SEARCH

edit SideBar

Like a hamster in its spinning wheel...

"As a hamster spinning its wheel in its own cage, a cult member has no real understanding of the consequences of his actions."

(From ex-recruit Giselle)

On such a "planet", its inhabitants are like trapped inside a loop... forever.

Posting by ex-LCer "Shadok" on FactNet's LaRouche message board, Sun., July 29, 2007, 12:22 PM

Speaking of rats and mazes...

It [a LaRouche internal memo previously posted] reminds me of an internal memo Lyn wrote nearly a quarter century ago: RIGOR: METHOD OR MORTIS.

It's all about so-called "latticework" and "formal fallacies"...
LaRouche the logician explains quite clearly how "logical fallacies" based on an "imaginary logical loop" can take control of some "human-rat" like trapped in a mental maze, a labyrinth...forever.
This maze is, in fact, Lyndon LaRouche's world...but the rat-man is not capable of realizing that, [or] so LaRouche hopes.
Here is what he wrote:

"Ask yourself what occurs to the mind of a victim, if that human individual is subjected to a very intensive equivalent of putting a laboratory-rat daily through a very elaborate maze. Imagine that the rat must start each day along a new track, cross none of the points of intersection of the maze he crossed on any preceding day, and must, each day, return through the maze to the point from which he started that day. On those days the poor, tortured rat's choice of sequence does not permit him to return to the starting-point of the day' s excursion, "generously" allow the poor, tormented rat-man to regain his starting-point by inventing one imaginary syllogism which connects the blind-end of his sequence to the starting-point. At the end, let the rat-man run through a sequence based on those imaginary syllogisms' presumed consistency with the first day's starting-point; force poor rat-man to construct one additional imaginary set of syllogisms which create the logical appearance of infinite connectivity of all points of the imaginaries' sequences together with the real starting-point of the first day of the maze-torture exercise. Will the poor, brainwashed rat-man believe, or will he not believe, that the last of the imaginary set of syllogisms represents his discovery of the lawful principle of formal logic which provides total consistency to the entirety of the latticework? Subject an ordinary human being to a formal education in which he or she is steeped in the equivalent of Newtonian physics, under psychological pressures of a rat-maze setting of "rewards and punishments," and that poor victim will end up believing that the satanic experimenter is God himself, and that his own final set of imaginary syllogism is the fundamental law of the universe."


Aren't these "imaginary syllogisms" that connect anything to everything the essence of LaRouche's "conspiracy theories"?
Doesn't the life of this tortured rat sound like the poor life of an LC member stuck at some street corner?
Your question was: how can a bright guy like X end up at a card table shrine for over THREE DECADES????
That's where those 30+ years rat-men (and women) are...stuck mentally (and physically) in LaRouche's maze.

The late Larry MacDonald, Congressman from Georgia had the same intuition:

"The NCLC is a closed band, but one with its own unique twist that makes it as bizarre among political groupings as a Möbius strip is among geometric figures." (1)


We find it therefore appropriate to illustrate (geometrically) LaRouche's "twisted mind" as a Möbius strip. The shape of a mind capable of "turning one's sense of reality inside-out”...

What Is Circular Reasoning?

Logical fallacies are a type of error in reasoning, errors v/hich may be recognized and corrected by observant thinkers. There are a large number of informal fallacies that are cataloged, and some have multiple names. The frequency of occurrence is one way to rank the fallacies. The ten most-frequent fallacies probably cover the overwhelming majority of illogical reasoning. With a Pareto effect, 20% of the major fallacies might account for 80% of fallacious reasoning.

One of the more common fallacies is circular reasoning, a form of which was called "begging the question" by Aristotle in his book that named the fallacies of classical logic. The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as one of the premises in the argument. Circular reasoning is an inference drav/n from a premise that includes the conclusion, and used to prove the conclusion. Definitions of words are circular reasoning* but they are not inference. Inference is the deriving of a conclusion in logic by either induction or deduction. Circular reasoning can be quite subtle* can be obfuscated when intentional, and thus can be difficult to detect.

Circular reasoning as a fallacy refers to reasoning in vicious circles or vicious circular reasoning^ in contrast to reasoning in virtuous circles or virtuous circular reasoning. Virtuous circular reasoning is sometimes used for pedagogical purposes* such as in math to show that two different statements are equivalent expressions of the same thing. In a logical argument* viciously circular reasoning occurs when one attempts to infer a conclusion that is based upon a premise that ultimately contains the conclusion itself.

Why is vicious circular reasoning unacceptable and fatal? Genuine method proceeds from the known to the unknown. Vicious circular reasoning proceeds from the known to the equally known. Vicious circular reasoning, therefore, violates genuine method. Vicious circular reasoning does not add anything new, it does not advance learning, and it does not add to knowledge. Vicious circular reasoning goes nowhere and leads nowhere •• hence, its descriptive name "circular". It literally moves in a circuit or a circle. Most people do not study logical fallacies as part of their formal education. Those who study them typically do so as part of a course in logic* maybe called critical thinking, in the philosophy department. The rest of us have to leam about them on our own in order to make and detect sound arguments. Note that the word argument applies to all reasoning regardless of form* and thus it includes hypotheses, models, arguments and studies.

Here are the citations for a classical text and for a modern text about logic.

Prior Analytics and Topics^ Aristotle
The Logic of Real Arguments, Alec Fisher* Second Edition, 2004, Cambridge University Press.

By Robert D. Coleman, PhD - 2006


IN CONCLUSION:

LaRouche is quite explicit about using this fallacy to control people's mind.
Read RIGOR: METHOD OR MORTIS)
He calls this "method": the "Hypothesis of the Higher Hypothesis", where "Hypothesis" does NOT mean a new premise/axiom to explore/investigate and to be tested anymore, but in fact means a "conclusion" to be validated by evidence (or not)...
Indeed his "Hypothesis of the Higher Hypothesis" is a "top-down" method which requires no evidence whatsoever. Larouche is therefore opposed to Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" or to Newton's scientific method (i.e. "empiricism"), and the "Enlightenment" in general.


Sources:

1. "Who Is This LaRouche And What Does He Want?" by Mark Evans
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference
3. http://singlenesia.com/eris/selfres

Other resources:

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on August 12, 2012, at 08:12 AM