The Decriticalysis of Joe’s Linguasta

“A Destructive, Subversive, Skeptical Analysis of the Notion of Extended Non-Logical Judgments by Talking Heads on the Inferred Personal Schemas Based on Limited Observation of Behavior Without the Inclusion of Causal Factors”

Or The Decriticalysis of Joe’s Linguasta

by Dewey Lovett-Ubet

“Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster is a maniac?” –George Carlin

“Damnit, I’m in a hurry…gotta rush to judgment!”—Elmer Fudd

I will address in this article, the practice by some educators of expressing unqualified judgments regarding the internal nature of people based on opinions derived from poor reasoning, limited samples of behavior and an ignorance of the causes of behavior.

(Note: This predilection to engage in character judgment without foundation, maybe due to a condition in academia known as Gigantis Egoistis—(dji-GAN-tis E-go-IS-tis), in which an instructor has at sometime in the past, acquired a parasite that occupies the Hippo-Campus region of the brain. We will address this phenomenon later in the paper.)

I will begin my argument by recounting a claim I heard while I was dreaming in a philosophy lecture. I was dreaming that Berkeley’s disembodied brain was channeling my professor’s lecture, who, as it turns out, was also dreaming of Berkeley.

For Real…although it does sound like Idealistic hearsay!

Is this true, you ask? Of course it is true… How else could any of this have happened?

The Claim to be Decriticalized, (Destructively Critically Analyzed):

Straight from Berkeley’s Brain: “I can tell that you are an arrogant, self-centered, solipsistic jerk by your behavior. And even though I don’t know you, have never spoken to you, I also know that you are a so and so because other people have said as much. Plus, it is also rumored, that you are guilty of practicing a singularly solitary, subversive and destructive type of philosophy!”

The Brain continues...”And… since you are what you do, not what you think you do, and it’s what other people think you are doing that makes whatever you are doing, really what you are doing, then what you are doing is not what you think you are doing but what I think you are doing.”

…If I remember my lessons correctly, this mess of linguistic pasta is called “linguasta” and has been around since the early days of Philosophy in Athens…but, I digest…

As you can readily see, this linguasta is an absurdly bad interpretation of a part of Alice’s Adventures that runs: “Be what you would seem to be”–or if you’d like it put more simply–”Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.“

Now it is possible that our talking head Berkeley, who was channeling the talking head of my professor, who also in turn, could have been channeling Lewis Carroll during the lecture, meant to say what he was thinking but got confused by the feedback from Professor Joe’s own Qualia?

Makes perfect sense to me. So we’ll just call it all:  “Joe’s Linguasta,” and leave it at that!

The Decriticalysis of Joe’s Linguasta:

Any judgment about who another person is “inside” that is based on a limited sample of subjective observation of that persons behavior, is merely belief based on a prejudice. That is, an opinion that is unjustified, lacking a reasonable sample of first hand data and occurs especially when one is not cognizant of the cause(s) of/or the resultant observed behavior(s). This type of judgment implies that a personal bias from a lack of supporting evidence has colored the assessment from the outset, and, as such, a “rush to judgment” error in reasoning is committed.

(Note: Ambrose Bierce, the great American satirist, might say that such an opinion based on a single or very small sample basis would be a “vagrant opinion…that is an opinion without visible means of support.”)

To illustrate the sheer idiocy of such opinions, let us take a walk through the teleporter I just bought on ebay. Perhaps we can test your ability to discern, divine and decide what’s going on inside someone by observing their behavior.

Hold on Skeezix…Here we go…! Whoosh! **Poof**

The Let’s-Go-Postal Office

We walk into a Post Office and you observe a customer arguing rather “passionately” about something with a postal worker. The customer is visibly upset and yells at the worker… You cannot hear what’s being said…You are not clear of what the issue is. The customer walks out still upset. Of course you just know that this person is “out of control.” “What an asshole” you say. “This guy is nuts!” You’re convinced of this. And being the genius Philosopher, (and part time actor), that you are, you may think to your self, “Self, this guy is most certainly not a virtuous person for he knows not Temperance. And he certainly is not familiar with the Stoics, for he’s clearly lost his ability to reason by getting angry.” “Yep, this guy is indeed a selfish, self centered, arrogant asshole!”

A little voice chirps up in your mind and says: “Wowsers, this philosophy shit really helps me make concise judgments about people I don’t even know…Cool! I should bring this up at the next lecture, the kids will love it!”

Yes indeedy! You nailed that assessment right off without any help from reason whatsoever!

The Back-story:

Let’s round out our Post Office story and create a little “Back story” eh? Say you don’t know that the customer’s package that contained his diabetic meds, was not delivered, although the post office said they’d delivered it. So now he’s out the meds and the money and cannot file a claim for the lost meds because the company he’d bought the stuff from was told by the post office that they delivered the package. So after pleading for some help from the jaded, disaffected, couldn’t care less, sorry buddy not my problem, postal worker…our “out of control nutcase” got pissed.

Now, being that we are indeed Philosophers of the Realm and most decidedly not Humean’s, thank you very much…(oh heaven forefend that that Patzer was correct and there is no necessary justification for the notion of cause and effect)…we just know that everything has a cause. So there must be a reason for this guy to get so bent out of shape. But do we need to know the reason? The Cause of it All?

“Nah…I’ll bet I’m right in assuming that this guy is just a jerk generally and I’ll bet he always acts that way,” you say to yourself.

“And causes? Causes, I don’t need no stinkin’ causes!”

But let’s look at what happened initially anyway, (just for gits and shiggles). Yes, let us see the first cause in the chain of events that led up to this poor schlub’s outburst.

More back story: As it happened, the new mailman on the angry man’s block was not familiar with the route; couldn’t locate the apartment and was afraid of not delivering the package on time. So, he just dropped it at an apartment that he thought was close enough.

Purely fictional account BTW…but it could happen! Even in this, the best of all worlds!

So now we see that if you’d known the reason, the causes of the behavior, you at the least, then, could have come to an informed opinion regarding the merits or value of that particular behavior you observed; been able to place it in context even. And perhaps you would have empathized with the plight of the customer if, let’s say, you had a grandma with diabetes…and there was a new mailman on her block.

Maybe this guy was right? Righteous indignation yeah baby yeah! And maybe he isn’t really a self-centered jerk after all!

So unless you have direct experience of [many] behaviors—as in more than one—and their predicate causes, you are merely expressing your belief that things are such and so…And unless you are a really advanced/special issue Philosopher, you would never have thought that maybe things might not be as you think they are…you know, that they could be otherwise…different in some universe of other…Oh yeah, contingent truths!

Perhaps you should’ve unpacked a bit more before you expressed your ungrounded, unfounded, unsound beliefs you little sea-monkey you.

Is the Qualia in season?

An opinion or assessment of the value of another’s “Qualia” cannot be known unless you are in their head…walk a mile in their mental Birkies if you will. You are not able to discern to any necessary degree [of truth], the cause of a behavior by observing the behavior alone. To attempt such an exercise would be tantamount to creating logical homicide; the killing of reason…Of course you may convince yourself that even if the behavior you’d observed in someone was indeed presented because of a cause you’ll grant existed without actually being there to witness that cause, you are still justified in your judgment based on the behavior alone.

However, all of your judgments are colored by your own established perceptual (and personal) schemas. Illusion is common as we know in regards to this and most times such judgments made of another based on a sample of their behavior, usually prove to be false and in fact smack of a “rush to judgment” error in reasoning.

Also, those that employ such short cuts in reasoning are instead merely attempting to service their own perception of self-worth by diminishing the worth of another…typically someone that may be viewed as or believed to represent some kind of threat or rival.

Of course we can blame that brain bug that I mentioned earlier…the one that pisses serotonin and GABA and dopamine and all kinds of goody good chemicals that make you feel torpid and wankey whenever you judge someone without the benefit of reason, experience, common sense, knowledge or any other higher order brain function that if exercised would kill the nasty but beloved beast.

Now, you and I both know there is no such bug in Reality…But in my dreams there is… and we, along with Berkeley, Hume and Derrida the Obscure, often enjoy a fine meal of Joe’s Linguasta washed down with a nice Chianti!

Prost!

Note: This article uses a few made up words–they are not actually used in the study of Philosophy.  I mention this just in case you were confused, however, I am not going to tell you which ones are not real. Perhaps one day they will be included in the lexicon of the Philosopher…welcome additions to the language of this Cabal!

Technorati Tags: egotistical professors, Philosophy, Satire, snark