Matrix Subcultures By Robert L. Kocher 2-8-00

Within the present stage of historical condition there are several leftist subcultures:

There is a parasitic class including hedonists. Within this, there is an axis that believes it should be entitled to live for the moment without a sense of responsibility or seriousness -what is coming to be seen as a civil right to a life without realistic unpleasant consequences. This life is to be enabled by
1) a combination of rationalizations made up of "virtual thought" (whose acceptance is possible only in relation to an artificially distorted environment); and
2) the provision of guaranteed economic sustenance and survival (which is the supposed obligation of a nebulously defined social order).

At the occupational and bureaucratic level is a class axis seeking a system inhabited by bland incompetence, where zestful creativity because its disturbing contrast threatens to expose somnolescent mediocrity is a systemic threat to be suppressed or made irrelevant to personal advancement.

Coordinate to this exists a large class of people who are looking for a place or system to hide in, or are looking for a place or system to hide in while they engage in irresponsible self-amusement. There is a type of escapism where people hide from life and responsibility by busying themselves in financially-supported positions promoting or administering social issues or supposed problems. People inhabiting this group create or perpetuate social issues, then exploit them to hide in positions created by those issues.

The Peace Corps provides an escapist summer camp for the immature and directionless during the interim until they can find a soft spot of similar orientation and requirements elsewhere.

University departments are filled with soft, politically-correct grants awarded and administered by bureaucrats in soft comfortable positions perpetuated by the awarding of those grants.....or

No Grand Design - Just Pathological Evolution

Certainly, there was a serious leftist strategy in America in the 30s, the 20s, and before. But, from the historical view of the period since 1950, much of the development of the American liberal/socialist matrix is not of a grand design, but rather of a too-tolerated evolution of pathology and softness, and evolution of the antitherapy of pathological protectionism enabled by a foppish culture in which there is an expanding too-soft environment that does not confront and correct such development.

By the "antitherapy of pathological protectionism" is meant that increasing numbers of people have become inhabited by various forms of mental disorder and soft perversity, often as a relief or cure for personal boredom or as a substitute for mature personal development, and such people devise rationalizations protective of their condition.

This has been expanded into a mutual defense of the implicit form: "You protect my pathology and softness, and I'll protect yours so that we can both remain safe from pleas for maturity or responsibility forever."

Criticism of psychopathology in any form and directed toward any specific form of pathology is regarded as a potential threat that may be applied to any other pathological forms, and is to be extinguished through group effort. The protection of pathology also serves the purpose of being a sadistic attack upon society.

Essentially, beneath noble-sounding demands to mitigate all forms of unpleasant consequences in the name of compassion, liberalism/socialism has become the explosive proliferation of all forms of original sin, dishonesty, and degeneracy, resulting in the production of unpleasant consequences to be compassionately mitigated by the system.

Thus, what is exponentially evolving is a corrupt social system which feeds back upon, and augments, itself. This occurs when those who are victims of people as irresponsibly calloused as themselves, or who are willing victims of themselves (through what has become a militant demand to participate in liberated, but ultimately destructive personal amusements and excesses), point to their condition of described victimhood, and demand more compassion while accelerating the protected and subsidized behavior creating their condition.

Like the Matrix in the movie, the resultant system has taken on independent thought and concern for its own growth and survival. It has developed its own supportive scholastic system. It has developed its own system of socially-reinforcing positive feedback conditioning together with fear of questioning its own existence. It has created millions who have become dependent upon it in one way or another for easy economic existence. It has created millions of people who are dependent upon it to create and maintain their condition of psychological denial and perpetuation of their soft condition. It has created millions who enjoy the irresponsible immediate pleasure that generates the consequences and conditions underwriting constant calls for enabling constant compassionate remedy. Warped systems produce warped mentalities that perpetuate the system that produced them.
_____

For more of Robert Kocher's writing, go to the J. Orlin Grabbe Website and click on the Laissez Faire City Times

-- WakeUp (smellthecoffee@truth.right), February 08, 2000

Answers

My eyes hurt.

-- Longshot (longshot911@email.com), February 08, 2000.

WakeUp:

I would hope Robert Kocher's writings would appear less confusing than what I read here. Difficult to read, to say the least. Appears to have the most concise use of difficult to understand or comprehend words I've ever come accross.

As much as I have been able to "get the point" of what has been said here, I think it deserves chapters in a simpler form, (at least for me) to be able to respond with coherent logical thought.

I doubt this is the forum for that, but I will take a closer look at what Robert Kocher has written from here on out.

Maybe then, I can respond intelligently. Until then, somewhat of a thought overload in one post for this kid.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), February 08, 2000.

Mine, too. A good read, nonetheless.

-- Kyle (fordtbonly@aol.com), February 08, 2000.

Please cite the site (www.sightings.com).

-- Nelson Isada (isada@alaska.net), February 08, 2000.

LONGSHOT:

Your eyes hurt? ---- my eyeballs have turned inside out! Too bad he doesn't know how to format into paragraphs. If his mini-essay had been one long sentence it would not have been much harder to read. But let's look at the CONTENT.

WAKEUP:

Wow!!!! Tnx for the post. Never heard of Kocher, but he's on to something big. He's got a tiger by the tail.

Now what I'd recommend to get more people to take his message seriously (aside from upgrading his writing style) would be to Schenker-ize it: 1) translate it into English, 2) include himself in the human race, and 3), related to 2, start poking fun at himself. I'd like to do it but I'm way too tired.

Bill, one foot caught in the matrix & trying to shake myself loose.

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 08, 2000.

Only a wooly minded bureaucrat could have cobbled together such limp wristed prose.

-- (BRIAN.MCNEILL@prodigy.net), February 08, 2000.

BRIAN:

You and I are one re 'wooly minded bureaucrats' -- been victimized by way too many.

But we're looking at ideas that no bureaucrat, even on his deathbed (when people often get more hones), could ever codger up.

As a matter of fact, after painfully parsing Kocher's perinigrationous, perniciously perambulating performance one can clearly see that one of his prime targets in the matrix is none other than the guardians of the matrix: the bureaucrats themselves.

Bill, who avoids bureaucrats like he does spiders and scorpions

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 08, 2000.

WOW!!! I used to teach political Science... play classical guitar... act in the theatre... served in the military ... even raise 3 different families... spoke 11 languages and wrote 7 fairly well... but I still can't comprehend the first sentence! Guess the one thing I haven't done is getting old and maybe thats why I don't see it clearly? BRyan

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 08, 2000.

...oh yeh, presently a pastor in a small fishing community and a state prison chaplain ... and still I don't understand. BRyan

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 08, 2000.

I'll think about that TOMORROW!

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), February 08, 2000.

I make my living as a technical writer. I am paid a considerable sum of money to write clearly about complex procedures and technical ideas.

My professional opinion is that Robert Kocher is entirely tone-deaf to the English language. As a result, this essay is a truly gawd-awful piece of work. To make it readable would require more than a talented and dedicated editor. What this thing needs is a translator.

He announces his thesis, but never develops it. Essentially, he just repeats it, in different tortuous words, a bunch of times. If you agree with him before you read it, you will agree with him after you read it - even if you don't understand what he said. If you require persuasion to agree with his thesis, you will not find any.

Sorry, WakeUp. Kocher needs to ripen a lot longer before he'll develop any juice.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 09, 2000.

I usually don't go back to threads like this one but accidently clicked on it and read Brian M.'s additional comments... I needed a good laugh...

Brian, you certainly can write...better than that... you made it worth the trip back to this thread... Thanks! God Bless, BRyan

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 09, 2000.

Kocher is a political theorist. His writing style is not unlike most gifted political philosophers. Have you read Hume, Mill, or Hegel recently?

He offers a brilliant analysis of the some weaknesses in certain aspects of the left. While his style is highly intellectual, it is very clear if one is used to writing of this caliber. Unfortunately, for serious or critical matters, content must preceed style.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 09, 2000.

>> Kocher is a political theorist. His writing style is not unlike most gifted political philosophers. <<

His writing style is "not unlike" most education majors.

>> Have you read Hume, Mill, or Hegel recently? <<

Yes. I recently read J.S. Mill's _On Liberty_. His writing style is that of a brilliant, classically trained genius. Hume is also very understandable, given study. Neither's style is like Mr. Kocher's style. Believe me, I know.

As for Hegel. Spare me. He wrote in German. Complicated German. Very complicated German. See Mark Twain's essay, _The Awful German Language_. I cannot top that.

You are talking to man who knows Attic Greek and Latin. I read Plato, Xenophon and Cicero. My grandfather was a PhD. in American Literature and a Fullbright Scholar. My father was a MA. in English. I love poetry. Way back when I scored in excess of the 99th percentile on standardized tests on my verbal ability. I am a professional writer earning 50K/year. If I say Mr. Kocher's style is an abomination, you can be sure that at least I have some credentials behind me.

If you like him, eat him for all three meals a day for all I care. He is not one of the "greats". He can scarcely wobble down the street on his tricycle, stylistically speaking. As for his reasoning ability, I know Aristotle, and Mr. Kocher is no Aristotle.

'Nuff said.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 09, 2000.

Well, unfortunately, I'm just, unlike you, a nobody.

But I'd say he's got a fairly hard and tight, call it technical, way of writing. He may not be 'soft' enough, poetic enough, or simple enough for all readers, but even someone as throughly uneducated --or perhaps I mean untrained-- as myself, finds his style to be crisp and lucid.

I'm not sure his intent was to win anyone to his perspective. I think rather that he sought to further define 'the adversary' for others who share his general perspective.

Perhaps he's just not to your personal liking? Taste determines an awful lot in these kinds of things. For instance, I always thought Twain a dolt. But what do I know? Maybe I've got awful taste to match my meager level of training. Perhaps you could take the time to raise me up a bit.

On the other hand, I may have a problem distinguishing between someone who writes accurately from someone who writes pleasingly. I seem to find authenticity and reality more beautiful then pretention and posturing.

But hey, who am I? What good is accuracy anyway? Perhaps pleasing one's audience is what communication is really all about?

Sure, he's not Shakespeare, but he seemed to me to say just what he meant to say. And to say it just how, and to who, he meant to say it. He's not writing poetry here.

I've seen your writing on this board before. Its looks very good. But perhaps by way of comparision you should write either a counter to his piece (not really an essay, I'd agree) or show how it should have been done properly.

I mean, if you can.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 10, 2000.

>> You are talking to man who ...<<

...doesn't know when to keep his head down and his mouth shut, obviously. Someone should have taken away the keys to the computer 'afore I bragged myself up to heaven that way. Sorry.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 10, 2000.

Brian:

Not only a talented writer, you're a gentleman. I look forward to seeing excellent prose from you in the future.

You know, in my opinion, the only real way that you're going to improve our writing, is by example.

And perhaps the occassional scathing comment.

But honestly, do you want sheep for students, or those with a little spirit? If you have something either true or beautiful enough to care about, then you've got something worth sharing and standing up for. If you don't value it that much, why should we?

--Just One of the Ignorant Masses, Groping Towards Literacy

8-)

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 11, 2000.

I'm sorry, any writer who uses phrases like "antitherapy of pathological protectionism" and loads up his prose with emotive terms such as "degeneracy", "corrupt", and "warped" is simply not a very good writer. In addition, he does go on about "softness", for some odd reason.

William Safire would take Mr. Locher apart for crimes against the language, despite the fact that Mr. Safire would in all likelihood agree wholeheartedly with what seems to be a central theme of the article: the pernicious tendency for bureaucratic systems to become both self-perpetuating and self-protective.

Finally, any work which wishes to be taken seriously should use imagery which is based on something a bit more substantial than a piece of video game cinema like The Matrix. I enjoyed that movie for what it was: very cool SFX and a group of actors who could handle a stylized and at times almost absurd script.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), February 11, 2000.

DeM Bee @ Macbeth:

Not all rhetoric is directed towards literati alone. Even Shakespeare used 'pop' imagery and metaphor.

I have a feeling that Kocher's style has gone over swimmingly with the kind of nerdy, engineering department techies who spent their intellectually formative years steeped somewhere in Star Trek's or Asimov's 'science fiction' universe.

These 'nerds' are largely libertarian, at least in principle. They are also the aristocracy of the internet, if not its largest constituency.

So again, I'm not sure that he isn't writing just as he intends. Believe me, if you're addressing a garage mechanic, you don't make allusions to Ulysses. Great writers use many voices, and perspectives. And the writing of good political rhetoric requires the occassional use of them all.

By the way, some might actually consider the science-fiction genre as the newly emerging epic-form of the future [e.g. G.Lucas]. What do you think about this? Are we in the age of the Techno-epic? What's to be then of 'literature'? The refuge of an ever more select few?

Many would say that literacy is at an all time high. I think it is facing crisis. What do you think, golden age or barbarous decline? If declining, how would you advocate revival?

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 13, 2000.

Heavens, I understood him. Sheesh! I don't disagree with the comments on it though. Safire....hmmmm....does ANYONE out there remember a guy named Mitchell who wrote a scalding book on present day English usage? I read it(mid 80's), returned it to the library and have never been able to find it since. He was called the 'Underground Grammarian' I think.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 13, 2000.

Yes. This is a poorly-written "essay". I should have stopped when I read the first words, "Within the present stage of historical condition...". Perhaps I'm nit-picking. But a writer interested in conveying his thoughts, rather than bloated rhetoric and false erudition, might have simply started with "Today..."

I could be wrong of course. I don't earn 50K/yr as a technical writer. I couldn't afford to live on that. Good thing I didn't study Aristotle....

-- Dalton (fu@bar.com), February 13, 2000.

Also, on the subject of writing: Gordon Clark, another extremely obscure writer. I would bet my westerly inclined testicle that no one here has ever heard of him, including our Dominion Theologist, BRyan. He was a presuppositionist and I loved that about him. But, even though he was brilliant, he was mired in tradition. Alas, he wasted his talent on defending the Westminster Confession.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 13, 2000.

"presuppositionist"? So does that mean he frequently jumped to wild and unsubstantiated conclusions? Or is he just coordinate to an axis of that class of writer?

-- Dalton (fu@bar.com), February 13, 2000.

Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets, not essays. One would expect him to use "pop" (i.e, popular) imagery. Afetr all, the man wanted those plays to draw an audience and sell!

Agree re intended audience for this essay, but that doesn't explain or excuse poor writing. Literacy and an appreciation for clear and concise prose are not confined to lovers of "mainstream" literature.

George Lucas had a really lovely myth underway with the first three movies, then along came Episode 1, and cracks began to appear in the cosmos. "The Will of the Force", indeed.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), February 13, 2000.

DeMbee,

I do think that perhaps I *may* have overstated a bit when I said Kocher's writing was not unlike that of some gifted political thinkers. Limiting my comparison to the more youthful of those writings would be safer. Still, I think he's doing a fine job-- why else did two different posters both present his 'essay' (more like 'tract') to this board on the very same day in which his piece first appeared in print? It resonates well with many people, I think. In politics, that is paramount.

Shakespeare was, or is, a *very* political writer -- if you're missing that, then you are missing much of him.

Lucas' fourth Star Wars film was a disappointment to me as well. As you might expect by now, I did enjoy its political aspects, but felt that it failed in some other key aspects. Still, epics can gain with the re-telling. We'll see.

But to return to the issue at hand: I personally may have a broader political perspective than Kocher. That doesn't stop me from feeling the power in his work. I'm not at all alone. When was the last time that someone posted one of Bush's or Bradley's essays on this board? Even with a small army of speech writers, few politicians get the kind of response here [and presumedly elsewhere] that Kocher did. That's got to merit at least *some* respect.

Look, if you can write political rhetoric better, show us. Otherwise, what are you saying?

If it is Kocher's political position that one disagrees with, then hiding behind a literary criticism is disingenuous.

I'm trying to be completely honest when I say that political writing is not easy. That's why I'd challenge anyone to write either a counter to, or an improved version of, his work. I think that if one actually sits down and takes the time to do so, they'll find that this type of writing is not as easy as it may first appear.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 14, 2000.