David Hume 1711 - 1776

Such 'thinking' gives credence to a kind of elitism that is thoroughly self-defeating. It allows presuppositions without clearly stating they are really presuppositions. This applies to areas of fundamental 'modern' thinking. Accepting 'theory' has having any degree of logical, NOT HABITUAL, certainty is a contradiction and subversion of the openness of any scientific procedure.

Hume clearly demonstrated the habitual necessity of causality. But he also demonstrated clearly the total bogusness of causality being LOGICALLY derivative as a logical principle in its own right of the same status as a syllogism. Science, no matter what, has to be based on experience first and foremost, mathematical principles only secondarily. That this has caused problems for modern science as when Ernst Mach said that if you could not see an atom, it cannot exist whereas Boltzmann demonstrated mathematically the theoretical possibility not only of atoms but of the particles of atoms as well. Boltzmann's theories have had solid results -- there is no doubt because of these results -- Mach was wrong. But the point has been bypassed in describing exactly HOW he was wrong. Some of Boltzmann's conclusions can hold up to repeatable scientific experiment -- and some cannot. That's where Quantum Mechanics received its 'justification'.

But what in fact has happened is that, in some ways, modern science has a tendency to go back to the abstract absolutism of Aristotelian Scholasticism because these results cannot be connected to direct observation, whether experimentally repeatable or not, and a step in perception has been jumped from seeing to abstraction back to seeing again -- but not the same 'seeing'. This should be approached as a legitimate problem rather than shuffled off to the side as a mere philosophical problem. Its first and primary sin is that, if something has real results, the whole process is therefore 'real' even if completely unobserved in its real connections other than mathematically. Or, in other words, 'theory' and 'hypothesis' have become dominated by purpose trying to achieve desired goals and ends regardless of what in fact is the case. This means that much of science has gone into the theoretical and hypothetical realm of moral and purposive 'should be' instead of finding out what are the facts of the matter.

Scientific revolutions only occur when 'old' science becomes inconvenient for new purposes. The Ptolemaic universe 'works' as does the Newtonian, but the Newtonian is much more 'efficient'. And now the Newtonian, which we still live in and experience solely each day, has been severely limited by the Einsteinian. Why? Because Einstein produces more effective answers than Newton did. However, Newton persists on a 'lower level'. Why? Because he accords with observed experience moreso than Einstein does though Einstein makes the universe as a whole much more comprehensible than Newton's does. This doesn't make Einstein wrong just as obviously as Newton is not wrong. They are 'right' and 'wrong' in different ways, and those ways should be clearly delineated as to what they are.

I am beginning to babble so I will stop. But my primary point is that 'Direct Experience' is being downgraded from the high point of esteem it had in the 19th century. Yet it is still the only solid indicator of what the real facts of the matter are. Seeing is believing, and merely seeing the results of a mathematical formula does not make that mathematical formula itself as real as direct experience, which is the final call in validation still. Hume talks of the obscurity and elitism of philosophy as a way to gain power over the minds of the vulgar and ignorant. This can easily translate into political power as Henry VIII used Thomas Aquinas and Heidegger used Plato's REPUBLIC at the end of his Rector speech. But the vulgar and ignorant and unsophisticated have sight. Throughout the 'glorious' age of a Church unified feudal Western Europe, the serf never had illusions about the 'goodness' of his betters and rarely had any real respect for the hierarchy of that church. When the serf had an effective means of action, it always became an attempt to overthrow the established order. This, indeed, created the chaos that Hume and Hobbes hated, but, on the other hand, they could see the facts of the matter for themselves and knew the glorious words could not make up for the real misery and 'injustice', as they saw it, at hand. These are real and difficult questions that should not be shunted aside because they cause intellectual inconvenience. Rather, if these matters cannot be put into plain words, then the matter has been far from accurately resolved.

The recent resignation of the head of the CIA was a great cause of sorrow in the USA. He was such a good and accomplished so much, the administration was grieved to see him go. That is essentially the summary of American news on the subject. Any analysis? None. Why was he a "good man"? Who knows? Nothing is stated. What did he accomplish that was so great? Again, nothing is stated. I do not think the British fully understand how tremendously muted the American newsmedia is where the headline story of an American newspaper can be stated in such a way that assumes the complete stupidity of the reader. The British get their news 24 hours earlier on the average, I recently found out to my embarrassment, and with much more detail even from American reporters. Greater detail is available if you watch specific news programs, but if you miss them like I do because they are all relatively late at night when I am asleep, they are NOT reported by the following newsprograms in any but the broadest and vaguest detail.

I would like British correspondents on the Internet to know more thoroughly how muted American news representation is. A. If this CIA director is such a 'good' man, why has the CIA so blundered in the Abu Ghraib prison interrogations? The CIA, it is assumed, is supposed to be conducting 'secret' operations with skilled operatives, not interrogations by truck drivers, privates and specialists second class with absolutely no training. How does the violation of internationally agreed upon law in treating POW's make him a 'good' man? The law may or may not be a mistake, the rules may or may not be 'fudged' on for a definite goal on a reasonable object, but this whole intelligence operation from Guantanimo (sp) to Abu Ghraib has been, according to actual evidence, a total disaster. We are told,'much valuable evidence" has been retrieved, never what this real evidence is -- volu8ntarily, that is, unless a truck driver starts taking pictures and, worse still, in a CIA supervised operation, these pictures can get out to the public.

What this reminds me of is the KGB. If they needed people with special abilities and high intelligence, they would draft, not recruit, them. Many times these people hated the KGB. Many times they became American spies. Rarely British for reasons obvious to Jud. Therefore is the CIA infiltrated with unwilling participants and even enemy agents? What would make me think that? That someone in the American intelligence community could be living in the Washington D. C. area way beyond his means for years and even get his son hired in a related job to his position? Then suddenly we find out they have been spies for money? Or could it be that a president's brother could openly work for an enemy government and not give a damn everyone new? And that a number of CIA agents under that same president quite the CIA and were immediately hired by that same enemy government? Is there a possibility that the CIA is an agency where each person has his own itinerary and goals and to hell with everyone else, even the president? That's what John F. Kennedy found out in the Bay of Pigs disaster. And we know what came from that.

It seems American secrecy acts are used to mainly cover up political blunders and very rarely actual positive accomplishments. There have been numerous blunders an average person could figure as possible that no legal agency in or outside the US is prepared in the slightest to deal with. A. The Director of the FBI states on TV that there was no possible way 9/11 could have been anticipated. This means there was no possible way it could be anticipated a Muslim or group of Muslims could hijack airliners in the US. That they did so in foreign countries in the 60's, 70's, and 80's by the dozens seems to have been a totally irrelevant fact to him. I have written elsewhere myself that the next thing Al Queda will do, if given enough time for their slow minds to think of it, will be to contact American criminal organisations, experts in smuggling, and attempt to smuggle a thermonuclear warhead into the us. What are the headlines now? Is this a 'success'? No, it should scare the shit out of you. For one stupid gangleader in New York, you have a number of Colombians, a group of whom were able to smuggle an assassination squad into, then, firmly Communist Budapest, killed the Colombian Minister of Justice hiding in the Colombian embassy, and escape! You also have Osama Bin Laden who, whether or not he is really the head of Al Queda, who we have known about since Oliver North's testimony in the early 90's (that doesn't make me like him), is on a dialysis machine that much leave a trail behind him five miles wide on each side in broad daylight. This means either the CIA is totally incompetent -- they are on film supporting the Muslim RELIGIOUS fanaticism against the Russians in Afghanistan -- or they do NOT want to catch him. I think it is obvious these people can neither learn from the past nor anticipate the future.

Were all Germans for Hitler? It would be an incredibly irrational premise even to begin to assume in the first place. Historical facts bear out Hitler had little solid support. But also history bears out his opponents were incredibly stupid, starting with the Germans themselves. Who were his political opponents in 1933? Von Pappen and Hindenburg. The first was a moron. The second was senile. They both pandered to the values of an outdated nobility and militarism and anti-Semitism (though a milder form) which played right into Hitler's hands. The government's ONLY strength was the figure of Hindenburg himself, and in 1933 the man could barely walk, much less talk. Von Pappen was no better than a used car salesman, well, maybe not as good. Hitler got to power through the 'democratic' process, but it was through wheeling and dealing, and he was only tolerated by the German people because, first, he seemed strong, and they needed a strong leader desperately, and, second, they didn't think he would last like all the others. The anti-Semitism worked against him, but the militarism worked strongly for him. Not only did the people like the idea vaguely in general for various reasons, but the vultures of German society, the 'Krupps' and the generals, thought this was an opportunity to dominate Hitler. Jud knows why that was a stupid mistake. But the point is there is rational reason to assume that eventually most Germans would reject Hitler, especially Germans that actually experienced WWI itself and not just read about its Jewish 'betrayed glories'. And they existed right from the start, and slowly grew even under a growing totalitarian police force learning to become efficient fast.

Now this is where primarily the British, but also the Americans and French and Russians, blunder. Germans come and tell the British over and over again Hitler is rearming and what exactly what he intends to do with those arms. The British intelligence community laughs hysterically. Obviously they are no better than the CIA. Hitler marches into the Rhineland in 1936. The British tell Hitler this was not a nice thing to do. And then immediately forget about it. Hitler marches into Austria in 1938. The British tell Hitler they are very upset about this. And immediately forget. After all, these are only 'Germans'. In 1939, however, Hitler says he wants the Sudetenland. This time British are really upset. They have treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia along with the French. The German generals begin to very seriously conspire against Hitler. If Britain really threatens war, Hitler falls. British intelligence gets wind of this and very efficiently ignores it. The British, French, Germans, and Italians hold a conference in Munich about Czechoslovakia. They do not invite the Czechs.

They do not invite the Russians who are screaming bloody murder because, after all, they're a bunch of Commies and Hitler is saying he is going to defend us all from the Commies, right? And so the British give Hitler all of Czechoslovakia in various ways on the promise this will be an end to the matter. The German generals, utterly astounded, stand down. Hitler has become a true miracle worker, he is the true leader! This is our model for present American government policy-- If we intimidate the Muslims long enough, they will tire of being mad at us. Iraq and Israel are, though violent, still forms of appeasement. After all, we can not openly discriminate against a religion, a culture, or a nationality now can we? Now, America interned all the Japanese in California during WWII. Why? Were they mad about racial recrimination? Well yes, but so were the Italians. Did their resentment lead to spying for Japan? First, Hoover said he could control any espionage (for once, Good for the FBI!) without the internment. He was ignored. Second, NO Japanese American was ever indicted, much less tried, for spying. The Italians and Germans were left alone. The result? When the Germans landed spies on New Jersey, when they contacted German-Americans they were immediately turned into the authorities. There is absolutely no reason to suppose the Japanese Americans would have been any different. In fact, the most highly awarded unit in the American Army was composed of Japanese Americans. They fought in Italy.

What is the point? One can subvert the people of the enemy if one has any brains whatsoever. Reagan demonstrated this on two points. He pointed out in 1964 one of the greatest weaknesses of the USSR was the nationality program. He exploited that when he was president. He was awarded with Lithuania and all hell broke lose in the USSR. He DID NOT keep the 'star wars' project secret. Its feasibility was minimal, but still it could have been developed with some possibility secretly with devastating results for the whole world. Instead, he blabbed about it like it was his newest grandson, the Russians looked into starting their own program, realised the extreme expense and cried SHIT! In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan was finally caught with his pants slightly down. Oliver North, who had taken an oath not to reveal anything about this, said Reagan knew about it. Reagan was smart enough to simply say: "I don't know what he is talking about." He got off Scot-free (Jud, how did this expression arise?). Now, there are a number of things about Reagan I never liked, but he was smarter than the average president. Bush Sr only got elected president because he was Reagan's vice president (and ex CIA director), and promptly fucked up everything he did on his own. Iraq, a one time shot at best, left Saddam Hussein in power ("a stabilising force in the region" -- then why attack him in the first place?), pissed off ever half-loyal Arab ally to the point of trying to find a place in our back in which to stab us, got us into Bosnia without any possibility of resolve, got us into Somalia with any possibility of resolve, accomplished nothing about Northern Ireland, and wrecked the economy. This is to compare to Clinton's accomplishments and the similarity to Bush jr's record (Will we ever even leave Afghanistan? Why do people ignore that? Simply because Iraq makes more noise? Then what else is being covered up by Iraq's noise?). Is any thing being done to subvert Islamic fundamentalism itself, the primary source of the whole problem that will never go away until it is actually accomplished? Or we all become Muslims? Or we all die? Are there large numbers of Muslims against fundamentalism? Probably, just like there were Germans against Hitler. I have heard of a few but they are given next to no attention whatsoever. Do we do anything serious to encourage them, to get them in power? If they are lucky, nothing. If we do, we let leave become sitting ducks and get killed like our ex-president of Iraq sitting in a queue for a security check of all things. Reagan had only one serious direct dealing with the CIA and it turned sour. Kennedy wanted to disband it. It would seem the lesson that doing things covertly should either be highly disciplined, small, actually truly secret, competent, and have demonstrable effects even if not directly attributed to the covert organisation (i. e. "Unknown assailant blows Osama Ben Laden's head off.") As it is we have a large number of great but unknown accomplishments. If something is actually done, the photo's will be splashed all over the next newscast not because the media is efficient -- 'efficiently' is an accident in American media -- but because the CIA is so totally incompetent and out of control. And the grief over the CIA's head's resignation is not that he is leaving, but that it demonstrates Bush has really fucked up thoroughly to the extent the rats are leaving the sinking ship. The question is, whose next? And are ANY covert actions ANYTIME really worth the cost? Jud, think of the truly brilliant, successful covert actions of the British Army in WWII. Were they worth the great expense, the death of most or all of the soldiers involved (usually executed by the Germans -- they never obeyed international POW law when they didn't want to), and the reprisals on the totally uninvolved civilian community? Whole towns were exterminated by the Germans because of this in France, Italy, and Greece. Did it speed up the end of the war any more than conventional warfare? So many people denounce the bombing of Germany because it failed to break the 'spirit' of the German people. But it did slow down the German war machine considerably. British bombers actually greatly helped the Russians get to Berlin. The only thing more helpful was Hitler's stupidity in military matters. #3: The radical nature of the imagination in Hume. #4: The literal nature of "Direct Experience." How can one differentiate direct experience if differentiation in abstract and therefore not itself "direct"? Do we take "theory" far too much as "reality" simply because it has useful results? This is a theme Michael Crichton takes up often, but in his autobiography TRAVELS takes up with philosophical seriousness. It should be cheaply available. Maybe one should read the final chapter "Direct Experience" and the postscript after it. He defends his points with logical clarity, numerous facts (in some cases mostly in the body of the text), and makes definitional points but NO overall 'theory' of knowledge or science, re: the nature of real "Direct Experience." He is actually a highly unusual person himself who lives fairly constantly with a problem solving consciousness WITHOUT IGNORING HIMSELF AS THE OBSERVER OR EXPERIENCER OR JUDGE. He can not only see that he is screwing up, but works with great intelligence to find out ACTUALLY what has happened, and how it can be corrected -- if even possible. He is extremely well aware he does not have a flawless character, but, instead of feeling guilty about it, works on it in a scientific manner. You all will find the book very surprising.

Gary C. Moore