The Tattered Library of Life

©Luke Ritchie 2006.

I would thus posit the theory that both current American political idealists, in looking back to pre-cold war politics, have attempted to reinterpret and reuse 'Moralism' as the machine for American expansionism; but that traditional elements among the British educated elite explain the position of Britain in aiding American actions.

The end of the clash of ideologies, or rather the so-called end of the clash of ideologies; has led to growing desires to change towards a more 'liberally free' state. Fukoyama argues this in his 'The end of history'. Yet what effect does this have upon a state structure which is

 a) under threat from non-geographical camaflaged forces

and

b) has a history of percieving itself as the most free and democratic existant, or in the British elite's case, a history of social differences from the 'commoners' and this vague sense of superiority and thus right to rule (we are after all still a disgraceful non-elected monarchy, representing the impossibility of mobility in certain levels and a sharp social divide)

?

The answer can only be a reversion to less democratic methods to boister internal stability while a focus back to past doctrines (for no policy is without a historical precedent) and effects of these doctrines on a foreign country. To continue the illusion of democracy, the state structure (bureaucracy) must keep the citizens distracted. BUT it must also on a level interact with what the citizens will agree with in a language game they will understand (Wittgenstein) and which will have a symbolic, and I believe historical, appeal to them. American history is of course a key element of American schooling, and a continuous repition of the justification of the US (which can only be bound on moral justification rather than organic principles), lead to a vision of World freedom by American freedom a pliable method for herding the American people where the American government wants them. The same is also true of the British elite, which in a language of superior colonial history and tendancies to overexaggerate British power and potential; not neglecting an exaggeration of the superiority of Britain technologically and culturally when compared to Afghanistan and Iraq(notice not Mesopotamia or Assyria though) , allow the british elite to justify (to themselves mostly) following American foreign intervention on 'righteous principles'.

The power of history is thus again utilised. We cannot escape from our past, so our best next step is to twist it to our advantages. The great symbolic nature of history is superior even to other symbols of everyday life, like country. The cycle nature of history, as revealed here though, is one of a satellite in orbit of a planet, which continually widens slowly its orbit. There is a slight modification, a new change; but also an inevitable link to the past structure.

By Luke Ritchie, written 5/11/2005. ©Luke Ritchie

Reading over Confusius's analects, if indeed this collective work was written by 'Confusius' and 'Confusius' is either the name for one person that once lived and for a group collective of peoples who simply didn't write down individual names, we find the sage. Confusius said that he had never met a sage, and that he himslef was not worthy to be a sage, the man of ultimate (this is my word for it due to every person's perception of sagehood). Can such a man exist is the question I pose to you readers, and further, if he can exist in theory, why not in practise? Or why CAN he? What does the ultimate mean? What does it mean to you and is this simply because of a personal slant or of some sort of universal interpretation we all have which cann be easily perverted and thus explain why we do not realise it? Or do we all realise it? A series of twisting questions I hope to hear equally twisting answers too.

My view? The sage is purely a manifestation of explenation utilised by Confusius to give a potential humans could reach for, even if he believes thhey cannot reach it. Simply it is the melding of humans through goading rehtoric. That each person can assume a theoretical person who is a sage can exist (unless their pessimism is too great), means that in practise it can exist (I of course consider it necessary to force biological, physical, chemical rules on this person, so it is not some sort of superhuman we are after, but a superior-human). The ultimate to me, must be a mixture of self confidence and other attributes. Perhaps at one stage, in one (or maybe more things) we temporarily recognise sagehood in one place and time, but only very partially. The concept of a sage, for me, can never be anything but temporal, fading as rules, ettiqute and invention change society and the world...

But I shall know more after finishing the analects. (after I finish 'The National Question In Yugoslavia' by Ivo Banac.)

Anyway please let me know what you think for now. I am most intrigued. 

This is probably where I shall be bombarded with the most awkward and deep searching questions, but nevertheless I had better accomplish what I have promised to do. I am about to write out my political ideological standpoint in the question which is shocking my Bishop Challoner frineds into open questioning of my attachment with Russia and the Soviet system. I get the feeling from a number of them that Russia is synonymus with Communism, or at least Communist sympathy. On the first they are wrong, but on the second I am not so sure. I hope dearly that this post will attract no flamemail or useless comments and I am not a person who tends to be stuck in the mental cage of a single thought. I have friends who range from the far left to the right, and even though postmodernist theory and general cynasism mocks this concept of left vs right (As if a ruler ever chooses anything but pragmatism if he wants to be successful!), I consider all of them as ideological influences on my point of view politically. Further I consider all the literature I have read to be influencial, even if ideology has been passive. Naturally my readings of Trotsky and Luxemburg are the two main communist contributors, while works like 'The Winter palace' aid my reactionary views. What is quite suprising is the large influence Balkan books have had on my opinion of Nationalism - Misha Glenny and An introduction to Bulgaria and The First bulgarian Empire, to name but a few...While I must admit to confusion over Supranational states like Yugoslavia - as portrayed by the interesting C. Cviic.
I dedicate what I hope to be an attempt to clear my thoughts onto paper to my friends of the Bishop Challoner group, whose persecution of Communism without distinction has led me to this deflection. Well, I'm still going to call everyone comrade, and I still consider you all people I would lay my life down for. But as you will see, I am not a Communist, or at least, not an orthodox one. I am a Lucienist, both in my religious beliefs and in my political ideology. All things in the end take a Jungian view. I would like to end this long introduction with a reminder of what this msn space is called. It is a library, and therefore it is right to store knowledge, not only of myself or my friends but from those observers who have valuable contributions. This topic will be endless in controversy, and I have little doubt of the arguments that may well be thrown up against me...particularly naivity...I myself will probably change my ideas as I read more (Have Fukiyama lined up to be read...), so please, treat my and anyone elses contributions with sympathy or cold logic.

Part one: An evolution from the Theological to the Political- Mein Welterschuung

To some of us, concepts like the Irenean theory of suffering and the importance of the escatelogical argument have become arguments for allowing us to live in this world. For myself, I found the idea of archtypes deeply influential. The psychologist Jung proposed the theory that human beings created archtypes of primal forces...like Old father time, Father christmas, God...these represent forces (or mental illusions of our aspirations) which each individual uniquely sees differently within their mind's eye. So just as the Pope will not have the same idea of God as the Archbishop of Canterbury, neither will two catholics, even if they live side by side in identical houses and live parallel lives. Each individual has an image of what God is, represents to them, and God, as the sunnum bonum, or greatest good, thus represents this unimaginable concept for us.

If we were to translate such a belief to politics, we end up with a concept of individualism which seems incompatable with a set ideology. Surely Communism is simply Communism, Democracy Democracy and Fascism Fascism? Surely Ecologicalism, Nationalism, Feminism etc are self explanetory and don't diverge in their aims, structures or methods? I appoligise to those of you who might find this style patronising, but there really are people who don't understand that Jung's theory holds true on politics as it does religion, that individualism will always subvert an ideology into a changing of its structure (and this does not even include the problems of pragmatism). Titoan theory differed from Stalinism but they were both Communist. Indeed Titoan theory differed in its time structures i.e. early vs late, but this I consider an effect of pragmatism (which I consider a dual factor, but not part of, individualism). Concepts such as Communism, Fascism ect purely represent Wittgensteinian word games: Communists understand each other and isolate non Communists with 'a language of Communism', just as Fascists cloak everything in 'a language of Fascism.' Language is used to cloak pragmatic and individualistic necessities.

Other parallels between my religious beliefs and my political beliefs are easily drawn, and the same influence can be seen in both. My confessed Confuscianism is really latent humanism, a desire to follow in the footsteps of China's first teacher in his role on educating (those cynical may say indoctrinating...But since I consider helping to their advantage as part of the education process, I at least perform a social good) others (though for me it is regardless of their class, gender etc that they recieve my help). Yet, like with the Bible, I refuse to believe that every singe Confuscist writing is true, because if humans touch it, how can it be true? Therein lies my second belief, the fallibility of humanity, which is religious and political. Indeed, an understanding of the failure of humans is what gives me a socialist set of ideals, on the Lucienist model, of course. It also gives me my Authoritarian leanings, which are perhaps the most contriversal set of beliefs I hold, apart from pan-nationalism.
Religion's final role in my political ideology is as a solid basis for society, as it is also for my own personal sanity. Rituals which are performed by the cogniant lend a stability to life which only agnostics can appreciate. Though any belief in an amphropormorphic God has gone from my beliefs (that 8 year old's dream of God on clouds, in a business suit) or indeed an effectant God (I see any concept of God as a nebula, a visable cloud, much like a jellyfish) has vanished, I still consider my argument for the existance of God (as life-force, to put it crudely) as valid as a lack of existance of God, and once this part is silenced, it purely matters to carry out my functions within society (and that is politics).
As a final note on this chapter, I will point out the clearest evolution of politics. Politics, like science, became our 19th and 20th century meta-narratives. This means they are the way the world was viewed by society. The previous meta-narrative was the religious meta-narrative, which in the Enlightenment, was destroyed, culminating in Feurerbach's writings (albeit not without Romanticist reactionism) on why such a God as was believed in could not exist. The rise of the bourgeosie and  economy as a ruling function, the creation of America and the French Revolution, also played their parts. The new metanarrative was to be fuelled by a 19th century cockiness that science can solve everything (as erronious as the religious meta-narrative) and this effect in social science I would say led to the creation of Communism and Fascism (both hinted at by Plato), one based on the economics and the other on biology. Also the concept of the mob fuelled what was to be democracy (modern), and also nationalism. This was to be seen throughout the period from the French revolution to the Bulgarian annexation of East Rumelia. Here I will state my understanding of meta-narratives is limited at best. All I am truely certain of is that a transition took place in the 18-19th centuries that changed the meta-narrative to a more humanistic (scientific) understanding, thus allowing the growth of politics and ideology.

Part two: So what is Lucienism? - from a personal view.

Firstly Lucienism is Pragmatic, like all ideologies. Whatever is necessary at any given point in time, no matter what U-turn, is acceptable so long as it is cloaked in Lucienistic terminology. Friends might be able to point out and type up what these are because, to be quite honest, i don't realise I'm saying them.
Secondly Lucienism is Socialist-humanistic, all men are brothers and all women sisters, and no man is an island unto himself. Human beings should work together rather than compete, and the strongest should look out for the weakest. Anything that creates elites should be discouraged and slowly bred out as part of the micro-world fallicy in importance. (thus in compassion these shall become but empty shells, but in function and loyalty remain the same...a difficult incomplete concept on my part but one which I am trying to develop logically).  The micro-world fallicy is the trapping of ones perception of the world behind various planes of interaction: thus the first world, the major world, is the self...the second the family...the third close friends...the fourth less close friends...the fifth people of the same ideology (despite their individualism)...the twentiefth the nationstate...the twenty-first the continent etc.
Thirdly Lucienism is Meritocraticlly Authoritarian. Humans as fallible must be led by those who have merit, who despite being fallible themselves, are less likely to commit mistakes. Thus the politician should be replaced with  a competant bureaucrat of basically unselfish merit. As the three Stratagies of Huang Shi Gong state, a wise leader uses people who are brave, greedy, scholarly and stupid  to the best of their abilities in and where they are required. With the breakdown of the micro-world fallicy, people won't look out for their self-interest but for a greater interest...hopefully the world in the end, though I suspect a long stage of country interest. We will be left with the Greedy, Stupid, Brave and Scholarly, but their personal desires to fufil these functions will be utilised in favour of first the state, and then with its breakdown, the world. Their private lives are their own businesses. Authoritarianism should never be Totalitarianistic.
Fourthly Lucienism respects diversity with (and many of you will see this as contradictory) a respect for Nationalism, Patriotism and Pan Nationalism. I already consider a renewed global holy Roman Empire confederation the first step towards the breakdown of the state, but without the necessary break of customs. Humanity would simply create regional differences (note the different accents of Latin) of its own accord. We seem to be forced to recognise differensiation from others by instinct. Only an education system can weaken the bond to give greater priority to state functions (though it would never overule selfishness, self desire, family bond, intelllectual bond etc) and thus we find ourselves again at the Micro-world fallicy! How do we solve this? I believe Pan-nationalism can help to liquidate this problem. We can create nationalism, I believe, if for once in our lives we set it by very definate universal requirements. I believe this should be the ability of a region to produce an overall economic commodity number of a universally recognised production figure, of enough significance to allow it to trade for required needs with other areas etc. This concept is very dfuzzy to work out and contains many flaws. Nevertheless with refinement, I do not see it as faulty, and it would be beneficial to ending territorial crises and the fusing of different minorities into congenious 'ethnic' nationalities (though nationality shall not depend on ethnicity). I repeat again this is the haziest part of my mind, and so I'm open to diverse opinions on the subject. My hope would be that the lessoning of country bonds will allow an easier integration into a superstate, and from that, into a world state, of which the basis must be 'equal from the strongest to the weakest' in the distribution of wealth (vs EFFECTIVE aid). I shall attempt to go into this better in the next part of my argument..
Fifthly Lucienism is a code of Morality. In conjunction with the individuals personal code of morality, Lucienism requires a strong dedication and willingness to expel the micro-world fallicy which is extrodinarily difficult to accomplish. In an ongoing process of human growth, it is, in a cynical and growing pessimistic society, a call for an optimism that might only exist in me, and there perhaps corrupted or twisted...but at least it exists...even if only as a figment of my mind...

Part three: So what is Lucienism? - from an economic view.

Capitalism, Communism, Fascism and Enviromentalism all offer various methods of economic structure. Within these, various economic structures were formed, such as the semi-autocratic mix of command economics and private enterprise that developed under the inter war period in despotisms, the completely state owned sector vs the private sector and the other economic questions (Free trade vs Protectionism, Mass production & Taylorism technique advances, Industrialisation etc,Green economics). 

Although my economic knowledge is extremely limited, my inclination is towards Green Economics and Command economics as the soundest source of industrial control, tempered as always by pragmatism. Why do I consider Green Economics particularly necessary? Perhaps the most under-rated of ideologies, Green economics in Lucienist theory must represent a more equal balance between agriculture and industry in those areas of the world currently changing into industrialised states. A primary problem is with the world population increase and the conversion of areas into farmland or industrial land. Reckless planning and actions will lead to damage to the enviroment which might make Earth's land impossible to be used effectively (like Khruschevs virgin soil policy fiasco). My particular beliefs are however that a continuous process of industrialisation or indeed commercialisation, will lead to an eventual shortfall in food production and the agricultural sector. Therefore humanity should begin to join a respect with the enviroment beyond and above a respect for economy, as a respect for harmony should overcome the bonds of money as well. A series of extremely slow changes can lead humanity, as a whole to create a greener, healthier world...but hence comes the necessity of a wolrd ideology, indeed a world government.

Otherwise Lucienism is not bound by economics in any great way as of yet. Further research into economics will be necessary, and the drift towards Green economics is at best rudimentary.  

Part four: Lucienism on Culture and the Media state

 Firstly I'd like to say thank god the majority of photos came out well. Some are a bit too dark in areas on the internet, whereas on my camera they extremely good...but what can you do? I'll see if any light enhancing thing can be used on them. Thats all..

Secondly, what shall I say about Kazan? I know people who hated it and people who loved, people who will choose it for their year in Russia and people who couldn't stand remaining there for a single minute more of their lives...and those were valuable minutes we lost...

My opinion is not typically neutral. I liked Kazan, although it is difficult for me to understand whether I was actually healthier in Kazan or back here. Here I, as an asthmatic, can run, jump, kick and so on...but my intake of fruit and vegetables, my lifestyle choices in fact, put me at a disadvantage of the mean regimentation I had in Russia (more so in the Taize model though). Enough whining about being unhealthy. Kazan's main problem is its transport system. Russian drivers are rather poor at driving, but the fact none of us were run over is purely due to some sort of Russian instinct to prevent crashes...I say this because the crossings (where there were any) were tired, worn out white lines...the crossing lights...nonexistant. Nowhere to be seen were lights even of the inefficent Czech model, which makes a sound while the green man is visable. Unfortunately the noise is short so a blind man crossing would get run over. Life is cheap in Russia, where there are no precautions for the blind visable to the tourist. Also disgraceful was the first series of building  styles enacted by infrastructure workers. Drilling without Ear protection, welding without face protection...and such like...

Life is cheap in Russia, but so is everything else! Since the Russian economic problems, A british pound (which equals 2 american dollars) equals about 50 roubles. (dollar is 25). This is extremely good, since most 'luxury items' were between 80(cheap c.d.'s) to 300 roubles(for Russian dolls). Naturally this does not count items like Platinum plated phones, which reached over 10,000 roubles...but given the rate in the Baltic states for Russian dolls was on the whole £13 or more, albeit for a better selection, this is amazing good! Quality is not as bad as expected, either.  Even computer games work (without multilanguage function though!)

Food: Tartar and Russian cuisine on offer. Some misleading terms used in Kazan though (Swedish smorgesborge...no swedish food). Turkish restaurant could have been Tartar...like the language and customs evident at least from the 17th century migrations to the Ottoman Empire, Tartar and Circassian food appears similar to Turkish. Borsh on the Russian side always a favourite with me, available hot and cold. Not certain about where the meat came from though...I suspect horse for a lot of the food were ate, intermixed with actual beef. Chicken quite well done there, one style even in cornflake covered chicken!
Russia is a land of tea drinkers, both black tea and green tea. Be prepared to drink alot of tea and beer, since these two products constitute all the drinkable water there is! Enjoy (also to try...Russian sweet wine, Non sweet wine (good luck finding this!), Congac,  as many varieties of beer as exist,  and sake...That was the biggest shock of all, NO CHINESE RESTAURANTS! Only Japanese. I felt nationally betrayed, get your act together China! How can we maintain espionage links with Kazan if we don't have a restaurant there?

Beautiful landscape and colours...but the pictures speak for themselves. Loved the trip, loved getting to know the locals and of course the others on my course. Might go to Nizhny for my year...still not decided...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have here a moral question for you peeps. It is on the subject of manipulation.Is manipulation by someone on someone else ever justified?Is manipulation by the state/media/religion/ideology/literature/and any man-created item outside of experience right? Is it even manipulation?Is manipulation of the elements correct?And finally, is manipulation in matters of love correct? What does this type of love tell you about the individual or group in question?Well, I'd best give my answers now. I believe manipulation is justified on people if it is aiming for good. Although good is what the individual or group feels it is, and is not necessarily the true good, I think individual people on the whole are idiots who need to be told what to do. Does this justify manipulation? By my ethical standards, yes. Even if the results are negative, people need to be led, and thats why we form social groups by instinct. We need to educate and evolve ourselves past this need to be manipulated, and even then we manipulate everything in our reality purely by our existance. The elements must be manipulated, to suit humanity. But what is best for humanity? Here we come into the problem of competing manipulation, to which we can only shrug our shoulders and follow the one that appeals to us best. One mistake, and human civilisation is over, so I urge all to think wisely. Love is a matter I leave up to the rest of you to answer, I do not believe I am wise enough in it to explain it at all. Good luck and quick, send me your comments!

REPLY TO JOE SMITH: I would tend towards situation ethics, and consider my choice of manipulation right if it brings about good when forced into such a situation. But then I would have to ask myself the other great question...how much free will do I have which is not manipulated? The answer is I don't have any free will at all, because I am a product of genetics and surroundings, except in the will to do what I want (origination). When the actual event occurs, and I must manipulate my surroundings, I originate what will be done from myself, with a realisation I could do any of the choices I can see possible, but with the different manipulations or experiences I have had pressuring me towards one choice more definately than another. We cannot know whether our form of manipulation is better or good, even if we merely consider what is good for us good. Manipulation, I think, I shall now try and define: Manipulation is (in my view) the effects of one entity on its surroundings, regardless of whether that means another entity or mere objects. It can be dealt with physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. It alters the views of the surroundings as appropriate. An entity can be one person or a group of people, a piece of literature or any other form of or medium capable of manipulation. Also at this point in time I would like to add my mention that this (fairly rocky and not particularly well thought out) challange to the intellect of the readers is written in dedication to a conversation I had with a friend whose girlfriend attempted to manipulate him. I am quite happy that we can have a philosophical/theological discussion on it but I also would like to hear a responce to the question of love and manipulation in particular.

Reply to Valid
My dear Valid, you seem to consider manipulation to be a simple force which has such grand resultants that everyone must be aware not only that they are being manipulated, but also the source of their manipulation. While we can agree that a majority of people are aware that they actually are having their lives and very existance altered by external factors, we cannot agree that this majority can identify this factor, nor in what way they are being manipulated. We cannot base this question purely on assumptions...we must use experience. An end to I think or ya shitaioo, is the only way to solve this.

Reply to KOSTA:
Woops, sorry. I didn't have much time on the internet and no-one except for Ol even e-mailed to me, so tell me why YOU didn't e-mail me to get a reply? I had to walk through bloody Kazan for 20 minutes before going into an overpriced internet cafe so I can buy 30 minutes of time on a computer that ran out half way through... Why must I make the first move, when I had all these problems and such a lack of free time? I had a sore throat for the first two weeks and was coughing all my time there, and we never wrote down anything we agreed upon, so I forgot, the information lost in a haze of other thoughts. I apoligise for failing to email you, but if you'd wanted to communicate, you could have e-mailed me...So :p Also sadly, I didn't have as much free time as I wanted in Kazan... I'll write up about it at a later time. So I apoligise again...indeed, to everyone who I said I would write to and send postcards too. I let you down...And I won't shift the blame for it elsewhere other than my failure to do what I said I would.
On your philisophical musing, I can only say...Thats actually a good answer, a good deconstructionalist approach taken by someone who passed their English literature exam. But the love is split into at least 6 different variations, so I'm told. I have realised one thing though, you are quite right when you say I am rediculously self deprocrating in asking this question. I had ignored the amount of love one can have for material items as well as for other physical entities. Love is really a specialisation within something with enthusiasm comming from within. And I can write this as coldly as I want, thank you,  because an impassioned question leads to all too impassioned responses.

Prague - glorious city of culture.

Dumplings - The local cuisine, beloved by the natives, hated by the British tourists. Beware, in Prague, they have 4 types of these little ball type foods which form the same duty as the Lithuanian Cepelina...to make tourists very, very unhappy!

Prague - music cascades at you from every church and concert hall, while the bridges are beautiful (the Charles bridge is out of a fairy tale). Everywhere one is reminded of the Soviet presence by the sale of Soviet memorabelia, while in various buildings and statues you can see the unique Czech architecture blended with the pompous buildings of the Habsburg times.

The literature though...just reading Jaroslav Hashek's book 'The good soldier Shvejk' has made me appreciate the subtle beauty of central european books, and indeed humour.

Well thats my short report on that wonderful city. Next stop will be Kazan in Russia. Oh and because it's me Luke, I can't stop but say 'And one day I'll get to Bulgaria!'

Hello, any poetry editors out there? Just rather curious as to the general opinion of you people out there? Well my home bound zemstvos, what do you think? Poetry good or bad? I expecft you to send me some good answers, and the best one will be typed up and posted, forever to live in immortality. The topic is general poetry. Enjoy!