Skip to content


April 20, 2013


An example of abstracted empiricism, following the use C. Wright Mills makes of the term, is the work on which Charles Murray based his co-written book, The Bell Curve (1994).

It is certainly interesting to follow the authors in the comparison they make between IQ and social-economic information regarding the systemic functionality of individual’s within the American social system as society.

The inclusion, also, of a genetically based conceptualization of human intelligence as measurable by IQ tests, seems also to be acceptably accurate in its statistical relation to individual social functionality, although Murray’s definition of Black as opposed to White or Asian, I recall, made no specification as to what degree of white blood-or genotype-or DNA-would in fact be considered White in contrast to Black people-who are considered as such but have also some-often a great-degree of white blood or DNA.

And neither are his politically motivated extrapolations in the last chapter what really concern me about this Harvard mercenary of American sociology as social intel for the agendas-both public and crypto-of the powerful.

And I was eventually shocked, in 1994 or 5 when a copy of this most stately tome came into my hands at the carelessness of publicly showing one’s disregard-one’s professional and institutional disregard-for the human dignity of the individuals one shares society with.

But today I understand it; and while I still cannot but detest this man and what he stood for, I have come to grasp a working understanding of the overall historical, intellectual and cultural context that could have produced something like this.

And abstracted empiricism is basically empiricism for empiricism itself, with no connection to a morally founded –REASONED-ideology of scientific values.

It is rather an example of unreasoned rationality that refrains form any moral judgment that should be part of a broader conceptualization as scientific theory based on a morally principled vision of life and human nature itself.

For this is what I see totally lacking in Murray’s book: he works with no serious or responsible working premise-neither in a an intellectual nor moral sense-of what it really means to be an individual within a social medium.

And because of this, Charles Murray is, above all, intellectual simplification.

It is clear he defines human life as systemic functionality in itself, following the obvious emotionally deadened course of WASP cultural officialdom and its intellectual tradition.

And it is clear the tacit, underlying premise on which he basses human life is utilitarian efficiency that can never rise to broader, more theoretically complex conceptualizations of the individual, society and of culture itself.

For Murray, and the institution of scientific inquiry he stood for, deceptively claims-hides behind-empirical objectivity as both its methodology and the theorization of that methodology.

Which is really to say that it has no theorization at all except its empirical methodology.

And I claim the position of C. Wright Mills and his moral outrage-and disgust-as my own in regards to abstracted empiricism as a practice of rationality as science that, in its simplicity, removes itself altogether from the realm of human REASON.

Abstracted empiricism is the science of the Dumbass, of those who have neither the inclination nor the capacity for profound, painstaking intellectual thought.

For it is empirical data that must be subordinated to human REASON in the form of abstract, theoretical conceptualizations that eventually produce hypotheses, and not the subjugation of REASON to empirical data as rationality.

Because you lose a lot when this happens.

You lose, first of all, purpose-because there really is no such thing as human purpose without ideology-and ideology, in its essence, is simply MORAL CONTEMPLATION.

And you lose, eventually, your capacity to truly think-to truly REASON.

And although you call yourself a ‘scientist’-and possibly an ‘intellectual’-you have become nothing more than a technician at the service of those powers that can afford to finance utilitarian, technical research.

That it is to say, corporations and government-or government and corporations for the difference between both disappeared long ago on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

And Mills wrote in 1959-IN 1959, people-that there is no science now that SCHOLARSHIP has disappeared.

There is only the science of rationality and its divorce from REASON itself.

Imagine in what a most barren wasteland humanistic inquiry takes place today, almost 60 years later; imagine the depauperate, most stifled vision your children at American universities see the world from, today.

Look, and understand now, the Iphone life for dogs (on Facebook) that you live in today.

And this is where my most offensive use of the term ‘Dumbass’ comes from.

And this is also what makes Eisenhower’s term the insolvent phantom so important to me, although you only know his words of January 17, 1961 as the Industrial-Military Complex Speech.

Because that’s all Pentagon Democracy wants you to know or see.

Moral duplicity as a natural, human flaw is a most invigorating literary theme; and the US military understood this long ago-and as a literary theme it is of great use to Pentagon psychiatrists (originally) in their relationship of semiotic control with the United States civilian population.

But the real urgency Eisenhower transmits is not in regards to how American culture itself was changing-not a description of the mechanism as agent that was causing it, but what would be-what are now-the ultimate effects of those changes.

And still, to this day, Eisenhower’s insight and thinking-because it is in fact complex-is not generally understood publicly.

Because it is also most disturbing to contemplate.

And the general gist of this post is also the reason, whenever I happen to talk or write about the Harvard and MIT educated Sociologist, Charles Murray, I seldom forget to include, between his first and last name, the epithet, the dog, as in Charles The Dog Murray.

Except when, out of the need to communicate, I must indulge in certain degrees of compromise with social hypocrisy.

But I am not a dog.

Do you now see the difference?


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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