On Juvenile Delinquency

So, here we are then. Another clearly 'True Crime' inspired headline. But here too, the content is ... more or less something else. It does stick out to me however, that Crime or Criminality as a concept really pops up ... let's just say: Everywhere.
And by the time that that includes Law Enforcement - so, Law Enforcement doing the Crime - we could speak of some ... virtual dead end of Social Evolution. But there also doesn't seem to be an out. It's not as much a dead end, but just a wall built around the maze.

Anyhow. I'm merely an amateur when it comes to these things.
Today we visited a Museum of sorts dedicated to one of the "Sons of Stuttgart" - a, from what I hear, somewhat famous philosopher known as 'Hegel'. And from what I gather, he certainly was onto something. I find it amusing how he and Schopenhauer apparently really didn't like each other, though that was more so on behalf of the latter - and I suppose it is that key context that may allow me to get a little smarter about him. However, what I learned is ... herein only applied for comedy relief. Just so for me to say, that I'm a philosopher, sortof. So, I do as a philosopher does. Which is: To make claims and let the rest figure them out.


Well, it may be a little bit more than that - but, thinking of it that way actually caters to the point I had noted down for this headline:

The Social Construct

Now, as for the connection between Headline and Point - it's a thesis you may find scattered around my work. In simplest terms there's a kind of exchange, we may call it, between society and the individual. And when we talk of Juvenile delinquency, terms or concepts such as "lack of/bad father figure" or "bad environment/friends" are pretty much inescapable. So, the society we provide also nurtures our kids - inevitably - and yea, I guess that's kind of what the culture war at least pretends to be all about.
Here, at the long end of the road of considerations, I find the pivotal conclusion to be that, that a good upbringing is all about equipping the future with the tools they need to navigate the world. Much like a hunter would teach their offspring all the tricks of the hunt. Except ... we're not hunters anymore. But on top of that, there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about what ... our society needs. On the surface, that may be a bad thing. But ... I have to believe that we can work things out nonetheless.

And yea. This topic is going to follow us around for quite a bit. Like - whenever we discuss society, what it is, has to be, how to change it or what to change it into - it's intrinsically linked to it.

I also want to give you an example of sorts: Think of the concept of a Berserker as I grew up to understand it. A Berserker practically describes a person with some sort of hidden potential that gets triggered under various circumstances. We may call it Battle-Trance, Bloodlust or whatever. I don't want to drag the concept of a Super-Saiyan into that, but in essence - it kind of is another example. Except I think it's more nuanced than that. Like ... how Martial Arts is all about honing one's skills so ... all that is more about controlling the Berserker.
(I put the Super Saiyan on a pedestal because to me the Saiyan is put onto a pedestal, being the one singular candidate for the "Pinnacle Warrior". Not just "Apex". No, pinnacle. That because the hidden strength of a Saiyan is in resonance with "the Greater Will (of the Greater Cosmos)".)
Anyhow - imagine it was real. Like ... let it be some ancient evolutionary trait possibly linked to adrenaline. How would a Berserker feel, grow up or ultimately exist in a world like today?
Maybe it's a bad example. Like, everything about it is like a Red Flag waiting to get raised - but maybe that's just our modern bias.


Like, when we think of the ideals of the modern human being - as like, heralded from every rooftop - the ones we learn simply by looking around - there's a lot of spaces one can explore. But ultimately it's: Start a Family, Retire, the End. And that's ... totally reasonable. No matter how hard one might try - in the end, we all roll into this dead-end.

And yet, how we get to the end - that's basically "the Problem".


But how did we get here? Like ... the Social Construct first of all just exists. Or, to some the concept of it may be so abstract, they doubt that it does. Like, there wasn't some point in history where we got together and built it. Similarly some people speak of "the Social Contract" - some abstract agreement none of us ever actually had to agree with.
And it seems like ... a source of emboldenment. To say that the world around us is wrong - that can act as a catalyst to set something within us free. To start ... venturing beyond the conceived boundaries. For better or worse. But I want to take a different approach. One I kind of keep emphasizing. Though the way around to it is a little different when aligned to this context.

So, regarding 'the Lack' - we may never be fully "there". In that ... perfect world where everything is OK. Like, we haven't had it in the past. We may delude ourselves into thinking as much - such as people who blame all our sicknesses on the existence of medicine. So, the Plague didn't exist? It's more likely that the problem is human nature. And by digging deeper into it, by making it the standard we should live by, we ... cannot break the cycle.
Some may think that a hard and "rational" approach is the right way. To cull us from the weak and useless and undesirables. But if that's the behavior we are to adapt, how would Paradise look alike? One has to understand, that the many afflictions we are plagued by may very well also be part of "the Shadow" of the transcendental. Strength and Intelligence - those are just extensions of Wanting and Thought. And we're not all equals. And does it sound like what Jesus preached, saying that we should be hostile towards individuals that can't meet our very own expectations? Not in my book!

But so we get to "the Philosopher's angle".


Philosophy, as I understand it, is difficult. Everyone is capable of it - but not everyone is capable of properly grasping the quality of their output, as in the greater context. It's like ... there's common sense and then there's ... actual sense. To stress that there's some ... boundary. One that isn't merely hypothetical. We can see it in modern day "politics". So when it comes to gender. There's the one camp that's convinced that there are only two genders. That's common sense and everyone who claims otherwise is crazy. But then people who actually look into what can be looked into to attach that sense to facts ... find that it's not actually quite that simple.
Similarly there's math. We start out with plus, minus, multiplication and division - and that's it. But then some mathematician comes around with stuff like "Imaginary Numbers" or "Multiplying Matrices". I mean ... in an attempt to get a grip on Geometric functions in 3D space I dug a little into the matter of Analytical Geometry. And there's that method for calculating the intersection of two lines. I think. The Gauss Algorithm it's called I suppose. And ... as I was going through the steps I was thinking that this book is like ... trying to pull a joke on me. For a moment I was worried that I picked up something that's more fantasy than science. Thinking: "OK, Maybe Analytical Geometry isn't a serious field of mathematics". But ... I did the math and it checks out. It works!

And to this day ... Matrices are just ... like ... absolute Chef's kiss to me. I mean, it's like magic, what these things can do.
Ultimately it makes sense - there's a certain logic there. But sometimes it's still just ... weird. I mean ... one step further we get to Quaternions - sortof something like "Imaginary Matrices" that exist in their own pocket dimension. It's wild! But it checks out!
And yea - I'm definitely not alone with this impression. I mean, people - legitimate mathematicians - are on record calling some math trick a ... Work of the Devil or something along those lines.
To the point that Quaternions are, or have been for some time if I understood correctly, a Mathematical Pariah.


We could call this boundary a "Membrane of Ignorance". That is: the 'simplified' knowledge that exists as 'common sense' has a certain potential. We extrapolate our understanding of the world from that knowledge - and the general mission of science can be described as "Analyzing those extrapolations for accuracy".
Say ... Quantum Mechanics or the Higgs Boson. There is a common sense about those things - though, if you think about it: Most of us do not have any real experience or proper insight into those matters. So, Quantum Mechanics can be understood for a lot of things. Similarly the Higgs Boson - a.k.a. "the God Particle" has back in the day entered the Zeitgeist as some kind of "Anti-God". The moment where Religion died or something like that.
And thanks to Quantum Mechanics we may, based on Common Sense, believe that Time Travel is real, that we can exist in two states at the same time, that physics stops working if nobody is looking; And possibly even more nonsensical things.
I mean - there are some abstract parallels, like ... I can be happy and sad at the same time, or ... "God is always looking" - but that then has nothing to do with actual Quantum Mechanics. It's just 'the Shadow'. Or the light. Whatever.


And so we get to this matter of "the Elite". Here in terms of Academia. So, while everyone is capable of Philosophy - a person may be exposed to various kinds of common sentiments. And while they exist as part of the 'common' sense, there also is a higher sense. Like ... an actual sense derived from actually putting an effort into producing a rigid analysis of this and that. So, a curious mind wouldn't have access to those thoughts while being among 'the common folks'. It would have access to its own thoughts - but handing them over to a commoner would be like ... throwing pearls before the pig. Like, what does some Farmer care about Hegelian Dialectics? They'd have looked at his first manuscripts and been like ... yea, but that doesn't help me grow my crops! Please go away!
So, one would be looking for an environment to engage with these matters. To learn of things that already have been written - to then put their effort into building upon those things, rather than wasting time on doing stuff that has already been done.

Now, the 'common' person would - I at least see that sentiment shared ever so often - 'say' (not ask or wonder) "And what good has it done?" - to argue that it's pointless. That there is no practical application. But ... yea. In this instance that's ... very on point because Hegel is very "anti-material" we might say. And a fact of the matter is: The mind, or what we would so call "Spirit" (not necessarily THE SPIRIT) exists. And in that facet, the 'common' mindset is like ... condemning us into ignorance.

But sure ... maybe that development was mismanaged, if there ever was a 'manager', but that's now where we actually get to "the thing". Sort of.


I mean, we may imagine some "Manager" that manages these things. Hence we come up with terms such as "Shadow Government" or whatever. Inventing stories about Freemasons and Illuminati and whatever. And while some of those stories contain at least a little bit of truth, what these tales fail to consider is what we nowadays would call "emergent [stuff]". Like, whatever ideals or beliefs are being 'exalted' for whatever reason had to also be conceived at some point. Then a person had to somehow express that conception. Others then could partake of that expression and engage with it. Agreements and Disagreements emerge - and eventually some things float to the top and others sink to the bottom.

In this idea, we may think of the human collective - similar to how the Bible presents it - as of a Body. Within it, "the Establishment" is something that also emerges automatically. You cannot curb this - as the establishment of a common basis for cooperation is like ... an innate emergent property of a society.

And what happens when 'the Establishment' decides that these spiritual endeavors are bad? Well, Islam had a golden age - until people were running around saying that Math is evil!

The issue here is where the power manifests itself. So, if we're discussing Plato for instance - people who do can eventually determine who can follow and who cannot. Now, if those having the discussion are in control, those who can't follow are left out, let's say. If those that can't follow are in control, those that can are left out. And there is no inherent right or wrong here. It's just the way it is. And so are the consequences.

Anyhow - in as far as philosophers get to exchange their ideas, that's like synapses of the brain firing. An idea gets tossed into the ether, someone else comments on that and tosses that into the ether, eventually the other one learns of that and adjusts their idea - and all that ideally continues until some consensus can be reached. And if that doesn't happen in isolation, but as accessible to everyone who's curious, these processes can further spark interest and inspiration. And that's roughly what I think 'Enlightenment' means. That ... "European", "historic", "pre-modern" version of it.
And anyone who wants to snuff this out is like advocating for brain-death.


But now. Finally. We can get to the thing.

One fundamental aspect of this development is curiosity. And I suppose that the laymen may easily mistake the Philosopher's curiosity for authority. That impression of authority may further be carried by the standing that these and other philosophers enjoy in academics. But it's not like ... some shadow emperor just decided that Hegel was cool. From what I know about Hegel and Schopenhauer - I'd be on team Hegel. And ... that simply because I find Hegel's stuff cool and interesting and enlightened - whereas Schopenhauer ... doesn't trigger that appreciation for me. And I think that that's ... why Hegel was overall appreciated more than the other. He might even be the Einstein, or Newton, of Philosophy. Whereas Schopenhauer ... is more like the Ebenezer Scrooge of Philosophy.
But ... it's not like I have the width of insight needed to make that assertion. I however take it from what seems to be the general opinion on the matter. Or, 'consequences' rather than just 'opinion'.
Anyhow ...

So, curiosity implies an absence of knowledge and an urge to remedy that lack, whereas authority implies a presence of ... "knowledge" and a motion to capitalize on that presence. And that's the key statement here.

Like so ... I'm ... troubled sometimes. By the weight that's put on my shoulders. There are so and so many things where I don't have any answers, or where I have to guess, or where I have to say that "it's complicated". And that's in stark contrast to what might be expected based on how things may appear. Like so, I'm troubled and thus motivated to find certainty. Or certainties. Things that I can confidently put forth, saying that that's the plan and that doing so and so will certainly lead to great success. And within this state of being troubled, there's stress. And that stress ever so often takes me to an image. It's the image of Moses slamming his rod against the rock to summon water from it. Like, I could - well, maybe I actually can't, but for the sake of argument - just pretend. I mean, it seems to work really well. But in doing so, I'd also remove all the depth and nuance from "the process" or how to call it - being effectively no better than someone running around yelling that Math is from the Devil.


And to me there isn't much that's more aggravating than people self-righteously demanding - effectively - for things to be less complicated than they actually are. It doesn't work that way!

And so is it with certainty. If we could ever only commit to things that were 100% and absolutely certain ... well, OK, technically we'd still be living in Eden then. Or would we?

Anyhow - I guess what all this says is, that the Social Construct was in fact 'built'. Little by little. Wittingly or not. And everywhere it happened a little differently.


And now that we see problems with what has built, we should grow past them - as opposed to calling for a decapitation!

Bottom Line

Kids, or the Youth, do as they do. Eventually they venture into the world, eventually they find examples - idols (not as in idolatry - in German we have a different word for that), a group to cling to; And that's also one way of looking at the whole text thus far.

And I suppose there's a lot of things we can learn from that. Things obvious enough so it'd be a waste of time for me to go through all of that. Also somewhat obvious is the matter, that there's no clear Plan here. Or so, for this particular issue. But there's a goal. If we can agree that we want to reach that goal, we can also agree that we kind of have to re-invent the ways in which we cooperate. And yea, in a sense we can yet again derive some anti-capitalistic sentiments from that.

That because ... Capitalism is a way of cooperation. Cooperation that is externalized through an agreement in that money has value - though, did we actually agree here? Or is it really just a more or less convenient happenstance?


Anyhow. I ... also happen to be scared. A few month ago things may have been more optimistic, but now that the shackles of a Dystopian world order are taking shape - in that authority with a considerable degree of force "behind" it is imposing itself upon the geopolitical stage - we have to contend with the possibility of ... becoming targets of violence. The way things play out in my mind ... all we can do is ask ... Law Enforcement or the Military to then not act on those commands; Which is followed by the question for ... what obstacles present themselves. And I can't make any promises. I can point at scripture and prophecy - which I have to follow up by a shrug while having a really uncertainty signaling look on my face.

What I do have is resolve. If you so will, my fist is raised - singing Anti-Fascist anthems as it were - and that not because I have nothing to lose. It's even because there's some things that I do not want to lose. And one of them is hope!


So, maybe it's a little early for starting an anti-fascist rebellion, but ... yea, I'm still Anti-Fascist and am kind of sort of advocating for a (peaceful) revolution. But - I guess there's a fighter in me. So, that's one of the things that stirs in me. So, I can't promise you safety. I can't say which blood will taint a third of the waters red - or however it says. Or whether that's to be understood in a more symbolical manner. That may be your demon(s) to conquer. "Rip and Tear"!