There Is Always a Party Line

There is always a party line. The only question is whether or not it is any good.

I.e., the only question is whether or not it is true.

Most party lines are somewhat mistaken, so somewhat false; for, we see now as if through a clouded glass, and but darkly.

There are then two tests of a party line. The first is logical. Is it consistent and coherent? Does it refute itself? Does one of its propositions contradict another? If so, it is false; for the world is both coherent and consistent (this being the only way to obtain any world, properly so called).

The second test is practical. Does it work? In other words: no matter how beautiful and therefore alluring it is, no matter how consistent and coherent it is, does it actually work out in practice? If not, it might pertain to some other world, but not to ours.

The first test is of possibility. An incoherent or inconsistent party line can’t work in any possible world. It is not logically coherent, and cannot therefore be enacted, by anyone, in any cosmos.

The second test is of compossibility. A coherent consistent party line must be workable and potentially successful in this our own world.

If a line has passed the first test, then and only then has it any shot at passing the second.

Most party lines of the modern age fail both tests.

Most traditional party lines pass both. They must have, or they could never have survived long enough to become traditional.

Res ipsa loquitur.

+++++++

PS: As there is always a party line, so is there also always a party: a nomenklatura – a class of namers – who by their acts and especially their public utterances shape the narrative by which every society describes itself to itself, and who determine what society may and may not notice in support of that narrative.

9 thoughts on “There Is Always a Party Line

  1. Pingback: There Is Always a Party Line | Reaction Times

  2. I agree for sedentary States; but tribal hunter gatherers are based on families not parties. I think Heaven will also be ‘organinised’ like an ideal family – based on love; not like a state – based on laws. So, there may be a difference between what is expedient in a mortal life, and the nature of eternal life. No parties in Heaven…

    • Absolutely, but for two quibbles.

      In an innocent traditional culture such as those of the hunter-gatherers, there is a party line, but no one is aware of it because everyone is in the party. So it isn’t really a party. This is what I think Marx was hoping communism would eventually achieve.

      In Heaven, the Party Line is the Will of God, but again everyone is in the Party – in this case consciously so, having chosen it – so again, there isn’t really a party. Not in the political sense, anyway. Heaven is what people hope to achieve when they throw a big party.

  3. The English historian Maurice Cowling called this “public doctrine.” These are the things that “go without saying” in a society, that are “needless to say.” His project was to show that liberal societies had such a doctrine in spite of their claim to being “open societies.” He didn’t use the term (his last volume came out in the 1990s), but public doctrine is “politically correct.” I’m sure you have noticed that anyone who openly boasts that they are not politically correct is very low status, although there are many hypocrites among persons of moderate status.

  4. ‘The second test is practical. Does it work? In other words: no matter how beautiful and therefore alluring it is, no matter how consistent and coherent it is, does it actually work out in practice? If not, it might pertain to some other world, but not to ours.’

    Feynman said essentially the same thing from the point of view of a physicist.
    See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

    • Spot on. The world must be consistent and coherent in order to be a world in the first place. The practical test then amounts to a test of the mutual consistence and coherence between world and model thereof.

  5. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 07/28/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.