Paradox of the Will

quote:
....are you meaning you're conflicted because a republican like Machiavelli wrote a guide on how to be a totalitarian monarch? there were quite a few pamphlets being published during his time, his is only notable because its a 'how to' manual, the others just talk about how great it would be. he's an interesting guy because we're not sure what his motives were for writing it, there are a lot of interesting theories that go deeper than him just being opportunistic.


Re; italics

In factuality, the question you revealed to me, colin, demostrates perfectly that it proves you understood fully the content of my message. Besides. . . the truth is subjective as my opinion is only one. A++.

Re; Merk

In all honesty, I cannot make what is the matter any clearer than I already had done. I simply stated that no one here is accusing you of anything (relating to my defense of colin persecuting you). What about the post confuses you? I said: because you keep back-peddling on the same issue that colin seems to provide you with alternatives which you've vehemently refused. That is to say, no matter what colin said you've rejurgitated the position you take. . . and that's fine. It says you beleive in what you think passionately. Please - no need to thank me. I felt obliged to clarify.

About the police-pratice jargon. . . don't take offense. It was nothing personal. That's all that needs be said about it. I said it to infer from the context I explained above^.

As for the Italian example, it was intended as a basis for modernist thought, from which I take Machiavelli as my example. Machiavelli supports the 'ideological school of thought' we've been discussing throughout this entire thread. The Prince is, IN MY OPINION, beyond a reasonable doubt a fascist's manual. There is nothing wrong with it. I use Italians as an example, relating to the fascist ideology which Machiavelli purported. You already mentioned yourself that fascist thought originated in Italy. I do not see why that should surprise you? Remember: fascists do not make an example of themselves. I stated already that fascist thought is based on free-thinking models. My observations of how Italians have been influenced, is entirely based on interpretation of Machiavelli's teachings. I simply cannot instruct this any clearer to you merk.


Quote
yeah i have difficulty with your rational of argument. you make an unorthodox statement and we're supposed to provide evidence to counter it.

That was either an attempt of irony bemusing merk, or a serious jest accoring to my use of rational thought? I will answer the latter. I believe that answer to your question is in my response above, if not to a tee, pretty close to the solution? There is nothing unorthodox in my opinion, because the subject matter of Machiavelli altogether is contingent with fascist ideology, which is the cause for Italian fascist movement, hierarchal, material ideology, as fundamental Italian archetype. That is the thesis of my argument(s) which are undeniably, (and presumably) presented therein.

=============================

Quote
I have trouble interpreting fascism as anything but a group dynamic.

^That I find hard enough not to reason against, because you're right, and I absolutely agree with you. So, to make this fair. . . I'm going to give back to you the 'confusion' you offered I hope I can at least try to clarify my position - in relating to your deductions.

What I liked about what you write re; both my opinion of Machiavelli and for lack of a better term what classify as "proletariate philosophy" credit to Marxist thought.

Both, run parallel and I find juxtaposition that we trace it as a paradox. . . if you can follow with me on this, let's call it for sake of argument a 'paradox of the will' where all men should be held as equals? Hypothetically, yes - we say of course 'why not', eh?

So, when I look at fascism based on both of your interpretations as conducive to my arguments, reflect rather identically, for no specific reason other than they represent models of a power struggle between man vs. hypocrisy. From that view point, let us now assume that beyond this rhetoric, we can identify with both Machiavelli vs. Marxist thought as one in the same for sake of argument. Ideologically, we are speaking of a different kind of power struggle, as you mentioned I failed to provide with evidence?

The 'paradox' I spoke of 'the will' is what binds the 2 different schools of thought. I think that behavior be it, machiavellian vs. proletariate is a power struggle. That should answer your question of "group dynamics". . . let me explain the 'why' with the 'how' silmultaneously happen? They happen both as interpretations; if you could imagine as equals man vs. man placed in a room, one with machiavelli's archetype of fascist ideology, the other is strictly proletariate. That is a power struggle. My point is, if unless you combine the two as working within a system, fascist thought as you mention is a 'group dynamic' will never prevail. Therefore, if you follow this as evidence toward an end, that end being fascist ideology, only one can be thought of in terms of self-interest. To clarify that 'end' albeit a desired - result or goal - the condition of a fascist movement is always present. Remember, in a room of different fascist thinkers, in this case the man vs. man act as seperate. However, the indifference between the ideologies can only create one thing, a fascist model against the state. No matter that the interpretations seem dismissive of each other, that dynamic will co-exist between rational schools of thought. The end result is not exactly the same, but, only one will prevail. . . in their minds. That is to say, each one or the other illustrates their fascist ideology as the critical proximity toward a group dynamic. Therefore, both will ulitmately lead it's own demise hitherto a 'group dynamic'. They believe they've achieved the same ends. Here is where the entire argument comes to futility: if you understand this next, everything in the argument will make sense to you. The answer is, no matter which ideology negates the other, - BUT - neither of them can in negating your autonomy.

~end argument

Colin + Mike ^ that I hope illustrates only some of the changes as you seem to have felt at odds with my arguements. If not, please know I've tried my best as has been no less done by.

P.S. This is going to sound as paranoia, however, I believe in every word I write. I know I can teach these concepts - and - I have so. The reason for my doubt is simple, since I've always been one to challenge former profs on no uncertain terms from university based on these types of subjective beliefs, what I learned is that I refuse to run from being questioned. When I think of former profs, they'd balk (for their own "reasons" albeit hypocritically) it was copping me out. I just have the feeling some of you might feel belittled as if I'm making things up? But - I am not whatsoever. This is only to give me peace of mind, that you know I'm aware.