Sunday, June 27, 2021

Thoughts for the Day: Sunday 27 June 2021

 


No decision you make will ever make it possible to avoid death. Which, in a strange way, means that the whole idea of risk is something of an illusion. If avoiding death was the goal, then we’ve already lost the game. But what if the point of being alive was instead to experience the entire bounty of human emotion, failure, triumphs, love and loss?

What is a highly adaptive society? It is a nation-state that has acquired and developed a stable set of five key institutions: a representative form of government, a market-oriented economy, a growing scientific and technical enterprise, a universal system of education, and a system of religious practice which becomes progressively more disentangled from government and progressively more tolerant of diverse beliefs.
How are we doing? Oh, dear!

All of history testifies that in complex societies there must be a stable and experienced ruling class of some sort, for the alternative is chaos and anarchy, whether due to a lack of governance or to a takeover of society by ideological fanatics.

If our attention is like a hand, it can only grasp something in one way at a time.

He [Colin Wilson] may, as some critics have said, have never gotten over Shaw—listening to a radio broadcast of Man and Superman was perhaps the single most decisive event of the young Wilson’s life; and his ‘Victorian’ belief in progress and heroism may seem antiquated amidst our own cool scepticism. But, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, it’s not enough that an idea be fashionable, it should also strive for truth.

Ancient thought could not even conceive of the individual’s soul life apart from the soul of the world.

As T.S. Eliot famously wrote, “Human kind cannot bear very much reality.”




Saturday, June 26, 2021

Thoughts for the Day: 26 June 2021

 



Simply put, immediacy perception gives us the bare facts of experience, the discrete bits and pieces that enter our awareness. Meaning perception is a kind of glue that holds these pieces together and makes them a whole.


“An intention,” we are told in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations (section 337), “is embedded in its situation, in human customs and institutions.”

For Merleau-Ponty the ‘object’ of perception cannot be viewed in isolation, because is in reality embedded in a context, the nexus of relations among existing things which gives it meaning within the world. Thus no one object exists independently of others, but reflects a part of whatever else it co-exists with, and in turn is itself similarly reflected there.

There is nothing in the case of feeling to correspond with what, in the case of thinking, may be called mis-thinking or thinking wrong. The most general name for this thing is failure. Failure and its opposite, success, imply that the activity which fails or succeeds is not only a ‘doing something’ but a ‘trying to do something’, where the word ‘trying’ refers not to what is called ‘conation’, but to an activity which sets itself definite tasks, and judges itself as having succeeded or failed by reference to the standards or criteria which it thereby imposes on itself.
Strauss said that “a tribal community may possess a culture, i.e., produce and enjoy hymns, songs, ornament of their clothes, of their weapons and pottery, and enjoy fairy tales and what not; it cannot however be civilized.” For that, you needed the “conscious culture of humanity,” to be found in the works of writers like Plato and Aristotle, Spinoza and Nietzsche.

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” according to a universal legal maxim. It is asking a great deal, both of legal insiders and of those without. It demands that ordinary persons have a general understanding of legal principles, at least as far as their own affairs are concerned. The Digest [Roman legal precepts] and the Talmud are huge storehouses of concepts, and to be required to have even a sketchy idea of them is a powerful stimulus to learning abstractions. What is less obvious, but equally important, is that the maxim imposes a heavy burden on the law itself. Legal concepts must be, in some sense, comprehensible at large. No formulas, no flow charts, no diagrams. Despite a common impression to the contrary, the law cannot possibly be a tangle of esoteric rules that invariably need resort to a lawyer to understand or to have understood on one’s behalf. Since the point of the law is to order ordinary affairs, the language in which the rules are expressed must be substantially that of ordinary life.



Friday, June 25, 2021

Thoughts for the Day: Friday 25 June 2021

 



Critics of sociobiology, who are dogmatic Liberals, denounce this idea as monstrous. We will not attempt to decide that difficult question here, since any attempt to decide what aspects of behavior are genetic and what are learned after birth always descends into ideological metaphysics in the prevailing absence of real data.

Art is by its nature implicit and ambiguous. It is also embodied: it produces embodied creations which speak to us through the senses, even if their medium is language, and which have effects on us physically as embodied beings in the lived world.

I argued that physical discomfort is important only when the mood is wrong. Then you fasten on to whatever thing is uncomfortable and call that the cause. But if the mood is right, then physical discomfort doesn’t mean much.

[A private report to JFK from his friend Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield that was blunt and pessimistic about the future of Vietnam] showed that if this policy had not fooled anyone else, it had deceived the deceivers.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “Relate” as: “(v) - to bring into or establish association, connection or relation.” If you want to connect with your audience, get their attention, convey information and possibly move them to act, you must be relatable. It’s simple biology: People are animals. Animals are instinctually self-preserving. Animals learn the best self-preservation techniques by studying successful examples of others of their same species and copying those behaviors. (This is why dolphins tend to school with other dolphins and don’t generally hang out with oysters. At least not socially.) Animals respond to other animals that they relate to.

Collingwood makes a long detour through the history of the idea of ideas, agreeing with Hume that an idea is what consciousness makes of an impression.

Thursday, June 24, 2021

Earth 2100: Looking Forward from 2009 & Back from 2100 in 2021

 

20009 ABC News production


 


In response to a couple of tweets (above) I'd seen recently that remarked that no film or television presentation had triggered the response to the threat of climate change comparable to the effect that "The Day After" (1983) had upon popular perceptions of nuclear war. I can attest to the powerful effect "The Day After" had on me and the public at the time of its first airing. As a child of the Cold War and with the memory of the Cuban Missle Crisis etched permanently into my memory, I didn't need a push to comprehend that horrors that a nuclear war would entail. Indeed, about fifteen or so years before I viewed "The Day After," I'd seen "Dr. Stranagelove" (1964 release) and "Fail Safe" (1964 release). I didn't need any coaxing to appreciate the perils that we faced. (I still vividly recall my horror at the moment when I first experienced the screech in "Fail Safe.")

As the tweets indicated, perhaps the single most well-known and highly regarded film about climate change, Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006), didn't catalyze public opinion the way that many--including me--would have hoped. Of course, it made a splash in some circles, and it won an Academy Award. But the circles that acknowledged its message were all too small. This was the time of the second W. Bush administration and climate change was off the list of approved topics for that administration.

Thus the wish for a "The Day After" for climate change.

But I contend that such a story was created and done well. The story that I'm referring to is "Earth 2100," produced and aired by ABC News in June 2009. In short, the program used a graphic story to tell the tale of "Lucy," born in the U.S. in 2009, as she lives her life through the effects of climate change. The graphic story about a possible future is interwoven with interviews of persons knowledgeable about the effects of climate change. Some of the names were (and are) unfamiliar to me while some were well-known to me at the time or since then. Interviewed participants include Jared Diamond, Thomas Friedman, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Van Jones, former Clinton chief of staff and Obama advisor John Podesta, Michael Pollen, Jeffrey Sachs, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and E.O. Wilson. And perhaps more importantly to me, I was introduced to three thinkers I'd not known of before: Thomas Homer-Dixon, who's become one of the most important thinkers about climate change in my library (I write about this first encounter here; later references to Homer-Dixon in my blog are too numerous to catalog); Joseph Tainter, an anthropologist, whose work The Collapse of Complex Societies provided a gold mine on that topic by way of careful theory and abundant empirical evidence; and James Howard Kuntsler. Kunstler's work is a bit more polemical and speculative than the other two I mention here, but his voice continues to demand attention. (See Kunstler's The Long Emergency (2005) & his update, Living in the Long Emergency (2020) and this interview about the newest work). (A full list of participants in "Earth 2100 is here.)

A quick brag: in writing about my "discovery" of Thomas Homer-Dixon via "Earth 2100" in 2009, I mentioned that "Earth 2100" reminded me of "The Day After," although I didn't name that title. I'm not a visionary, but I am consistent.

I highly recommend watching this 2009 special. (Watch here via Youtube.) Why watch a news special from 2009? Am I recommending watching something that could only be termed an historical curiosity? No.

In the story depicted and the interviews interspersed throughout the story, we encounter a severe drought in the U.S. southwest, armed violence over dwindling resources, an Atlantic storm that inundates and cripples New York City, and an outbreak of a pandemic respiratory virus (whose image looks an awful lot like a coronavirus to me). I'm not saying that this program "predicted the future." I'd rather buy a share in the Brooklyn Bridge or land in Florida before I'd buy that someone can predict the future out much further than a few days, at least without a lucky guess. But what we can do--and what this program does--is to postulate events that hold some substantial degree of probability given the circumstances then existing. The program's extrapolations and imagination prove prescient.

And, this being network news and a hot topic, the final segment is about how all of this needn't happen (true enough); it needn't because of our (then) current efforts to ameliorate climate change. But those efforts up to 2009 and all the efforts since then haven't proven sufficient to alter our dire trajectory. In short, many of the dire forecasts of what might happen are manifesting in reality today.

The danger in watching this 2009 program now is that it could lead to despair. The ability of the American political system to deal with big problems that will require us to make significant changes in our economy and culture is nearly nil; the good intentions of the Biden Administration and Democrats (and all too few Republicans) notwithstanding. It's a sobering thought, but then we as a nation, as a world, need to sober-up. In less than two hours of viewing, this program provides a great incentive to start creating the cure.


P.S. What a local (Colorado Springs) newspaper wrote about this program at the time. COS perhaps hasn't changed much (with some very happy exceptions).



Thoughts for the Day: Thursday 24 June 2021

 


If a spectacular emergency, like war or hurricane or flood, throws off the Market spectacularly, why do not the thousand accumulating accidents of life throw it off subtly yet persistently at all times? The answer is, plainly, that they do. Death, sickness, luck, accidents of all sorts, the manifold interventions of human perversity, make it impossible to correlate success with quality or virtue. Yet both [Woodrow] Wilson and [Herbert] Hoover were on record as desiring, after the war, to restore this inefficient system in the name of efficiency. They did not see—Americans will not see—the truth that has always surrounded them.
The psychological need to deny this truth is very great. Inefficiency is a charge that should be fatal to Market thinking, deep as that is in the whole American language of business and politics and education.


Jonathan Swift, “On the Difficulty of Knowing One’s Self,” says you must have a reflective mirror to achieve self-knowledge: “A Man can no more know his own Heart than he can know his own Face, any other Way than by Reflection.” For Swift this reflection comes from the regard of others.


His [St. Paul's] thorn in the flesh became a means of grace. As he was crucified with Christ, as opposed to leaning on Christ’s crucifixion and praying for his own agonies to go, he found God dwelling within him. He had learnt what Mary had on the morning of the resurrection: not cling to Jesus but to be free to live his life in the Spirit (John 16:7 and 20:17). This was the truly sweeping realization, his central enlightenment. It is a secret conception of freedom. Today, for example, the working assumption is that freedom means liberty from restraint in order to pursue what’s desired. Spiritual freedom, though, is the liberty to realize what is truest in us, to see the “human form divine,” to use William Blake’s phrase – the twoness, which Blake said enables “double vision.” It is the freedom to move from an involuntary, often conflicted embroilment with the powers and principalities of original participation to a conscious, active union with God under reciprocal participation.

Epicurus, like the Buddha of the Nikayas, stressed inductively derived concepts of causality which eliminate supernatural forces from the account. In both cases it was believed that a knowledge of natural causation would eliminate groundless fears and superstitions, as well as make clear the way to alter one’s own behavior patterns.

But no substitute has water’s exact range of biological and ecological properties. If water is scarce, our options for dealing with the scarcity are restricted; we can’t drink anything else or grow our plants with anything else.

Collingwood’s great discovery is that history must be understood as sui generis.

Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live.

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

The Price of Peace by Zachary Carter & The Time of the Magicians by Wolfram Eilenberger

One of the best books of 2020



 Normally I don't review two books in the same article. And on the face of it, these two books would seem to create an odd tandem. The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes centers on the life and work of John Maynard Keynes and his intellectual progeny in economics, while The Time of the Magicians: Wittgenstein, Benjamin, Cassirer, Heidegger, and the Decade that Reinvented Philosophy deals with the work of four German-speaking philosophers during the period from 1919 to 1929: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Walter Benjamin, and Ernst Cassirer. There is some overlap of personages: Keynes, as a Cambridge intellectual and would-be philosopher makes an appearance in The Time of the Magicians as an acquaintance of Wittgenstein via their shared Cambridge connections and Keynes was scared off (as it were) from philosophy by his encounter with Wittgenstein's Tractatus logico-philosophicus, published in 1922, after Keynes has served as a courier to get the draft into the hands of Bertrand Russell for publication in Britain. The other common figure is (at least to me) a little known Italian economist named Piero Sraffa, who collaborated with Keynes for many years and who also understood Wittgenstein--according to Wittgenstein--and who influenced the shift in Wittgenstein's thinking from that of the Tractatus to that of his Philosophical Investigations. But other than these coincidental overlaps, what ties these two books together in my mind? 

In short, both books begin at the end of the First World War--the Great War. Carter does begin his portrait with Keynes with the financial panic in Britain at the outbreak of the war and with Keynes's life as a Cambridge Apostle and then as a charter member of the Bloomsbury group that focused on aesthetics and---by the standards of the time--uncommon sexual mores. But it's not until his participation in the Versailles Conference and his subsequent appraisal of the Conference in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, that Keynes hits his stride as a public intellectual and as an influential (although often ignored) influence on government policy. Keynes and his intellectual legacy arose during the inter-war period that was so marked by economic and political turmoil. Keynes became an economist dedicated to preserving the liberal, market-oriented democracies. His focus becomes overwhelmingly practical, even when he delves into more esoteric topics, like theories of probability or ancient monetary regimes. 

Before moving on to The Magicians, let me pad this review with some further quotes from The Price of Peace. Not a cool move for a reviewer, but still, to bring this to a conclusion and to add some spice, I'll share them: 

"The real struggle of today…is between that view of the world, termed liberalism or radicalism, for which the primary object of government and of foreign policy is peace, freedom of trade and intercourse, and economic wealth, and that other view, militarist, or, rather, diplomatic, which thinks in terms of power, prestige, national or personal glory, the imposition of a culture, and hereditary or racial prejudice. . . . The great threat facing liberalism was not socialism but the thirst for military domination. “Soldiers and diplomatists—they are the permanent, the immortal foe.” (John Maynard Keynes, “On the Way to Genoa: What Can the Conference Discuss and with What Hope?,” The Manchester Guardian, April 10, 1922; CW, vol. 17, 373.)

The Price of Peace (p. xvii-iii). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Keynes was a philosopher of war and peace, the last of the Enlightenment intellectuals who pursued political theory, economics, and ethics as a unified design. He was a man whose chief project was not taxation or government spending but the survival of what he called “civilisation”—the international cultural milieu that connected a British Treasury man to a Russian ballerina

Id.(p. xviii). 

[S]o the manuscript Keynes had helped salvage from a POW camp in Cassino, Italy [Wittegenstein's Tractatus], pushed Keynes out of the philosophy business. A Treatise on Probability was debated avidly by the leading lights of Cambridge philosophy but quickly fell out of favor. Wittgenstein’s work, meanwhile, became the foundational text of analytic philosophy—a school of thought that still dominates English-speaking philosophy departments, in which language itself is understood to be the source of all truths that philosophers can uncover.

Id.(p. 116). 

Price instability undermined the public’s faith in its government and its institutions; failing to control it would, Keynes told the Treasury, “strike at the whole basis of contract, of security, and of the capitalist system generally.”

Id. (p. 129). 

Governments would find themselves forced to choose between maintaining a stable exchange rate and a stable price level. When the choice came, Keynes argued, there should be no hesitation: Keep prices stable, and adjust exchange rates. It might be true that “over the long run,” rashes of inflation and deflation would burn themselves out. “But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs,” Keynes observed. “In the long run, we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.” (A Tract on Monetary Reform (London: Macmillan, 1924, p. 80.)

Id. (p. 130). 

Money existed to be spent on finer things: the pursuit of Apostolic “good states of mind.” From his undergraduate days to his deathbed, Keynes believed that these were not exclusive goods. One man living a good life did not detract from another’s ability to live well any more than one person’s enjoyment of a painting would ruin another’s ability to appreciate it.

Id. (p. 146). 

[A] snapshot of Keynes’ view of economics in the hierarchy of intellectual pursuits. Ethics—by which Keynes meant the elements that made up a good life—were a more important consideration for public policy than economics, the field that had made Keynes famous. The remains of his early reverence for Edmund Burke is evident in the note’s distinct modesty of ambition. Even when imagining the “ideal future of society,” Keynes could only envision striking a balance between what was “tolerable” and what was “not intolerable.” Keynes had in truth already been working on his political theory project for some time.

Id. (p. 149). 

He was forging a new set of philosophical foundations for twentieth-century society. He announced the program across the top of the page: “Prolegomena to a New Socialism—The Origins and End of Laissez-Faire.” Keynes had an ambiguous relationship with the word socialism. Sometimes he deployed it as an epithet; in other moods, he used it to describe a progressive ideal.

Id. (p. 149). 


The Time of the Magicians, on the other hand, deals with four thinkers who made their mark on post-war culture in ways that are, on the whole, quite apart from politics. Wittgenstein spent his time in an Italian POW camp (he was an Austrian soldier) writing the Tractatus, which attempts to resolve some of the most vexing issues of philosophy by his analysis of propositions. Heidegger, on the other hand, after his service in the German military, sloughs off his prior train of thought and delves into what he labels Dasein, our "being-there" in this world. Despite its immediate impact and its concern with human placement, his thought--like Wittgenstein's--held no immediate political implications. (But more on this later.) Benjamin was an itinerant (meaning often broke and without a position) scholar who wasn't a systematic thinker but who made penetrating (according to some) observations about intellectual topics that he investigated. Again, no immediate political implications arise from his work. Finally, Ernst Cassirer is the oldest, most established, and most "bourgeois" of these four. He, too, was a philosopher obsessed with issues surrounding symbols, language, art, and such, but he pursued his project within the context of Neo-Kantianism, then the reigning school of philosophy in Germany. In this period (1919-1920) he didn't write directly about politics (although after the Second World War he published The Myth of the State). But while none of these four directed their thinking toward politics, all three deeply influenced the course of philosophy and high culture during this period and beyond. 

I would be remiss, however,  to suggest that the only impetus for a new philosophic perspective represented by The Magicians arose only from the War and the consequent social, economic, and political dislocation that it wrought. Even before the war, the world of Newtonian physics had been crumbling under the weight of Einstein's new theories of relativity, which were soon followed by theories of quantum mechanics. In philosophy itself, there was a strong movement, such as found in the Vienna Circle and via Moore and Russell at Cambridge, to anchor philosophy in science and logic and to jettison the rest of traditional philosophy, such as metaphysics and ethics. And the arts, which had experienced profound changes before the war, continued down new and often disorienting experimental roads. Change was happening in all walks of life, and The Magicians were responding to these changes. 

Both books are exceptionally fine and important works of intellectual history. Thinkers who worked and struggled with the realities of the inter-war years, such as those listed above, and others, like R.G. Collingwood, Hannah Arendt, and others, have a renewed value today as we experience democracy under attack and the world haunted by irrational spirits among the people. History doesn't offer answers, but it does provide lessons, hints about the future, that we ignore at our peril. 










H









Thoughts for the Day: Wednesday 23 June 2021

 


In some strange, still inexplicable way, our inner worlds participate in the world outside us, something less modern, more ‘primitive’ people still experience, but which to us seems fantastic nonsense. Synchronicities, those strange meaningful coincidences, in which some thought or feeling in our inner world is paralleled by an event in the outer one, and other paranormal experiences, are one way in which this participation manifests, but there are others. One idea that runs throughout this book, as it does in my others, is that at an earlier stage in our evolution, human consciousness was much more ‘embedded’ in nature, as animals are today, and that we did not experience then, as we do now, separate outer and inner worlds, but a free flowing movement between the two.

“The question of freedom,” Wilson writes, “is not a social problem.” Only by the long, difficult, personal struggle to self-realization can the Outsider realize his goal. That realization, or actualization, as Maslow called it, requires an “intensity of will” and is fostered by anything that arouses one’s “will to more life.”

[Eichmann] had no depth, [Arendt] thought. “Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all,” she wrote in an oft-quoted postscript to the book [ . “And this diligence in itself was in no way criminal,” she added; “he certainly would never have murdered his superior in order to inherit his post.

Love is not merely the content of an impossible ethical ideal. It is the motive force of the struggle for justice.

Belief systems are not determined by the facts; it is systems of belief that determine what is to count as a fact.

You look at where you’re going and where you are and it never makes sense, but then you look back at where you’ve been and a pattern seems to emerge. And if you project forward from that pattern, then sometimes you can come up with something.

As Gandhi put it in his first eulogy to Mazzini in 1905, he was one of the ‘few instances in the world where a single man has brought about the uplift of his country by his strength of mind and his extreme devotion during his own lifetime’.

Delacroix wrote that ‘it would be worthy to investigate whether straight lines exist only in our brains'; as Leonard Shlain has pointed out, straight lines exist nowhere in the natural world, except perhaps at the horizon, where the natural world ends.