Is it always possible, in the depths of active deconstruction, fully immersed, to actually realize that ones-self has been deconstructed? Or, while fully immersed in the process, would ones-self cling to the offered reconstruction set-pieces, and eagerly rebuild what the local authorities are inserting as their acceptable truth in thought? Is that a conscious realization, as in, "I like where this is going so I;ll ride along." Or is it something else? I sense there isn't an either/or answer to that. But to me, the unconscious victim is somewhat more honest in their regurgitation of reconstructed instruction than the conscious participant. Perhaps, just me in that assessment.
The reformation of Durkheim's "S"ociety and/or Marx's State in a free nation requires the successful deconstruction and reconstruction of its constituent parts. That isn't a particularly controversial idea, although in a free nation, it is a particularly revolutionary idea, especially if the agenda is to destroy the enemy of forced collectivism, 'freedom.' So while immersed in the now century old process, would the 'parts' necessarily consciously notice the deconstruction/reconstruction aimed at them?
Do they even notice that they all spout the same "Schmegfield thought....while Bloomfarb inferred" set pieces?
Well, yes, they no doubt did.
So, free of the set piece crutches, what do -the parts- think? Are they capable, in their own words, of expressing their own thoughts?
And yet, how can they express what they've been deconstructed into believing they can't actually do? The ability to actually express ones thoughts implies the existence of a free will that many of them have been taught to believe might not even actually exist; all that is possible is to defer to what Schemgfield once said and what Bloomfarb once inferred..." The deconstruction of the parts requires kicking out the legs from under them and leaving them hanging defenseless in an existence they've just barely begun to comprehend. Their reconstruction consists mainly of saving them from their resulting existential terror by convincing them that 'education' is the ability to rotely regurgitate the set pieces, as reassuring islands of solid ground in a roiling sea of what the fuck.
For some, eyes glaze over when that happens(the regurgitation of the set pieces); what is interesting is, what do -they- think, in their own words, which seldom seem to come without the setpiece crutches. And, for me, this applies equally to the thumping of AS and Rand and John Galt 3:16; so little of that goes on here, because folks have read and often reread and reread what has long been cast in stone. But the same applies to others long dead. When such references are used as short hand, they are incredibly useful. But when they are used as short cuts, not so much. What is most interesting, to me, is the malleable today and tomorrow, and what is pure joy is, seeing those discussed using new words and sentences and thoughts..
Is this just what happens when scrambling for authority-- leglifting one's argument with the weight of the setpieces? At the other end of life, there is felt less need to look for those crutches, at least.
Take Joe's article "On Principle." Number of times he thumped AS or Ayn Rand or quoted John Galt3:16: 0,0, and 0. Completely original thoughts, expressed in his own words. And yet, entirely appropriate for the context, this site. Not a single rote regurgitation of 'Bloomfeld said ...while Schmegfield inferred..."
And to that point: from his article above:
The lie, no matter the degree, shows that you are willing to distort the truth to get what you want, and you are willing to sacrifice the other person for that benefit. The sacrifice is created by providing them with false information that they could end up acting upon.
So dishonesty is important no matter the degree. The negative consequences are expected to occur, although their degree may be proportional to the degree of the lie. But it also says something about the character of the person who told the lie. You can learn that you shouldn't trust him. And while it's easy to say that you didn't like about anything big, a perfectly legitimate response is to say that you were willing to lie for so little!
Add to that, your observation about context, and how context can invert the ethics of the lie and 'getting what you want.' I perked up at that, because for me, that defines 'politics' at its core: getting what we want from others. The inversion occurs because there is no moral equivalence between what a rapist wants and what his victim wants, although to each, they are both others.
Principles are also important, in my view, as the requisite foundation for forming free associations. Through the brilliance of the 1st Amendment(both parts), our right to freely express ourselves is not only guaranteed in writing, but as a seldom appreciated corollary, is also encouraged. It is the means by which we identify our principles to each other, as the basis for our free associations, plural. We are encouraged to freely identify ourselves, friend from fool -- no matter how each of us defines friend, no matter how each of us defines fool.