Donald Trump:

It seems that after Aristotle Logic made little if not no progress at all, but then, twenty-four centuries later, Hegel came and the ontological overhaul he caused in Logic, to the dismay of many and the ticklish academic interest of a few, changed completely our understanding of thinking as a process merely happening inside our minds.

Unfortunately, Hegel bamboozled his way into such high abstractions and his philosophical system lent itself so much to idealism and even totalitarianism, that his impact in Europe after the postwar was forever momified in the academic catacombs of universities and his intellectual influence made it across the Atlantic and the rest of the world like undercover rats transported on shipwrecked rafters across the oceans.

With Hegel contradiction, as an engine of understanding, reaches a new status: Under certain optimal conditions it stops being a contradiction and becomes a counter-diction or a map for new specific diction, which can either account for progress, stagnation, involution or destruction.

Hegel had a vicious tendency to favor progress, but we can forgive him for that, it was just a tendency. Wouldn't we forgive anyone who favors any of the above as a tendency?

The answer to such question will connect Trump and Hegel in ways, which initially might not appear clear but as we "progress", pun not intended, we will see how Trump regresses, stagnates, destroys and makes progress in the Hegelian logic in a kind of inverted mirror of it.

Hegel should be brought up on the topic of Donald Trump. Yet, the only reason to bring Hegel back is a logical one since Aristotle will never be enough to understand Trump's seemingly deranged logic, while Hegel will at least open the correct bridge to cross to the other side of the mirror.

I will do my best to cut down on abstractions, but I can't promise not to give your mind and your sanity a hard time.

It is Trump and not Hegel I will be writing about, and I can reassure you that Trump's stupidities are so much embroidered with the natural "intelligence" of his surrounding that making sense of them can be as discouraging as making sense of Hegel's Science of Logic.

The first thing to understand is that Trump does not follow quite well Aristotle's propositional logic.

Trump often violates the principle of identity, which states that we cannot use the same term with one meaning while it signifies different meaning in the same sense at the same time.

Trump also often violates the principle of non-contradiction, which states that two opposite statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

Finally, Trump also violates the principle of the excluded middle, which states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. There cannot be a third option.

Rather than creating an excluded third when violating this principle, Trump often creates a homeopathic included bastard. And the word homeopathy here is very important because most of Trump's political moves are politically incorrect in a homeopathic manner, namely, they cause simultaneously distraught and admiration in large sectors of the general public as if two truths or two falsehoods were true and false in the same sense at the same time.

Surely, a Democrat would disagree and surely, a Republican would disagree too. Even not all Republicans support Trump and not all Democrats support Sander or any other leader from their party.

As we can see this whole situation is not to blame just on Trump. Both, the Left and the Right have long lustrous red carpets of exhibits for violating these three Aristotelian principles of Logic on consistent and also inconsistent bases.

They have both violated them with vigor and cheerful demeanors. In fact, the violations of these three logical principles, particularly by the Left with postmodernism, have given a whole new meaning to the expression, "not making sense making sense". If this can make any sense at all, I am sure it would be a prank version of Lewis Carroll's Alice through the looking glass.

And you might be still scratching your head as to what was exactly Hegel contribution to the science of Logic when Aristotle and not even Bertrand Russell can't be enough to understand Trump.

It is actually simpler than we could imagine. Hegel revolutionized Logic as ontology in the same way as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger revolutionized Newtonian physics.

You might be surprised considering that Hegel lived in the nineteen century and as he said: "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk."

Hegel died in 1831, and yet his Science of Logic sketched the preliminaries of a Logic that will be written in the future as it foresaw conceptually what was coming in the twenty century not in the realm of abstractions, but in the realms of the infinitely small and the infinitely big.

Hegel, not doubts, gave us a different view of Logic to that of Aristotle, particularly because while Aristotle's Logic can be taken as an organon or a tool to understand reality, Hegel's Logic resists and it is not easily given to such tooling. There is a main reason for that. Hegel's Logic is not fundamentally a method, but an ontology. That means that the logical method is constantly in construction, destruction, stagnation, progression, and regression as we learn and simultaneously create its steps.

As you can certainly notice I seem to have violated all the three Aristotelian principles of Logic. This is a crucial element to take into account in here since Hegel did not violate any of Aristotle's logical principles.

On the contrary, he made of them valid special cases of formal Logic that although informing accurately about the world around us were limited when it comes to sampling reality alive, as we live it, right as the future is constantly aging on us and it rushes to control our past to move us into the present.

However, Hegel was greatly misunderstood if not completely ignored. Ironically, the worst of his ideas have survived and not precisely as a deliberate attempt to distort nor to follow him.

The worst about our legacy of Hegel's is having to repeat him in all the worst practical and theoretical ways without even knowing it, knowing him or understanding him. Trump is a good candidate for such logical debacles.

There are today many sophisticated and vulgar but smart ways to either invalidate, mock or ignore Aristotle's logic under the unrecognizable spirit of Hegel.

On the one hand, we have a liberal sophisticated and politically correct left-wing postmodernism that preaches compassion and a concern with poverty from their privileged position.

This is the postmodernism that equates any state of our body with good health under the mantra of body positivity. This is a postmodernism of aggressive victimhood which "attack" capitalism so that it can profit from it. This is the postmodernism of tolerance, of compassion, of gender fluidity and anything goes fluidity, but in which ultimately nothing has much of a biological, physical or objective grounds. Most things are decided subjectively, by emotions and especially by empathy.

On the other hand, we have a neoliberal vulgar and politically incorrect right-wing postmodernism that preaches trickle-down economics and is concerned with "creating jobs" and protecting national borders.

This is the postmodernism that equates any state of our body with a biological and racial determinism. This is a postmodernism of aggressive leadership against those who attack our rights to be great, be it a business, a tribe, a political party or a nation. This is a postmodernism of tolerance, of compassion, but it has so many conditions to be tolerant and compassionate that it only pays a lip service to its eagerness for empathy.

Considering the profiling of our political landscape as much from the left as from the right it wouldn’t be hard to see that to understand and disarm Trump from his own mirror of insanity, which for him is just fake news and business as usual, we will have to analyse him from our own mirror of insanity no matter how much we might insist to be on the sane side of things for every occasion we denounce him as a despicable liar.

The more Trump’s critics gain in sophistication as liars in their own rights but deny it, the more Trump will carry on being the vulgar liar his critics can force the public to focus on by their persistent virtue signaling, without any of us able to know exactly who is telling the truth.

This insanity, of course, is not exclusive to Trump and to the postmodern political left. There are many Alex Jones on the political right and many Julie Bindel on the political left and they are not necessarily focused on conspiracy theories or extreme feminism.

Today we are witnessing an increase in the articulation of highly sophisticated ideas, which at their core are as insane as Trump’s, but their excess of rational and sensical veneers do not allow us to see much further and it is rather better to focus on Trump quick to spot charades than to publicly focus as much on the pernicious and hard to detect inconsistencies of those who have consecrated their lives to bringing Trump down by all means necessary, but have caused and continue to cause similar or worse situations for the people they preach to represent.

We have a peculiar universe quite similar to Trump’s bubble of “hard to know if he means what he meant”. This is the universe of Alfred Jarry, the French writer who coined the term pataphysics, a universe in which every imaginable unreal thing was considered by its own right real and with its own imaginary reality.

Trump’s universe is a universe or facts and tweets, which can always be corrected or straightened without a hint of regret or not meaning what it intended to mean from the get-go. In Trump’s universe there is no error of speech or error of action, but simply, adjustment of words and interpretation of actions and intents, since the fake news from the political left constantly refract the light from the reverse side of the mirror in which Trump’s real actions take place.

To dismantle Trump would not be to refract the light of his own reverse universe so that when it reaches us it gets distorted and exactly as we wish it to be so that it can be criticized militantly and outrightly. To dismantle Trump is to, at least initially, walk conceptually his own universe without being strongly locked to our own reverse side of our mirror.

We require to clean up ourselves if we wanted to denounce the dirt of others. There is not greater bad news for the political left to recognize than the acknowledgment that their own subtle and persistent incompetence and approaches of choosing lesser evils is what made Trump presidency almost inevitable.

American politics has fallen into a tight binomial and binary lock-down political battle that makes almost impossible to discuss any issues that concern the American people as a nation without each party constantly spitting at each other their tribal identities.

Some kind of sanity ought to be found outside any party line since from the moment you declare your affiliation or speak tangentially the language of any of them, the normalized reaction is, “I got you figured out so you have nothing to add”. You are with them or against them, whoever they are.

These are the reasons why Trump cannot be thought within Aristotle’s Logic unless Aristotle’s Logic is made more dynamic, less binomial and ternary. This implies creating relationships between concepts and ideas which go beyond the relational logic of “one-to-one”, “one-to-many” and “many-to-many”. Thus, we will need to put more relative emphasis on relationships of “some-to-one”, “some-to-many” and “some-to-some” existing in mobile matrices. Aristotle’s Logic did not account for relational structures in increasingly more complex matrices, in which local things in a system, which appear superficial and irrelevant in another local system are not so if enough of other systems are tested.

In fact, it is in this way how the concept of machine learning has been introduced in the field of semantic web and semantic ontology. Algorithms become more efficient in helping us when we set heuristic and strict limits to the fuzzy nature of their search and data processing. The biggest challenge for computer scientists and artificial intelligence is not to leave behind their binary operations, but how to make those binaries and ternary operations loosely coupled enough so that we don’t lock-horns in fruitless battle and merely mechanical operations.

Sometimes these limits cannot be too strict and sometimes they need to be strict. The same happens with us, humans. Yet, we will be unable to work experimentally and for true and real human improvement if we took being “strict” or being “loose” as a locked-horn division for partisan battles.

The mainstream logic of the political right as much as of the political left continues to move in a frozen Aristotelian paradigm based mostly on rigid relationships of “one-to-many”, “one-to-one” and “many-to-many”. This is precisely the partisan and tribal logic of the American political system. The mainstream left and right are in a locked-horn battle without being able to open to dynamic semantic political relationships of “some”. Perhaps, we are not ready yet for these relationships and we have to “regress”, “stagnate” and even destroy each other for long enough in tribalism, identity politics, and Trump until our mindset become both, more robust and flexible to the global problems we have created as a result of our own progress.

If we wanted to make any real progress in politics, we will have to learn from the very machine learning approaches we use in computational research and business modeling, at least as a preliminary phase. In fact, machine learning uses great deal Bayesian statistical inference. It is Bayesian inference the one which is able to couple and de-couple the Aristotelian logic of the “many-to-one” with the Aristotelian logic of the “some-to-one” in ways which have been ignored in many of the studies of Hegel’s Science of Logic.

Trump uses both heuristically without knowing, but more on the side of manipulating the Aristotelian side of it for the pragmatic benefit of the Bayesian part of it. Bayes, if alive, would have pulled his hairs in despair on listening to Trump antics with logic.

The critic Hegel made to Aristotle's Logic, contrary to common and even good sense, has been taken overall either from an Aristotelian viewpoint or from Platonic one. The options are not exclusively reduced to this binary, but this has been the general tendency.

Hegel never referred to synthesis from a ternary viewpoint that will derive binary conflict from thesis and antithesis. If that were what Hegel did Aristotle alone would have sufficed. Hegel, on the contrary, referred to binary conflicts at the level of interlocked matrices in the evolution of the concept, but the concept for him wasn't just a metal thing. It was an interlocked set of leveling up and leveling down relations created between the mind and things throughout human history in which progress takes place.

However, for Hegel progress was not inevitable as it is often assumed. Progress comes with regress, stagnation and even destruction. Not even all this cycle is determined to lead things and humankind to betterment. For as long as life exists and we exist there is a non-guarantee chance for betterment. This negativity and positive wobbling stand on progress was the true spirit of Hegel philosophy. The wobbling didn't mean hesitation but a non-partisan affirmation of uncertainty.

It is inconceivable to imagine Trump as a ternary synthesis of the Hegelian system in which Karl Marx would be the antithesis. If any, Trump would have to be an a-synthesis causing a cancerous proliferation of thesis and antithesis, which might reestablish a balance between the Bayesian "some" and the Aristotelian "many".

Trump represents the logic of the included homeopathic bastard and not Hegel's logic of the included third because Trump's pragmatic logic doesn't aim to disprove Aristotle nor Hegel, but rather to use them clumsily and intuitively without knowing them.

This rugged and intuitive use of logic speaks of a radical pragmatism that lacks not only of the European anti-intellectualism of existentialism and postmodernism but it is completely absent even from the intellectual pragmatism of the founding fathers of America.

Trump brings me memories of Pablo Lopez pataphora. Pataphora comes from Alfred Jarry’s pataphysics. In that sense, pataphora refers to a self-contained universe in which a metaphor is no longer in contrast with the literal, but it rather has gradients of literality in itself.

Trump knows perfectly, without knowing Alfred Jarry, that the world we live in today is not only a pataphysical world made of pataphoras, in which all imagined things can become real (fake news), Trump also knows that we live in pataphysics reverse world, on the side of the real but crossing Alice’s looking glass, into the hyperreal.

This reverse world of the real at the other side of the mirror without yet being fantasy is the world Trump knows best how to capitalize. This is the post-truth world, a very different world to the one lefties hoisted days long gone with postmodernism, but which peppered the conditions for Trump.

The most radical elements of the left keep taking great advantages from this post-truth world, but they capitalized on something else, subjective sentimentality. They have stained with dead accurate efficiency most of its members, even those who still belong to the most impartial liberal elite, with a kind of ideological poison, in which what is subjective and sentimental is not so just in a moronic way, but rather subjective in the elevated spirit of Alfred Jarry and his pataphysics: the subjective with its own and never to be disclosed ontological solipsism.

The most radical elements of the right keep taking great advantages from this post-truth world, but while they ignore sentimentalities and focus more on facts, they are the kings and queens of cherry-picking facts to satisfy their own petty interest. An interest that only concerns their own enchanted privileged bourgeois bubbles. In this case, the factual and the objective is not so in a flatten way, but rather the objective is so big and so large as data that all sort of convenient cherry picking is done to come up with predetermined biased results. This literally forces facts to say what they want them to say elegantly and objectively. It is hard not to see in such “objectivity” an ontological hyperrealism of facts.

When facts become completely factual, facts can be made to say anything we want if they are too many. When the metaphoric become completely metaphoric there is an assault on the real from which not even the real can find an alibi to free itself from the burden of having killed itself.

When facts become completely factual, facts no longer oppose beliefs, but other facts. It is out of this frenzy cannibalism of facts that Trump has come out victorious and found plenty of alibis to put facts not straight but to straighten them to his favor.

When the metaphoric become completely metaphoric beliefs are no longer opposed to facts but to other beliefs. It is out of this frenzy cannibalism of beliefs that they left keep coming out defeated and find plenty of excuses to mix facts with emotions.

It is in this reverse mirror between the literal and the metaphoric, between the fetishization of facts and the fetishization of emotions that the opposition to Trump takes place without it inflicting on him any single scratch simply because Trump is at the other side of the mirror in the real, but the real reversed, while a large crowd which opposes him persists in bringing down the mirror that holds him, while the problem is not just about bringing down mirrors, but clearing the smoke of our owns. Left-wing postmodernism is the reverse mirror of right-wing postmodernism. Far from opposing post-industrial capitalism left-wing postmodernism just added to the withering colors of it.

But let’s go into more details about pataphysics to see if we can reveal more of its versatile connection with the Trump phenomenon. Pataphysics goes beyond the metaphysical and the fairytale in one single stroke. It makes of both something literal and as a side effect, it treats the real as something banal at the service of its own Disneyland. This not even literature or fiction a la Jordan Peterson. Literature and fiction are at least a genres of human activity and not a section of reality we just happen to walk into. Pataphysics is schizoanalysis a la Deleuze, with mad people as experts prescribing mental therapy for many other mad people since in this pataphysical universe we are all crazy to different degrees.

Pataphysics passes the imaginary as real exactly in the same way that the real is real, but we can’t possibly take this fully at face value. There is a curvature of gradients in which a pataphysics tribe is more in touch with the real reality even when they are still intoxicated with their Disneyfied reality, while another pataphysical tribe is far too immersed in their Disneyfied reality even when they still have one foot on the real reality.

This spectral gradient of pataphysics actually represents in one extreme the tantrum-drive unconscious of the left and in another extreme, its educated and rational opposition to Trump and yet the tantrum-drive and the educated have a common origin in this pataphysical nature of the left.

In contrast, Trump represents the opposite of Alfred Jarry's’ pataphysics, but the opposite only as a reversed mirror in the sense described by Lewis Carroll in Alice through the looking glass. Nonetheless, Trump only represents a portion of the spectrum of this inverted mirror of the right. Trump lies, but he does not do it from a pataphysical universe. As a good pragmatist, he believes more in common sense truth than in the meticulously analyzed truth. In contrast with the left, who believes in truth’s diversity ( the more diverse the merrier ), Trump believes in a few truths, particularly his own, but as a good consequentialist, if he has to lie to benefit a higher truth he will do so without hesitations.

Even Trump represents a unique and bizarre departure from the Pareto principle, which historically has been so much cheered by the right. Trump has lead this seemingly u-turn away from the Pareto principle and even when not all Republicans have followed, many of them are starting to collect the low hanging fruits it offers.

It has been actually the bizarre offensive from the left, trying to promote and push forward the values of a society of the crowned losers, or to put it mildly, a society promoting a bigotry of low expectation, the one that gave food for thought and planted the seeds for the right wing backlash with Trump as its forerunner. The affirmative actions from liberal to indulgently forgive victims of social oppression to the point of validating the general vague stand: “we are perfect in our imperfections”, let to the proliferation of many unwanted side effects like the indiscriminate celebration of obesity under the flags of body positivity and the encouragement of the motto, “the queerer the better” with all the revamping of gender fluidity into childhood. Such has been the pataphysical dictum of many left wingers.

If the Pareto principle or the law of the vital few states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes, Trump not only has known quite well how to capitalize on it, but has known quite well how to identify himself with that 80% of effects.

Trump has achieved this not precisely by way of defending the Pareto principle explicitly. He does not need to do that, he is the raw embodiment of such a principle. Yet, let’s not forget, Trump is always on the other side of the mirror where things are the same bu reversed.

If the Pareto principle is not quite accurate in reflecting the intricacies of today social entropy is not because Trump distorts it as he acts and lives on the other side of the mirror. The delusional pataphysics of the left seems to violate the Pareto principle as much as Trump’s hyperrealistic anti-pataphysics.

Trumpism feeds on a nationalist populism, while most of the left wing ideology feeds on globalist populism. Populism has always been a social entropy indicator, but Pareto distribution has moved from 20% to 1% even when that would not be an indicator of poverty increase in the world. On the contrary, poverty and mortality overall have reduced at a global level. Hence, social entropy does not seem to be increasing, but it has rather distributed homeopathically. We have poverty of spirit, poverty of conviction, of metal and emotional gravitas, but simply because we have an excess of information, just like we have poverty of health because we have an excess of junk food. And yet, this homeopathic excess in everything seems to be allowing us to make better and more optimal choices.

Obviously, a homeopathic distribution still implies an increase in social entropy, but it is as if entropy had an existence on the other side of the mirror of its distribution and were able to create some kind of degraded order, but order anyway. Perhaps, that is the ultimate irony of the Pareto principle: To find temporally and for an indefinite time the proliferation of vital causes in the 80% of its effects, which the 20% of causes have originally created.

This, of course, doesn’t necessary points to the uncontrollable proliferation of effects which become causes in the pataphysical universe of the left, but it neither necessary points to the uncontrollable proliferation of factual and numerical evidence fetishized by the hyperreal anti-pataphysics universe of the right. Entropy and order have no morals, but they have both followed a few principles for billions of years.

An order can exist as a hidden reserve in a higher level of entropy. Pareto 80% can contain many other 20% as a reserve when we scale down or up in distributions from ecosystem to ecosystem of entropy. Trump seems to be finding those 20% in different 80%, but is he? Are you willing to give the left the chances to find those 20% in as many 80% as possible? You see, these issues go beyond partisan logic and you might be able to see in the future who made Trump necessary and inevitable in American history.

I will leave these reflections inconclusive by ending with Hegel words:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk."

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Ulysses Alvarez Laviada

Ulysses Alvarez Laviada

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. Friedrich Hegel.