Thursday, August 5, 2021

Asking a Favor for a Special Someone

The Blue Marble: our spaceship needs repairs. Now! 

I'm asking for a friend. Actually, our mother. Mother Earth. She's in very bad health now and in need of help. Pronto! We, her children, need to act on her behalf. Oh, she'll survive even if we continue to sit on our hands. But we won't.

So here's my ask: please write your Senator along the lines of the following. This is not the answer to climate change. It's an answer, but it could get the ball rolling in the right direction.
And thanks, on behalf of "Mom."
Dear Senator X:
I understand that the Senate is now in a position to decide whether to adopt a carbon fee and dividend program. I urge you to enthusiastically support this legislation.
We all expect to pay for the costs of sewers, garbage collection, and dump fees as a part of running our household while trying to maintain a safe and livable environment. We now know that we can’t afford (to put it mildly) to continue dumping excess carbon into our atmosphere. That’s why we need to put a price on carbon. A price will allow consumers to know the cost of carbon in the products and services they buy. They can then compare and purchase more carbon efficient (and thus cheaper) alternatives. Businesses that are more carbon-efficient (including American businesses selling abroad) will rightfully gain an advantage as a reward for their ingenuity and investment.
But the important corollary to a price on carbon is that the funds collected will be regularly paid to the American people as a dividend. (The funds will not go to fund the government, and thus the price isn’t a “tax.”) These regularly payable dividends would be divided equally among the American people. This scheme would favor low and moderate income individuals and families. The wealthiest among us, who also are by far the largest consumers of carbon (and therefore dump much more carbon into the atmosphere) would suffer a net deficit. But they’ll adjust.
A carbon border adjustment—to make sure that imports have a carbon price upon them—is another key component of this plan.
This program would be a major step forward in the transition to a low-carbon future. We need to do this now, because, as you no doubt know, the clock is running out on us. Also, you should note that this scheme has a broad range of support, from the Citizens Climate Lobby (where I heard first about this proposal) to the Climate Leadership Council, which includes a number of business organizations, corporations, non-profits, and prominent Republicans (James Baker III is currently at the forefront). And, best of all, there’s significant popular support for such a plan.
Thank you for your consideration. I will look forward to writing you to thank you for your active support and vote of this measure.

Thoughts for the Day: 5 August 2021

 


As early as The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes had been battling economic problems that were not principally matters of physical resource constraints. The greatest threats to harvest yields were not a lack of labor, fertilizer, or rainfall but insufficient investment and the mismanagement of money and credit.

[John Kenneth] Galbraith knew he was exactly the kind of man the McCarthyists hated most—not an outright Soviet collaborator but an idealist with a grand vision of progress who hoped to use economic reforms to break down social distinctions of rank and privilege.

“Just a reminder, Theaetetus,” I tell my student friend. “When we support the Constitution of Knowledge with our heads and our hearts—with reverence and reason, as Lincoln prescribed—and when others do the same, its enemies are not ten feet tall. We are.”

Just as sense-perception seems to give knowledge of what lies beyond individuality, so action seems to issue in an instinct for self-transcendence.


On the first page of The Human Condition Arendt speaks of launching a man-made object into space as an “event, second in importance to no other, not even to the splitting of the atom.” The reaction, “curiously enough,” was not “awe” at man’s achievement but “relief” that “the first ‘step toward escape from men’s imprisonment to the earth’” had been taken. [From the Introduction by Jerome Kohn.]

The field of modern dietetics was borne out of two concepts, both of which turned out to be false. The first is the idea that a “calorie is a calorie,” which was espoused by the Atwater system, developed by agriculturist Wilbur Olin Atwater in 1916. His claim to fame was that he standardized how much heat energy (i.e., how many kilocalories, or kcal) three specific macronutrients would liberate when burned in a bomb calorimeter (a device that measures heat release of organic substances), and he calculated the ratios, which computes the number of kcal in a given food by its protein (4 kcal/gm), carbohydrate (4 kcal/gm), and fat (9 kcal/gm) content. As fat was the most calorie-dense, Atwater thought it was the most egregious in terms of weight gain.

36. 89. Civilization is the process in a community by which the various members assert themselves as will: severally as individual will, corporately as social will (the two being inseparable, 21. 1 seqq.).

Erwin Schrödinger spelled out the profound implication: “Mind has erected the objective world of the natural philosopher out of its own stuff.”

Epicurus saw religion not merely as false but as a fraud perpetrated by the priestly class for their own benefit.

But exclusive emphasis on the One had gone beyond the point of attributing underlying order to the Many and had ended by subordinating the Many to the One, preparing for Parmenides’ annihilation of it. Heraclitus sought to rectify this situation by restoring balance between the One and the Many...

The decline of violent behavior has been paralleled by a decline in attitudes that tolerate or glorify violence, and often the attitudes are in the lead.

Critics, Hans Morgenthau among them, were quick to point out the flaw in Kissinger’s reasoning [about the use of tactical nuclear weapons]: there was a bright line between nonnuclear war and nuclear war but no such line between tactical nuclear war and strategic nuclear war. Once the bombs started falling, there was no clear stopping point. Any use of a nuclear weapon, however limited, risked inexorable escalation and universal annihilation.

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Thoughts for the Day: Wednesday 4 August 2021

 



Conventional wisdom conflates self-interest and selfishness. It makes sense to be self-interested in the long run. It does not make sense to be reflexively selfish in every transaction. And that, unfortunately, is what market fundamentalism and libertarian politics promote: a brand of selfishness that is profoundly against our actual interest.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, the American complexity theorist . . . argues that the level of complexity of modern human society has recently overtaken the complexity of any one person belonging to it . . . . But our individual complexity, as we’ve seen above, serves an important function: it helps us adapt to changes in our circumstances, because it gives us a wider repertoire of responses to those changes.

“The first thing people must grasp, . . . is that we must view Earth’s systems as a functioning whole. We must learn what makes them tick as a whole, not merely the mechanisms of their component parts.”

A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent upon arriving. A good artist lets his intuition lead him wherever it wants. A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. Thus the    Master is available to all people and doesn’t reject anyone. He is ready to use all situations and doesn’t waste anything. This is called embodying the light. What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher? What is a bad man but a good man’s job? If you don’t understand this, you will get lost, however intelligent you are. It is the great secret.

“We used to believe that modern capitalism was capable, not merely of maintaining the existing standards of life, but of leading us gradually into an economic paradise where we should be comparatively free from economic cares. Now we doubt whether the business man is leading us to a destination far better than our present place. Regarded as a means he is tolerable; regarded as an end he is not so satisfactory.”41 Keynes could not stomach the Soviet experiment. But neither could he tolerate the cultural stagnation he found when he returned to Britain. His country was addicted to an era that had ended a dozen years earlier, incapable of embracing the present.

To this new neglect of economic factors on the part of those who make politics must be added the new over-emphasis on power. Mr. Gross takes Russia’s arguments against a possibly non-democratic federation at their face value and solemnly reassures her of the longing of the peoples concerned for truly democratic and peaceful institutions. He completely overlooks what, after all, is obvious, namely, that Russia being a big Power wants nothing so much as to become an even bigger Power.

If anything, the depth psychology of soul-making, as I have been formulating it, is a via negativa. No ontology. No metaphysics. No cosmology. A knight errant, always off at a tilt, iconoclastic. Archetypal Psychology’s main claim to positivity has been its paradoxical insistence on allowing the shadows to be lit by their own light — hence the long encounters with pathologizing: the underworld, depression, suicide, senex, and the pathologies of the puer.

Accountability. Being wrong is undesirable, but it is also inevitable. We want people to feel safe making mistakes; otherwise they will not venture new hypotheses.

Chronic disease is mitochondrial dysfunction, and mitochondrial dysfunction is chronic disease. They are one and the same.


In any machine structure is one thing, function another; for a machine has to be constructed before it can be set in motion.

The historical re-enactment of past thought which is essential to history proper depends on inferences drawn from present evidence.


Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Thoughts for the Day: Tuesday 3 August 2021

 



This is a history of rational methods of dealing with uncertainty. It treats, therefore, methods devised in law, science, commerce, philosophy, and logic to get at the truth in all cases in which certainty is not attainable.

Chinese law thereafter [Confucious] changed little until the impact of Western forms of thought in the nineteenth century. Confession was regarded as almost always necessary, and torture was ordered when guilt was already certain and clear but the accused refused to confess. Early Portuguese visitors to China found torture routinely used on suspects against whom there was the least evidence and on witnesses who disagreed with one another. There was no space in Chinese law for a legal profession, and hence for any formal science of law, and so for a forum for discussion of legal questions like the strength of evidence.

“Even if someone should happen to be almost right, he could never be sure, for dokos is upon all things.” The Greek word dokos means “seeming” as opposed to really being: The One is; the Many merely seem to be. This doctrine is substantially the same as the Hindu doctrine of ma-ya- [maya], which similarly holds that since only the One is real, the Many must be a kind of seeming. This is the point where Xenophanes has seemed to some Western thinkers to have contradicted himself.

Just as the evidence has inexorably accumulated over the years supporting the observation that LCHF/ketogenic diets make us healthier, the evidence supporting the idea that saturated fat is deadly and that we should all eat low-fat diets has been fading, despite the best efforts of the orthodoxy to prop it up. The more research that’s been done, the less compelling it becomes. This is always a bad sign in science and a persuasive reason to believe that a theory or a belief is simply wrong. Outside mathematics, it’s impossible to prove anything definitively one way or the other. Evidence always exists to support reasonable hypotheses (and even some unreasonable ones), because studies will always be done that get the wrong answer or that are interpreted incorrectly. That’s why I suggest we follow the trends.

The Viennese-born Karl Popper rejected the legitimacy of empirical verification as the right way to establish scientific hypothesis and theory. Instead, despite the Duhem-Quine thesis and other objections, Popper insisted on the criterion of falsifiability, or the necessity for a hypothesis to withstand tests that could decisively disprove it, as a basis for theory choice. Further, Popper argued that falsifiability is the best criterion for demarcating true science from pseudoscience. [From the Forward by Mary Jo Nye.]

Arendt further distinguished totalitarianism from pragmatism. “Totalitarianism is distinguished from pragmatism in that it no longer believes that reality as such can teach anything and, consequently, has lost the earlier Marxist respect for facts. Pragmatism, even in the Leninist version, still assumes with the tradition of occidental thought that reality reveals truth to man, although it asserts that not contemplation, but action is the proper truth-revealing attitude.… Pragmatism always assumes the validity of experience and ‘acts’ accordingly; totalitarianism assumes only the validity of the law of a moving History or Nature. Whoever acts in accordance with this law no longer needs particular experiences.” [From a note by Jerome Kohn.]

For was not American politics liberal at birth and democratic soon after? As we are seeing, that is at best a half-truth. American conservatism was strong from the beginning. It was liberal in some ways, not in others. American conservatives, to schematize, were economically laissez-faire but dubious about the liberal faith in open-ended progress. They did not believe in equality, doubted people’s capacity for self-government, and opposed direct, unfiltered democracy. In religious terms, American conservatism tended to an Augustinian, not a Pelagian, view of humankind as flawed and, in this world, unredeemable.





Sunday, August 1, 2021

Thoughts for the Day: Sunday 1 August 2021

 



"Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again."--John F. Kennedy.

To emphasize from the outset the importance of Napoleon to the Jeffersonian administrations, Adams introduces him in the History's first volume with a Miltonic flourish: "Most picturesque of all figures in modern history, Napoleon Bonaparte, like Milton's Satan on his throne of state, although surrounded by a group of figures little less striking than himself, sat unapproachable on his bad eminence; or, when he moved, the dusky air felt an unusual weight" (227).

History had no use for multiplicity; it needed unity; it could study only motion, direction, attraction, relation. Everything must be made to move together; one must seek new worlds to measure; and so, like Rasselas, Adams set out once more, and found himself on May 12 settled in rooms at the very door of the Trocadero. [From The Education of Henry Adams.]

“In short,” said Rousseau, “it is the best and most natural order for the wisest to govern the multitude, as long as it is certain that they govern for its benefit and not for their own.”

Despite the threat—or rather because of it—we’re focused. The potential for someone getting hurt is the wedge that forces us into coordination.

[O]ur nervous systems can really only issue two commands: tension or release.

“In non-linear systems [and surely a life is a nonlinear system] tiny, seemingly trivial differences in input can lead to huge differences in output.… Chaotic systems are not predictable [and surely unpredictability, too, is a characteristic of life] but they are stable in their irregular patterns.” Chaos theory gives great importance to “sensitive dependence on initial conditions.”

The difference between the Gnostics and the Hermeticists is that Hermetic man doesn't want to escape from the world, but to realize his full potential within it, in order to embrace his obligations, so that, as Hermes tells Asclepius, he can 'raise his sight to heaven while he takes care of the earth'.