The idea that "Regard for power implies disregard for those without power" is essentially a character issue. Typically, oppressors conceal their intentions until after they have attained a position of power.
The disturbing thing about those who support oppressors is their eagerness to embrace dogma. (The literal meaning of dogma in ancient Greek was "something that seems true.")
That said, never underestimate the ability of an individual or organization to gain widespread support for a screwy idea that supposedly explains how the real world works or promises betterment for the human condition. A case in point is the diet/heart hypothesis; the idea that saturated fats clog arteries. (web search- Glen D. Lawrence saturated fat) After it was proposed, that idea was vigorously promoted by the American Heart Association and quickly became enshrined in textbooks and embalmed in the minds of academics and their students. This particular development brings to mind a poster marketed by Despair Inc. which reads, "PEER REVIEW A rigorous process through which often dubious ideas gain broad scientific consensus before becoming unquestionable dogma." (web search - Barrio consensus science)
Comment found in Black Beauty by Anna Sewall: "Don't you know that ignorance is the worst thing in the World next to wickedness. And Heaven alone knows which causes the most mischief."
Medicine, for all of the good it does, consists of treatments for disease. I, for one, am grateful for those treatments because, out of ignorance, my body has sustained considerable damage through the years. Once I figured out what I was doing wrong and corrected my mistakes, I was able to become metabolically healthy. In retrospect, had I known to limit my intake of linoleic acid earlier in life, I could have saved myself considerable discomfort, inconvenience, and expense.
So, in terms of translating research into practical usefulness this is the basic problem.
(2011) "Eicosanoids are major players in the pathogenesis of several common diseases, with either overproduction or imbalance (e.g. between thromboxanes and prostacyclins) often leading to worsening of disease symptoms. Both the total rate of eicosanoid production and the balance between eicosanoids with opposite effects are strongly dependent on dietary factors, such as the daily intakes of various eicosanoid precursor fatty acids, and also on the intakes of several antioxidant nutrients including selenium and sulphur amino acids. Even though the underlying biochemical mechanisms have been thoroughly studied for more than 30 years, neither the agricultural sector nor medical practitioners have shown much interest in making practical use of the abundant high-quality research data now available. (web search - Anna Haug Animal Products)
(1996) "Excessive signaling of arachidonic acid (AA) metabolites has been associated with various chronic degenerative or autoimmune diseases, and intervention with the metabolism of AA is widely employed therapeutically in these afflictions. In essence, AA is the most biologically active unsaturated fatty acid in higher animals. Its concentration in membranes and its magnitude of effects depend on its amount, or that of its precursors and analogues, in the diet. The tendency of the field of nutrition to ignore the role of dietary AA will optimistically be reversed in the future." The article also said, "The underlying rationale for this symposium is that dietary AA is perhaps the single most important nutritional determinant in regulating AA levels in Americans. This may ultimately account in part for the striking differences in chronic diseases between strict vegetarians and the bulk of the omnivorous population." (web search - Biological Effects of Arachidonic Acid: Introduction)
Regard for power implies disregard for those without power
At first blush, the statement has merit. But from an evolutionary standpoint, hierarchy within “lower“ animals is absolutely necessary. Amongst wolves, lions, and primates the superior leader is required. Whether male or female the good of the group is paramount, otherwise the subjugated members would battle ultimately to their group’s detriment. Survival of the species is more important than the individual members.
In humans, presumably the highest order of evolution this is manifest in bosses and leaders. They work for the betterment of the organization as well as the rank and file. Without a decision maker, who hopefully graciously accepts input from those “without his/her” higher authority, the amalgam of a multitude of ideas would result in little accomplishment. This hierarchy is a necessary benefit and is dependent upon the individual leader(s). In no way does this inherently denigrate the worker’s value, respect,or contribution(s). Respect for the leader in no way diminishes the importance of the rank and file. They are dependent upon each other. Ben Hourani MD, MBA – extra large
Please email it to the sensible Medicine email. It is on the about page. Just let me know if you have any problems. Thanks for taking up the invitation.
After half century of reflection, I finally discovered what I believe to be the ultimate context-free definition of right vs. left, in quite general terms, one that transcends all cultures, all times, and delves directly into the spirit of the divide:
The right embraces the powerful, the left embraces the powerless.
Such a definition is completely general and transcends context, because those who are perceived as "the powerful" or "the powerless" also vary greatly with context (time and place). Every right-wing philosophy is underpinned by the essence that society should rally and be organized around the interests of the powerful, the "winners," the "job creators," and so on. Every left-wing philosophy is rooted in the idea that the powerless form the bedrock of society, the "salt of the Earth" carry the world on their shoulders, etc.. Right-wing philosophers like Ayn Rand view the powerless as a ball and chain, a drag upon the powerful champions of society. Left-wing philosophers like Karl Marx view the powerful as exploitative, appropriating the lives of the powerless owing to their position in society.
Consistent with this definition, the supposition that "regard for power implies disregard for those without power" suggests that the right vs. left divide of human society is irreconcilable. The converse should also be true: "regard for the powerless implies disregard for those with power." Is it true?
Perhaps. Such a rift appears to be fundamentally rooted in human nature, some persons in every society gravitate toward the powerful, while others feel empathy for the powerless. Some seek authority, while others abhor centralized power. Some believe that a rich man has less chance of advancing to heaven than navigating a camel through the "eye of the needle," while others view all exercise of power by the powerful as fundamentally overbearing and unjust.
The above definition of right vs. left explains why both of the supposed "right" and "left" in mainstream US politics (i.e., Republicans vs. Democrats, respectively) are invariably right-wing. Both parties pay lip service (only) to their alleged cause, however, both are backed by powerful factions of oligarchs. US politics has devolved into a silly fight between powerful factions, akin to a football game between Yale and Harvard. The fight serves to keep everyone divided, and the perpetuation of the most culturally divisive issues (guns, abortion, etc.) serves to distract the public from recognizing that they really have no democracy, no choice...no hope.
And...what is the position of those who vie for admission to the University of Chicago, or pays attention to, and places value in, what such a powerful institution thinks about them? The answer is clear: Any who seek admission to University of Chicago clearly possess a right-wing mindset.
"Kente cloth" liberals are fully right-wing, and pretend they're not. For them, identity politics is a façade that excuses them for ignoring larger deeper genuinely left-wing concerns (e.g., class war). In the modern times we see Democrats in particular taking a hard turn toward authoritarianism, abandonment of civil liberties as a core concern, and embrace of the security state.
The idea that "Regard for power implies disregard for those without power" is essentially a character issue. Typically, oppressors conceal their intentions until after they have attained a position of power.
The disturbing thing about those who support oppressors is their eagerness to embrace dogma. (The literal meaning of dogma in ancient Greek was "something that seems true.")
That said, never underestimate the ability of an individual or organization to gain widespread support for a screwy idea that supposedly explains how the real world works or promises betterment for the human condition. A case in point is the diet/heart hypothesis; the idea that saturated fats clog arteries. (web search- Glen D. Lawrence saturated fat) After it was proposed, that idea was vigorously promoted by the American Heart Association and quickly became enshrined in textbooks and embalmed in the minds of academics and their students. This particular development brings to mind a poster marketed by Despair Inc. which reads, "PEER REVIEW A rigorous process through which often dubious ideas gain broad scientific consensus before becoming unquestionable dogma." (web search - Barrio consensus science)
Comment found in Black Beauty by Anna Sewall: "Don't you know that ignorance is the worst thing in the World next to wickedness. And Heaven alone knows which causes the most mischief."
Medicine, for all of the good it does, consists of treatments for disease. I, for one, am grateful for those treatments because, out of ignorance, my body has sustained considerable damage through the years. Once I figured out what I was doing wrong and corrected my mistakes, I was able to become metabolically healthy. In retrospect, had I known to limit my intake of linoleic acid earlier in life, I could have saved myself considerable discomfort, inconvenience, and expense.
So, in terms of translating research into practical usefulness this is the basic problem.
(2011) "Eicosanoids are major players in the pathogenesis of several common diseases, with either overproduction or imbalance (e.g. between thromboxanes and prostacyclins) often leading to worsening of disease symptoms. Both the total rate of eicosanoid production and the balance between eicosanoids with opposite effects are strongly dependent on dietary factors, such as the daily intakes of various eicosanoid precursor fatty acids, and also on the intakes of several antioxidant nutrients including selenium and sulphur amino acids. Even though the underlying biochemical mechanisms have been thoroughly studied for more than 30 years, neither the agricultural sector nor medical practitioners have shown much interest in making practical use of the abundant high-quality research data now available. (web search - Anna Haug Animal Products)
(1996) "Excessive signaling of arachidonic acid (AA) metabolites has been associated with various chronic degenerative or autoimmune diseases, and intervention with the metabolism of AA is widely employed therapeutically in these afflictions. In essence, AA is the most biologically active unsaturated fatty acid in higher animals. Its concentration in membranes and its magnitude of effects depend on its amount, or that of its precursors and analogues, in the diet. The tendency of the field of nutrition to ignore the role of dietary AA will optimistically be reversed in the future." The article also said, "The underlying rationale for this symposium is that dietary AA is perhaps the single most important nutritional determinant in regulating AA levels in Americans. This may ultimately account in part for the striking differences in chronic diseases between strict vegetarians and the bulk of the omnivorous population." (web search - Biological Effects of Arachidonic Acid: Introduction)
Regard for power implies disregard for those without power
At first blush, the statement has merit. But from an evolutionary standpoint, hierarchy within “lower“ animals is absolutely necessary. Amongst wolves, lions, and primates the superior leader is required. Whether male or female the good of the group is paramount, otherwise the subjugated members would battle ultimately to their group’s detriment. Survival of the species is more important than the individual members.
In humans, presumably the highest order of evolution this is manifest in bosses and leaders. They work for the betterment of the organization as well as the rank and file. Without a decision maker, who hopefully graciously accepts input from those “without his/her” higher authority, the amalgam of a multitude of ideas would result in little accomplishment. This hierarchy is a necessary benefit and is dependent upon the individual leader(s). In no way does this inherently denigrate the worker’s value, respect,or contribution(s). Respect for the leader in no way diminishes the importance of the rank and file. They are dependent upon each other. Ben Hourani MD, MBA – extra large
Send me a draft if you want. sensiblemedicine2022@gmail.com
Where IS Waldo?!?
How do we get it to you?
Please email it to the sensible Medicine email. It is on the about page. Just let me know if you have any problems. Thanks for taking up the invitation.
After half century of reflection, I finally discovered what I believe to be the ultimate context-free definition of right vs. left, in quite general terms, one that transcends all cultures, all times, and delves directly into the spirit of the divide:
The right embraces the powerful, the left embraces the powerless.
Such a definition is completely general and transcends context, because those who are perceived as "the powerful" or "the powerless" also vary greatly with context (time and place). Every right-wing philosophy is underpinned by the essence that society should rally and be organized around the interests of the powerful, the "winners," the "job creators," and so on. Every left-wing philosophy is rooted in the idea that the powerless form the bedrock of society, the "salt of the Earth" carry the world on their shoulders, etc.. Right-wing philosophers like Ayn Rand view the powerless as a ball and chain, a drag upon the powerful champions of society. Left-wing philosophers like Karl Marx view the powerful as exploitative, appropriating the lives of the powerless owing to their position in society.
Consistent with this definition, the supposition that "regard for power implies disregard for those without power" suggests that the right vs. left divide of human society is irreconcilable. The converse should also be true: "regard for the powerless implies disregard for those with power." Is it true?
Perhaps. Such a rift appears to be fundamentally rooted in human nature, some persons in every society gravitate toward the powerful, while others feel empathy for the powerless. Some seek authority, while others abhor centralized power. Some believe that a rich man has less chance of advancing to heaven than navigating a camel through the "eye of the needle," while others view all exercise of power by the powerful as fundamentally overbearing and unjust.
The above definition of right vs. left explains why both of the supposed "right" and "left" in mainstream US politics (i.e., Republicans vs. Democrats, respectively) are invariably right-wing. Both parties pay lip service (only) to their alleged cause, however, both are backed by powerful factions of oligarchs. US politics has devolved into a silly fight between powerful factions, akin to a football game between Yale and Harvard. The fight serves to keep everyone divided, and the perpetuation of the most culturally divisive issues (guns, abortion, etc.) serves to distract the public from recognizing that they really have no democracy, no choice...no hope.
And...what is the position of those who vie for admission to the University of Chicago, or pays attention to, and places value in, what such a powerful institution thinks about them? The answer is clear: Any who seek admission to University of Chicago clearly possess a right-wing mindset.
I love this reply, but I’m not sure how to square the final paragraph with the profound liberal tilt of the students at all the selective colleges.
"Kente cloth" liberals are fully right-wing, and pretend they're not. For them, identity politics is a façade that excuses them for ignoring larger deeper genuinely left-wing concerns (e.g., class war). In the modern times we see Democrats in particular taking a hard turn toward authoritarianism, abandonment of civil liberties as a core concern, and embrace of the security state.