Friday, March 27, 2020

Iain McGilchrist & John Vervaeke in Dialogue on Rebel Wisdom

A collaborative dialogue. 
Tired of hearing and thinking about the pandemic? Want to listen in on an enlightening conversation? Then here's a good alternative. Rebel Wisdom is a relatively new Youtube/podcast site that conducts and facilitates quite thoughtful and provocative conversations and interviews. In this particular instance, they bring together Professor John Vervaeke, a cognitive psychologist and philosopher at the University of Toronto with Dr. Iain McGilchrist, a literary scholar-turned-psychiatrist (M.D.) who wrote The Master & His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, and they compare their respective projects. Vervaeke is best known for a series of lectures entitled "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" that he's posted (free) on Youtube. 

This conversation is not for those not willing to go down deep into the operations of the human mind. The conversation references Martin Buber, Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler, Plato, Aristotle, the New-Platonists, and John Scotus Eriugena, among others. But this is not a contest in name-dropping; it's a genuine dialogue between two thinkers whose heretofore independent works are found to be headed in very similar directions. (Vervaeke was still in the process of reading The Master & His Emissary  at the time of the conversation.) The respective projects of both of these thinkers are to drill down into  (primarily) Western ways of thinking and perceiving the world to find out where it's causing us some of our deepest problems. Much of our current ways of perceiving and thinking about the world short-circuit our full potential and have led us to a place of deep crisis. This manner of dialogue is a rewarding exercise that we all need to engage in now more than ever. 
By the way, McGilchrist mentioned in passing that just that week (shortly before the pandemic came onto the front-burner) he'd finished his next book, which took him almost ten years to write. Some very good news! 

Monday, March 23, 2020

@Daniel Schmachtenberger (Facebook) came up on my radar a couple of years ago. Recently I shared a couple of Facebook posts from him. (I think that he just came onto Facebook.) I'm not sure exactly where or when I first encountered him, but certainly via some Youtube interview or podcast. Schmachtenberger (hereinafter DS) describes himself as "from Fairfield, Iowa" on his Facebook homepage, and he claims no special academic credentials. But he's impressed me greatly since I first heard him speak. He's a free-range (non-academic), free-thinker, as well as undertaking business and cultural ventures. Not having to worry about academic qualifications or positions, he's free to delve where his curiosity and passion lead him. In the time I've been following his work, he's been thinking deeply about threats to our civilization, our truly global civilization. He believes that humanity is in a real pickle and we need to seriously consider how to extricate ourselves from it.
DS is a conceptual and systematic thinker. He analyzes our human predicament from a high altitude; he sees the big picture, the workings of our systems: ecological, economic, social, and political. He's like a human spy satellite orbiting our global civilization. He issues high-concept reports based on his observations and analysis. Because much of his work hs highly conceptual and systematic, its also often abstract, although in the interview linked below, he gets into the weeds of the current pandemic quickly and then pulls back his focus near the end. When you listen to DS, you need to fasten your seatbelt because of the challenge of his technical vocabulary and because his extemporaneous presentations come in the equivalent of book chapters; i.e., his answers aren't short but they are comprehensive.
I highly recommend him for his project and the quality of his analysis. For those who might want to explore his message further, I'll share this post on my blog (sngthoughts.blogspot.com) and there I'll link to some other interviews and some of his writing.

Some more links for Daniel Schmachtenberger: 
2. About Daniel from his website, including these as his "intellectual inspirations": 
Buckminster Fuller, Jacques Fresco, Ken Wilber, Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, Krishnamurti, Bill Mollison, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Ilya Prigogine, Stuart Kauffman, Ervin Laszlo, James Carse, Arthur Koestler, Vedanta, Lao Tzu, Carl Sagan, Roger Penrose, Mahatma Gandhi, Victor Frankl, Buddha, Anthony De Mello, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, Alfred North Whitehead, Stanslov Grof, Hafiz [I've read or are familiar with all about 3 or 4 of these names; an eclectic list but full of important, innovative thinkers.]
3. Also, he lists these topics addressed on his blog [link above] and, by having heard him on podcasts & Youtube, that he discusses in interviews and talks:
Macroeconomics, governance, sense-making, collective intelligence, biomimicry, complexity, systems theory, forecasting, existential and catastrophic risks, infrastructure, philosophy, ontology, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, resilience, anti-fragility, evolutionary theory, science, memetics, information theory, cybernetics, game theory, whole system design, emergence, synergetics, jurisprudence, technology, existential risk, choice, coherence, meaning, self-organization, autopoiesis, psychology, psychopathology, conditioning, ontological design, language, culture, semiotics, hermeneutics, coordination, intelligence, sentience, sovereignty, well-being, medicine, education, therapy, relationships, communication [A delightfully diverse set of topics.]
4.  Here is a list of appearances DS makes on Youtube. BTW, the Rebel Wisdom site (and podcast) is a quite a good source of thoughtful interviews and commentary.

YOUTUBE.COM
In this fast changing and overwhelming pandemic crisis, what is really going on, and what should individuals and governments do? Daniel Schmachtenberger work...

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Code Red: How Progressives & Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country by E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Maybe this book is as important as when I started reading it

Will progressives and moderates feud while America burns? 

Or will these natural allies take advantage of a historic opportunity to strengthen American democracy and defeat an increasingly radical form of conservatism? 

 The choice in our politics is that stark. This book is offered in a spirit of hope, but with a sense of alarm.

E.J. Dionne, Jr., Code Red: How Progressives & Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country

As I write this review on 11 March 2020, it appears that perhaps the battle royal that seemed to be brewing in the Democrat Party will be put on hold, at least until after the defeat of Donald Trump. Perhaps. But things have certainly changed even from when I began to read this book at the beginning of March when Sanders appeared to have a lead in the race for the nomination, and Biden had only a win (albeit big) in South Carolina. Today, after results from yesterday in the five states that voted, including Michigan, where Biden scored a very impressive win, and Washington, where Biden trails by a whisker with about two-thirds of precincts reporting, Biden is now has changed his position. Biden now is on track to receive the nomination (but in this world, trains can come off the track). So can we signal the all-clear sirens? Not quite yet.

Sanders isn't prepared to jump on the Joe bandwagon yet, but I've heard conjecture that he will come on board at a reasonable time and not try to damage Joe in his remaining campaign. Supporters? Well, we hope. But back to Dionne.

Even if the nomination is all but over, the message Dionne preaches is one that all Democrats need to heed through the election and beyond. In short, so-called progressives and so-called moderates need each other. Indeed, all Democrats who seriously contended for the nomination this year were progressives, all of them to the left of even Barack Obama. But Democrats, like almost any group, love to bicker about the smallest differences. When the goal is affordable health care for all, then "Medicare-for-All" versus upgraded Obamacare is a difference in the path, not the goal. Ditto with reducing inequality, climate change, access to education, treatment of immigrants and minorities, and so on. All Democrats stand in stark contrast the Party of Trump (no more "GOP"). We might use the analogy of an athletic team: the coach (voters in the primaries and caucuses) seem to have decided on the starting line-up (Biden), but Sanders and his supporters can still be a part of the team. (Although it would be nice if Sanders became a full-time Democrat, wouldn't it?)  One hopes (and I believe) that Bernie won't quit the team out of anger and frustration and that most of his supporters won't either. Bernie, if trends continue, will have been licked fair and square, so any claim of a fix or unfair fight (which seemed to have lingered after Clinton defeated him) will clearly prove to be nothing more than sour grapes.

But there will be--we hope--a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress after the election. And we will need moderates, or as I prefer to say, the "the pragmatists," to work with "the visionaries," those who want to go beyond where the American electorate is prepared to go. Indeed, I agree that great changes in our political and economic systems. And I don't differ much in my diagnosis from those wanting politically-mandated change. But I believe that most of the change will need to come from the bottom up and not imposed from the top down. It will be a combination of both. But pushing too hard from the top (politically) down onto the electorate would likely cause a severe backlash. And Dionne, who's an astute student of American political history, recognizes the necessary synergy needed between the visionaries and the pragmatists to foster change. FDR, for instance, was a political leader who walked this tight-rope successfully. Did FDR accomplish everything he and his visionary supporters would have liked? No. But he did enact change that shaped American life and politics for more than a half-century? Yes. Would the civil rights movement (visionary) have prevailed without the ultimate pragmatic politician, Lyndon Johnson? Likely not, or at least not when they did make great gains in the late 50s through the mid-60s. Like the positive and negative poles of a battery, the visionaries and the pragmatists need each other. Or as great American democratic socialist, Michael Harrington, quoted by Dionne, put it, "the left-wing of the possible" needs to practice "visionary gradualism."

Much of what I've written above channels what Dionne writes about in his book. I've long been a fan of his work: he's a student of high-brow political thought (Francis Fukuyama, Mark Lilla, and Michael Harrington get mentioned and discussed), he pays attention to the insights from contemporary electoral research, and he performs shoe-leather reporting that tries to access what non-elites are thinking, all of which makes for first-rate reporting and analysis. Also--and this should probably be first on my list--Dionne holds a set of values and perspective that I find myself in close agreement with, one that seeks that perfect balance between vision and pragmatism. (Of course, maybe just a little of my high regard for Dionne is based on the fact that he had the tremendous insight to quote our older daughter and her friend in a column he wrote way back in 2000. Our daughter had introduced Bill Bradley at a campaign event. Of course, almost every politically active Iowan should expect some political reporter to quote them at some point during the caucus season.) Anyway, once again I find myself in agreement with Dionne and appreciative of his insights. So while the game isn't over, we should soon expect to have our starting line-up. I hope that everybody who cares about defeating our opponent gets involved and helps us pull together toward a resounding win. 

Monday, March 9, 2020

Earning the Rockies: How Geography Shapes America's Role in the World by Robert D. Kaplan

The books and articles by Robert D. Kaplan that I've read before (and there have been quite a few of them) have usually dealt with far-away lands. But in this book, published in 2017, Kaplan came home. In this book, he again combines his journalist's eye with a background of deep reading.

Taking his lead from trips made with his father when Kaplan was a boy in the 1960s (he was born in 1952), Kaplan acknowledges the effect that these journeys had on this boy from Queens, in addition to the stories his father told of his travels during the Depression that covered most of the "lower 48" states. Those trips must have helped plant some of the wanderlust that Kaplan has exhibited as an adult, with travels to over 100 countries throughout the world. But in this book, beginning on Long Island, and proceeding through Pennsylvania. Ohio, and Indiana and on through the Midwest and the Great Plans, Kaplan begins his drive toward San Diego. But unlike other journeys, Kaplans doesn't conduct interviews along the way; instead, he observes and eavesdrops. He undertook this journey in 2015, so he gained some premonition of the political upheaval to come (he heard little discussion of politics). As he travels and listens, he notices places thriving and places struggling: Wheeling, West Virginia and another city in Ohio are shrinking and obviously struggling, while the small city of Marietta, Ohio, seems to be doing well, apparently because it has a well-regarded liberal arts college there that draws students (and dollars) from around the world. And so it goes. All along the way, Kaplan describes a landscape familiar to anyone from the Midwest: some cities thriving (like Des Moines, Iowa) and other cities and towns struggling and in an acute decline. I can attest to the many small cities and towns in Iowa that have suffered declines in population and standards of living.

In addition to his travels and his first-hand conversations and observations, Kaplan stands-out for his deep reading. Through his reading of Herodotus and Thucydides to contemporary political thinkers like Francis Fukuyama and John Mearsheimer and fellow writers like Patrick Leigh Fermor and Claude Magris in Europe, Kaplan reads deeply about the past to bring perspective to his observations about the places and times that he inhabits. I should note that when Kaplan references a noted author, he's not just checking a box, he proves himself a deep and careful reader. For this trip, Kaplan consults three great authors in the mid-20th century who wrote about the American West and the conquest of the continent, Bernard DeVoto, Wallace Stegner, and Walter Prescott Webb (with a hat tip to William Faulkner as Kaplan by-passes by the South). Each of these writers provides a melody upon which Kaplan plays a riff, noting as he does, that their melodies may not sound completely dulcet to our contemporary ears. But despite some differences from contemporary sensibilities, none of these authors were merely triumphalist in their appraisals of the American project. Kaplan, as he peruses the history of westward expansion while drives across the continent, notes the irreconcilable moral judgments involving the creation of a great nation that led the fight against totalitarian nations in the 20th-century but that arrived at its great power status through the terrible genocide against the American Indians. Part of what attracts me to Kaplan's work is his appreciation and nuance in addressing the moral ambiguities and moral tragedies that politics often entails. (He has repeatedly repented his support of the Iraq War for some time now.) 

Kaplan also makes an important point--and this is perhaps his main point--that our experience as an expanding, continental power in the fertile, relatively underpopulated area of temperate North America, played into our thinking as an international power that began with Theodore Roosevelt and that reached its apex in my lifetime. He also appreciates the distinction between the myth of the Marlboro man (the lone cowboy) and the reality of communal regulation in a land where water is scarce. He describes the success of the Mormon venture (chronicled, at least for purposes of this book, by Wallace Stegner) by noting that the Mormon trek and settlement of the Salt Lake area was very much a communal venture. Not lonely cowboys or gunslingers, but a tightly organized, hierarchical venture, fostered the material success that remains apparent to this day.

Kaplan concludes his journey at the San Diego naval base, where American ships look out toward "Cathy"--China. In his appreciation of the importance of our Pacific shore and outlook, Kaplan seems to capture an outlook forwarded by William Irwin Thompson in the mid-1980s. Thompson described a shift in the center of power and culture from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic and, in the late 20th-century, to the Pacific. While one might contest such a construal of historical dynamics, I suspect that Thompson, writing in the 1980s (Pacific Shift (1986)), and Kaplan would likely agree.  I suspect that in part because of his deep reading and extensive travel, Kaplan is correct in his perception of a shift in the center of power (and thus our attention) toward the Pacific and Asia (to include the Indian Ocean area and India). These areas have been topics of his earlier books and with more than half of the current population of the world located in a circle that encompasses an area centered in the South China Sea. This area has gone an immense cycle of economic growth, and no doubt this part of the world will become increasingly important to the Americas as a whole, the people of the United States, and their government.



The Valeriepieris circle: more than half the current world population lives inside this circle


Taking this brief but instructive trip with Kaplan across the United States is well worth the brief time required, and it provides us a perspective upon the future by a deep appreciation of our past. 

Monday, March 2, 2020

My Farewell Salute to Pete Buttigieg

After the suspension of his campaign last night, you might think that Pete Buttigieg will vanish in the rear-view mirror. I don't think so; anyway, I hope not. Of the candidates remaining in the Democrat contest after South Carolina, I thought him the best choice. But in contests of this nature, the "best" (however one may define that) only prevails by something akin to mere chance. What we end up with is normally some version of the acceptable. So it is. But if you want to know why me and a whole lot of others 
supported this candidate (with a special shout-out to IOWA DEMOCRATS who saw the future of the party), watch this speech. If you want to cut to the highlights of an inspiring speech, go to the 13:30 mark. In about three & a half minutes you should be moved by someone who stuck to the end of this trail with a hopeful, inclusive vision of what his party and our nation should be about. Really an inspiring guy.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

The Principles of History & Other Writings in the Philosophy of History by R. G. Collingwood, ed. & intro. by W.H. Dray & W. J. van der Dussen

In 1939, R. G. Collingwood took passage on a freighter bound for the Dutch East Indies (now
Indonesia).  He undertook this voyage because--at least in part--he was attempting to deal with his chronically high blood pressure, which would eventually take his life in January 1943 after a series of strokes. Medical science had no effective treatment for high blood pressure other than to recommend the rest cure. Collingwood, an amateur sailor, undertook the journey. Did he rest? While we may assume that he undertook no strenuous activity, he did write two books, one of which is The Principles of History. But he gave attention to the other book he wrote on that trip (An Essay on Metaphysics) and then turned immediately to writing The New Leviathan, which became the last book he published in his lifetime. After his death, literary executor, T.M. Knox, brought together several of Collingwood’s writings on history, including lecture notes and three chapters from The Principles of History, and published them through Oxford University Press as The Idea of History. And as I mentioned, it proved quite a success (at least according to the standards of its peer group.) Knox left out some papers, but the source was considered exhausted. Except it wasn’t.

In 1995, archivists at Oxford University Press discovered the (uncompleted) manuscript of The Principles of History that Collingwood has written during his 1939 cruise to Indonesia. The new materials didn’t reveal any startling new positions or arguments made by Collingwood, but they helped to complete his positions and to reveal his overall plan. He'd intended to publish two volumes on the subject of history. The Idea of History covered much of this area, but not all of it, nor in the manner that Collingwood had intended. The Principles of History helps to fill the gaps. Given the depth and significance of Collingwood’s thought, this book provides us with even deeper insights into his unique and compelling ways of thinking about history. In addition, Collingwood's widow Kate, in 1978, deposited thousands of pages of Collingwood manuscripts with the Bodleian Library at Oxford, which proved to be another treasure trove of Collingwood's work. Selections from those manuscripts pertinent to the philosophy of history are included in this volume. Indeed, some of the most interesting and revelatory parts of the present book come from these manuscripts.

Knox included less than one-half of The Principles manuscript in the text of The Idea of History (1946) for reasons not entirely known, but the editors speculate that Knox thought this material either unimportant or of insufficient quality--a mistake from either perspective. A great deal of the material included in The Idea of History came from writing that Collingwood undertook for lectures around 1935-36, while The Principles of History was written entirely in 1939. And while certainly the two works and two sets of writing are largely congruent, they do differ or address different topics in ways that reveal new aspects of Collingwood's thinking (which seemed always in flux). The editors of this work, Dray and van der Dussen, identify several important topics that The Principles elucidate: 


There are no parallels in his other writings,for example, to his stress in this manuscript on the idea of evidence as language; on the alleged analogy between the historical and the aesthetic imagination; on the different relations to human action of essential and inessential emotions; or on the radical unlikeness of history and biography. . . . [T]he new manuscript also contains valuable clarifications and extensions of his case against historical naturalism; his conception tion of the autonomy of history; his view of the specifically historical past; his idea of rationality; and his understanding of the concept of probability in its application to history as well as to other fields. 
R. G. Collingwood. The Principles of History: And Other Writings in Philosophy of History (pp. liv-lv). Kindle Edition. 
But this quote neglects one of the most puzzling (or tantalizing) differences between the two texts: The Principles does not mention "re-enactment," a term and manner of conducting historical thought that is central to the argument in The Idea of History (and Collingwood's Autobiography), a term that distinguishes Collingwood and one that, for some commentators, provides grounds for derision of this thought. Instead, Collingwood at one point uses the term "reconstruct" rather than "re-enact," which, at least to my ear seems a more felicitous term, perhaps (quite arbitrarily and unfairly)  because "re-enactment" rings of American Civil War re-enactment hobbyists or Monty Python's "Townswomens' Guild of Sheffield Re-enactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbor." I'm confident that Collingwood had neither of these examples of "re-enactment" in mind when he settled on this phrase, but the term "reconstruct" seems not to lend itself to quite so literal an interpretation, and it would seem to fit better the overall description of his project, which is, as it were, to get inside the heads of actors in history, with events and actions the expression of thoughts (broadly understood).

However, there are basic concepts from which Collingwood doesn't vary in The PrinciplesThe Idea, or An Autobiography. For example, his contention that "all history is the history of thought," and his contention that res gestae--human actions or "deeds"--are the embodiment of thought and therefore the subject-matter of history, properly considered.  The variations between the newly discovered materials and the publications of his works up through 1946 (with The Idea of Nature) do not fundamentally alter our understanding of Collingwood's ideas about history, but they do provide more nuance and a just enough variety to suggest different paths of development that he might have traversed had his life not been cut off at the age of 53. 

This book also reinforces an important lesson: read the entire title of the work. In this book,  it's nothing quite so dramatic as a counter to the most widely discussed main themes of the book, but the details that are expanded upon that make the additional manuscripts quite important. As I alluded to above, these manuscripts reveal Collingwood's mind at work in ways that are quite suggestive and even provocative.

The most interesting of these pathways revealed are contained in the final section, "Conclusions to Lectures to Mind and Nature." These conclusions were discovered in 1995 along with The Principles of History manuscript. On their face, these writings belong more The Idea of Nature than the topic of history (although none of these made the cut by Knox for The Idea of Nature), but regardless, these "conclusions" show a train of thought that Collingwood touches upon in both The Idea of History and The Idea of Nature: that of process philosophy as exhibited in the work of fellow Brits Samuel Alexander (1859-1938) and Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). These older contemporaries, along with Henri Bergson (1859-1941) brought time, events, and process into philosophy from the new physics of Einstein and the quantum thinkers. Although careful to maintain a line between nature and history (with history as the realm of human action), Collingwood very much admired and seems to adopt their line of thinking. Reading the last section, Collingwood reminded me of his younger American contemporary, Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000), who studied under Whitehead and who carried process philosophy into the post-World War II era. Had Collingwood lived long enough to have expanded upon his work, one avenue he might have pursued would have been to more explicitly blend his thinking about history with the process philosophy of nature put forth by Alexander, Whitehead, and (later) Hartshorne. (For another "what if" conjecture about Collingwood, I recommend Ray Monk's piece from 2019, "How the Untimely Death of R.G. Collingwood Changed the Course of Philosophy Forever.")

This is my second review of this book. My first review was written after my first reading of it in 2015, and I copy a bit of the introduction of this review from that one. But because of the depth and extent of this book, it has greatly rewarded my re-reading, and it certainly merits further consideration, which I hope to undertake with further study. But you may be sure that I could write a great deal more about this book and its implications than what I've merely touched upon here (and much more that I've not mentioned). 

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Russia Supports Trump: The News That's Not New & Going Deeper

A wonderfully blunt news article from a mainstream media outlet (The Washington Post). Why does Putin favor Trump? The article provides some ready answers. If you want a deeper dive, read Timothy Snyder's The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America (2018) (my review: https://sngthoughts.blogspot.com/…/the-road-to-unfreedom-ru…) & Gary Lachman's Dark Star Rising: Magick & Power in the Age of Trump (2018) (my review: https://sngthoughts.blogspot.com/…/dark-star-rising-magick-…). Hold on a couple of months and you can dive even deeper into the enigma of Putin and Russian history and culture via Lachman's forthcoming The Return of Holy Russia: Apocalyptic History, Mystical Awakening, and the Struggle for the Soul of the World (release coming 5 May 2020). 

In short, there's a hell of a story here (the play on words intended). We can see the tip of the iceberg quite clearly, clearly enough to turn away, but will we? With deep background from the likes of Snyder & Lachman, and reporting like that of the article below, a true captain would turn away, but we have a crazed Ahab at the helm. Heaven help us.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

R.G. Collingwood: Bad Science & Bad Psychology Lead to Bad Ends--or Do They?

R. G. Collingwood, philosopher & prophet

A prescient thought from R. G. Collingwood, writing in 1935, ten years before nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki to begin the nuclear age. As someone who grew up with the (very real) fear that we could all end-up being flash-fried in a nuclear holocaust and who can now add (alas, not replace) that fear with the thought of an Instant Pot slow-cook (global warming) to threaten our collective future, I take Collingwood's observation and (implicit) admonition very seriously. We'd damned-well better learn to act rationally ("our honour") and put our faith in that path ("our nerve") or we'll end up in the other place.
The situation is . . . that science has taught us how to manipulate nature; it has given us extraordinary technological powers and enabled us to make anything we please in any quantities we like; and at the same time it has not only failed to give us that instructed wisdom which might be based on a true self-knowledge, but it has taken away the unreflective virtue and simple faith in ourselves which we possessed before psychology dispelled our belief in our own rationality. We have therefore, directly through the work of science, lost at once our honour, or habit of acting rationally, and our nerve, or belief that we can so act. Every increase in the power which science gives us over Nature has been attended by a decrease in our ability to use that power wisely; and if the process could go on long enough it is hardly to be doubted that mankind would all but annihilate itself in a series of mutually destructive wars, while the scientists stood by lamenting over the folly of human beings. 
R. G. Collingwood. The Principles of History: And Other Writings in Philosophy of History (pp. 175-176). Kindle Edition.
Same song, second verse. Lyrics by R. G. Collingwood:
What the scientist fails to understand, when he finds himself an impotent spectator of movements he can neither control nor arrest, is that the folly and wickedness which he deplores, the Mephistopheles of this rake's progress, are of his own creating; it is he that raised the devil by inventing psychology and teaching man that he is neither virtuous nor rational but a mere bundle of instincts with nothing in himself either to respect or to obey. But this is understood strongly enough, though confusedly, among mankind at large; and that is why, among the various movements of the modern world, none is more widespread and more characteristic than a certain anti-intellectualism, irrationalism, hatred of thinking, which is simply the revolt of man against the modern scientific tradition. 
R. G. Collingwood. The Principles of History: And Other Writings in Philosophy of History (p. 176). Kindle Edition.
N.B. Collingwood is not in the least "anti-science." His understanding & appreciation of modern science is without question. But what this quote and others like it reveal, is that he wants to put modern science in its place, as it were. Science is different from history; they are complementary ways of knowing. One (science) studies patterns of behavior; the other, the particularities of human action. The criteria that govern the human mind are established by the fields of logic, ethics, and aesthetics. These are "criteriological" (normative) fields of thought established to guide the human actor. Most (lab & social) psychology seeks to study patterns of behavior in the field, as it were, which is, in Collingwood's view (and mine), a step down. Perhaps useful and insightful, but dangerous if taken as establishing norms.

Also, to what extent can ideas about modern science, and psychology, in particular, be shown to influence popular opinion. Collingwood was able to look about his world and see the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany and Mussolini and the Fascists in Italy, but to what extent can we blame the irrationality and anger underlying these movements upon subjects of academic thought? Collingwood is far from alone in making this type of accusation; Pankaj Mishra, Brad Gregory, and Patrick Deneen pop to mind as others who've made similar sorts of allegations about social and political theories influencing popular behavior. Is there a way to demonstrate this? How do we discern any connections that can be accurately said to cause changes in attitudes and behaviors as opposed to mere accusations of such? Such accusations are popular with American conservatives and reactionaries, and they no doubt come from the left as well. How do we sort the gold from the dross in this field of cultural and intellectual history?

Monday, February 10, 2020

Douthat & Cassidy: Decadence and No-Growth--Preliminary thoughts

NYTIMES.COM
Cut the drama. The real story of the West in the 21st century is one of stalemate and stagnation.
For those wanting to take a deep dive. This longer article (essentially an excerpt from his forthcoming book), Ross Douthat wrestles with the protean concept of decadence. I used to think this term, decadence, the purview only of cranky conservative-types who thought contemporary America (and I'm thinking back to the 50s and 60s) was beginning to embody the decadence of Roman decline or fin-de-siecle France--languid debauchery. But Douthat, following the lead of Jacques Barzun, looks at decadence through a wider lens, political and economic as well as cultural. Perhaps, given my age, I've come under Saturnine influences, but I find that Douthat provides some compelling insights. Are we stuck in neither the best of times nor the worst of times? And if we don't like where we are as a nation, as a global civilization, how might we proceed? More to come! (See the following.)

I offer this article (a bit longer than the usual newspaper column) from John Cassidy of the New Yorker. I find that it compliments the Ross Douthat article that I posted immediately before this one. In this article, Cassidy asks what has seems to me (for a very long time running) the question of whether economic growth can continue indefinitely. My admittedly rudimentary sense of biology tells me that Nature doesn't allow unlimited growth to continue, that at some point, constraints will appear, either internal (structural ability to incorporate new growth) or external (inadequate resources to allow further growth). Indeed, the fall from growth, whether it's in a Petrie dish or an entire civilization, often occurs quite abruptly and--if humans are involved--catastrophically.
Does this mean that we're doomed? Does this mean that we'll inevitably suffer a decline in standards of living? No, to both questions. Of course, a level of material prosperity is necessary for a good life. Squalor and poverty don't make for a good life, But then after meeting the basics of material prosperity in Maslow's hierarchy, money, our measure--imprecise as it is--of economic well-being, doesn't matter all that much. (That some have a seemingly infinite lust for more money is a pathology, not a virtue, as our society often seems to believe it is.) In fact, the challenge is to have a comfortable, secure material life with the potential for intangible well-being that need not be constrained by material circumstances. Possible? Why not? Change--big change--is coming because of the imperatives of Mother Nature, but we can guide that change to our collective ill or our collective betterment. A great challenge by which we can escape our decadence (read the Douthat article).
NEWYORKER.COM
The critique of economic growth, once a fringe position, is gaining widespread attention in the face of the climate crisis.