT) psychology.  Nonetheless, we know many of the attributes; we have just had difficulty centralizing (or abstracting) a model so as to exclude the part of protest that negates progress.

In short, I see that a disproportionate number of your "FaceBook friends" are dialectical (though not you, of course) probably because you need bodies for your continued anti-war efforts.  Further, there is a tendency to unfairly smear Obama, when in fact there are many opportunities to point out his weakness in ways that a) give Republicans reason to vote for him (DEA and capital bail-outs) and b) give him a good idea of where we want him to go.

The power of the dialectic for me is that it extends my Empathy Model, my life-work, out of my own mind and into the real world of the unempathic.  The empathy approach is only useful for empathic people, though, as the unempathic can't possibly conceive of what it is as they lack the necessary working neurology.  To them empathy is something to exploit either to get people to feel sorry for them and give them resources, or to leverage as part of a confidence scheme or outright ambush.  But, they definitely know what the dialectic is; that is their common tool, and they can now be addressed about empathy issues in ways that they can comprehend. (Invariably the run away, but watch your back(!), and it may be better to deal with them outright.)

The dialectic discussion gives a central point for an all-encompassing abstraction with which to model politics.  (This, alone, is a good reason for dialecticticians to attack abstraction.)  Dialectics also closely connects to the didactic method, and the two comprise nearly all instructional education (as seminars and rote learning), and most of psychology as well (as cognitive behavior therapy that is empirically derived).  Since this discussion expresses the same (whole system) modeling goals as the empathy model, the singular goal should be empathy (which we find in Geist).  So, if we implement empathy into protesting, the political model is not focus entirely on fighting the war machine (by going to prison), or focusing too closely on specific other causes (with the hopes of small victories while we wait for class warfare).  

With a well-abstracted model, a very small group can apply highly-moral actions against those who want to destroy all that is nice and natural. The reason this can succeed is that most people--as normal people--are receptive to empathic ideas even at a sub-language level, such as through body-language, and that the effect will spontaneously spread.  "Spreading the word" overtly should, then, lead to very quick change, especially if the group is able to adapt quickly to changes in the hearts of those in power, such as Nancy Pelozi's support for medical marijuana.  As things are, Pelozi's conversion will be ignored because, as one of your allies said, "all dems are warmonger-ers."

Shifting further to the empathy component (in that a successful group would have to be all-empathic), our social abilities (especially of love and the abilities of beauty) are evolutionary--Darwin said that.  What that means is that nature is central to the effort, and from support for nature, the industrial complex you are attacking will fall.  My Rattlesnake Rebellion model suggests taxation on corporate size, which would break up all the biggest corporations into smaller pieces (that would be more responsive and efficient).  Further, the size issue with respect to low empathy at the high levels of control, suggests that the only way to break the war monopoly is to break up the nation in to semi-autonomous states.  (This latter idea makes the most sense, but is invariably ignored showing the effects of the dialectic on political minds of otherwise sensible people.)

Needless to say, because I recognize the totality of dialectical control, I don't expect this message to you to have any immediate impact, but I am absolutely confident in its "correctness."  This confidence is supported by an old-school German who instantly recognized my writing about Hegel's Dialectic as describing the very worst thing that has happened to his country--Adolf Hitler's Nazism.  He also independently recognizes it in Occupy, my primary source of evidence.