Thoughts: 15 Nov 2021

A 2020 publication but very today. 

Commanding Hope

Thomas Homer-Dixon

Seneca emphasized the close association of hope with fear. “Both,” he wrote, “belong to a mind in suspense, to a mind in a state of anxiety through looking into the future. Both are mainly due to projecting our thoughts far ahead of us instead of adapting ourselves to the present.”

Trust and the Competition Delusion - Griffith Review

griffithreview.com

We’re falling for the ‘competition delusion’ by which I mean this: in our embrace of private competition as a goal, we mostly pass over a prior issue – which is the terms on which that competition takes place. This is undermining trust in a remarkably wide range of institutions in our economic and public life.

Cooperation and competition are polarities they create energy via the exchanges between them. Fruitful competitions are bounded in cooperation. Like athletic games, markets prosper only when properly bounded by rules and rule enforcement. "All competition all the time" creates chaos and leads to self-destruction.

Shutdown

Adam Tooze

The irreconcilable clashes in American politics reflected a polarization between those who affirmed the many transformations America has undergone since the tumultuous 1960s and had done well out of those changes and those who hankered after a return to the 1950s, or at least their vision of that bygone era. Trump had satisfied that craving, and though he lost the national vote, red-state America had not repudiated him. He gained more votes than in 2016. Indeed, he gained more votes than any presidential candidate before him in history, other than Biden. And Trump, being Trump, thought he had won.

I question the insinuation that Trump voters are led by nostalgia; more recent developments--the relative decline in many regions of the country--are more causal. The nostalgia is a symptom, not a cause.

The Constitution of Knowledge

Jonathan Rauch

The advantage of the reality-based community is not that it catches every error immediately, but that it catches most errors eventually, and many errors very quickly. No other regime can make that claim, or come anywhere close.

Crucial.

On Revolution

Hannah Arendt

A theory of war or a theory of revolution, therefore, can only deal with the justification of violence because this justification constitutes its political limitation; if, instead, it arrives at a glorification or justification of violence as such, it is no longer political but antipolitical.

Arendt is the anti-Clauswitz in this particular: war isn't the continuation of politics ("by other means") but the cessation of politics.

The Force of Character

James Hillman

Biology and economics form our basic Western model. Ideas of soul, of individual character, and the influence of awareness on life processes have become accessory decorations to lighten the despair and disguise the “real truth” about old age.

The Inevitability of Tragedy

Barry Gewen

[Henry] Kissinger begins this part of [Kissinger's book] Diplomacy with the most unequivocal of declarations: “Hitler’s advent to power marked one of the greatest calamities in the history of the world.” Few would disagree. Still, in recent years many writers on the Nazis have tried to achieve a kind of “objective” distance by stepping away from stressing that Hitler was one of humankind’s great monsters to a more analytic posture—not, one must hasten to say, to rehabilitate him (though some have undeniably moved in that direction) but to be able to “historicize” the Third Reich and understand it in context.

In the preface to his expansive study The Coming of the Third Reich, the historian Richard J. Evans writes, “It seems to me inappropriate for a work of history to indulge in the luxury of moral judgment. For one thing, it is unhistorical; for another, it is arrogant and presumptuous. I cannot know how I would have behaved if I had lived under the Third Reich.” Commendably, Evans is not so self-righteous as to assume that he would have been among the small minority of Germans who were immune to Hitler’s appeal. But unlike Evans, a Jewish German might indeed “indulge in the luxury of moral judgment.” As someone driven out of Germany, Kissinger does not and cannot share Evans’s doubts or qualms, either his well-intentioned modesty or, as it were, his over-evenhandedness. Kissinger belongs to the old school of moral history and lets his emotions do the talking. His words for Hitler are “demonic” and “psychotic.”

This quote raises a fascinating issue: should we pass moral judgment on persons in the past? In one sense, we certainly do and should. If one isn't morally outraged by Hitler, then one should fear for one's moral bearings. On the other hand, Hitler is dead. Our condemnation can't change him or more specifically, his position and behavior. Thus, shouldn't history be more concerned with understanding the man and his actions? In the end, both attitudes--of moral judgment and understanding--have their place. We must beware because moral judgment can be cheap, while understanding is almost alaways dear.

The Ethics of Serving a Corrupt Leader

Some reflections on the two articles linked below. The first paragraph is based on the Rosenstein article, and the rest (starting with Seneca) goes to the McMaster article. For a rundown on Seneca and his relationship with Nero, read this summary of a book about it: Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero by James Romm. 

One thing that every lawyer has to pay attention to--even if he or she doesn't care about it--is ethics. (Very few don't care & most don't violate, but your cynical comments may be shared below). And, as I will illustrate by another post, the U.S. military (thank goodness) has a strong ethos of service and political neutrality. But how does one negotiate situations when one has to deal with a corrupt client? For lawyers, this is a common enough problem: some of my clients were violent criminals and some were slimy creeps (and the two sets didn't necessarily overlap). It's tough. But what if your client (or boss, in any event) is the president of the United States? How do you serve your country and yet avoid the taint that someone you serve is compared to mob bosses he's prosecuted by the former top law enforcement officer in the U.S. government (FBI Director)? Do you resign & "save your soul"? Or do you serve, knowing that you will become identified with any wrongdoing and likely get stabbed in the back for your efforts? Another post will follow, this one about a military officer who served in the #45 administration.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca served the Roman emperor Nero (of fiddle fame). For his trouble, Seneca was allowed to commit suicide after Nero turned on him. But he served while he could. So it is that some are called who feel duty-bound to serve, such as General McMaster. What should he have done? As he did? Ditto with General (ret.) Mattis, perhaps the last "adult" left to try to check #45's impulses? I feel for McMaster--he didn't even last in the job long enough for this piece about his work to be published! Again: what are the ethics requirements of those who would serve a corrupt figure, even if he is the lawful president of the U.S.?

Also, on a side note, the beginning of the article delves into the fact that the president is (essentially) a functional illiterate. That is (and these are my words) not to say that he can't read, but that he doesn't, for whatever reason, choose to read. That he is a "visual learner" or "better at listening" (that's a good one!) are so much BS. But in any event, he chooses not to read and in the end, I don't see that's functionally different from being unable to read. Shouldn't our president read? Aren't there important things that are conveyed by the written word that he should know about? I think so, but perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.

McMaster and Commander

Can a national-security adviser retain his integrity if the President has none?

NEWYORKER.COM

Opinion | Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and the Art of Survival

Sometimes the best way to do justice is to compromise with those who would deny it.

NYTIMES.COM

How to Fail at Almost Everything& Still Win Big: Kind of My Life Story by Scott Adams

Good advice delivered with humor

I have a weakness for self-help books. The sad truth is that I’ve known for a long time that my self needs help—of all kinds. I also like to learn and try out new ideas and ways of living. This reading history—this quest—for an improved self hasn’t cured my many flaws, but on the whole, I think I’d be the worse off for not having tried some of the ideas that I’ve encountered. Of course, the quality of the advice that you get from what we call self-help books varies immensely. I think it appropriate, albeit unusual, to consider Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca—even Socrates—as a part of the self-help literature. The Greeks thought of philosophy as a way of life, with concepts, reasoning, and knowledge as tools for leading a good life. And this is the ultimate aim of the self-help literature, isn’t it? Religious practices (as distinct from limiting religion to a set of beliefs) all more or less seek to regulate and thereby improve the self (or soul). (Buddhists also might object to the use of “the self”, as they belief it an illusion, but I think most would agree its a handy one and something—if not someone—benefits from the Noble Eightfold Path). More recently, one can cite Ben Franklin, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and William James as self-help gurus in the their literate and cultured ways. Just this morning I read excerpts and commentary upon Bertrand Russell’s The Conquest of Happiness, wherein the great mathematician and philosopher dispenses advice. 

Of course, a great deal of hokum and P.T. Barnum-like salesmanship pervades the field as well. From Norman Vincent Peale to Dale Carnegie to Napoleon Hill to Stephen Covey, we find a middle-brow sources of advice, often over-sold or simplistic, but good for nuggets of wisdom and for exercising the crap-detector. Some writers have helpful suggestions for improving morning rituals, getting more work done, and becoming a better conversation partner. Nassim Nicolas Taleb provides a good contemporary example of an intellectual who dispenses advice and opinions, not under the guise of self-help, but through thoughtful and entertaining essays that provide can provide benefits. One has to shop carefully, or you end up with a bunch of sale junk in your reading basket, but if you’re discerning, you can provide yourself (it’s who your giving a gift to, right?) some helpful mind-stuff. 

Scott Adams, author, cartoonist, advice-giver

This brings me to Scott Adams. Farnum Street (one my must-read blog list) posted an excerpt and commentary based on Adams’s combination autobiography and self-help book. In fact, the unique blend of personal story and insight into how to conduct a better life makes this a fun read. I’ve never read Dilbert cartoons regularly—Adams’s significant claim to fame—so I wouldn’t have read the book unless Farnum Street had included a blurb about how Adams denigrates “goals” and promotes “systems”. My inner Taoist had rebelled against goals in a way that I had never been able to quite understand. I’ve accomplished things in life, helped raise a family, succeeded in my profession, married well, and so on, without having been a goal-driven person. In fact, I had this inkling that goals were a rather abstract and perhaps in some way faulty way of going about things, and Adams clarified the issue for me. Adams writes:

To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That’s literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose ten pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal— if you reach it at all— feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary. That feeling wears on you. In time, it becomes heavy and uncomfortable. It might even drive you out of the game. If you achieve your goal, you celebrate and feel terrific, but only until you realize you just lost the thing that gave you purpose and direction. Your options are to feel empty and useless, perhaps enjoying the spoils of your success until they bore you, or set new goals and reenter the cycle of permanent presuccess failure.

Adams, Scott (2013-10-22). How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life (p. 32). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

If you have your crap-detector on, you will think that any system as a system must have a goal or purpose, and that any goal must have a means or system for reaching the goal. Adams agrees. He recognizes the inherent relation of goals and systems, but he goes on the identify the fundamental differences in perspective between the two attitudes:

[T]hinking of goals and systems as very different concepts has power. Goal-oriented people exist in a state of continuous presuccess failure at best, and permanent failure at worst if things never work out. Systems people succeed every time they apply their systems, in the sense that they did what they intended to do. The goals people are fighting the feeling of discouragement at each turn. The systems people are feeling good every time they apply their system. That’s a big difference in terms of maintaining your personal energy in the right direction. . . . For our purposes, let’s say a goal is a specific objective that you either achieve or don’t sometime in the future. A system is something you do on a regular basis that increases your odds of happiness in the long run. If you do something every day, it’s a system. If you’re waiting to achieve it someday in the future, it’s a goal.

Adams, Scott (2013-10-22). How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life (pp. 32-33). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

This is the gem that convinced me to read the book. I think that Adams is on to something. If my goal is to lose 20 pounds, I can do it and then what? If I’m like most people, I’ll put it right back on. But if my system is to eat smartly and keep myself healthy and fit, then that’s a daily set of tasks that allow to act (with success) each day. However, lest you think he goes to far, much later in the book Adams writes:

Humans will always think in terms of goals. Our brains are wired that way. But goals make sense only if you also have a system that moves you in the right direction.

Adams, Scott (2013-10-22). How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life (p. 228). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Adams throughout the book proves himself a balanced and nuanced thinker, as well as displaying a fun sense of humor. 

As befits a cartoonist—who must get a message across in a small set of boxes with a few drawings and words—Adams praises the benefits of simplification, even at the expense of optimization. For him, the best way of doing things is usually the simplest because it is the most robust. (Although he doesn’t cite Nassim Taleb here, his reasoning tracks a key argument of Taleb about robustness and antifragility.) Adams goes on to list a number of different practices, acquisitions, and hacks to put yourself in the best way in this world. His list includes: 

• Goals are for losers.
• Your mind isn’t magic.
• It’s a moist computer you can program.
• The most important metric to track is your personal energy.
• Every skill you acquire doubles your odds of success.
• Happiness is health plus freedom.
• Luck can be managed, sort of.
• Conquer shyness by being a huge phony (in a good way).
• Fitness is the lever that moves the world.
• Simplicity transforms ordinary into amazing.

Adams, Scott (2013-10-22). How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life (p. 3). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Adams details these fundamentals in the course of the book. As with the biggest points, his tips and practices usually make a lot of sense. On diet, I don’t agree completely—although he’s all over the simple carb problem. However, I’m not sure that any two people on planet Earth agree about diet (where personal bias and taste account for a great deal!). Also, if you follow through to the end the book you find that Adams believes in experimentation and observation: he’s in the pragmatic camp for dealing with the world. This attitude allowed him to locate a unique and crucial cure to a severe voice impairment that he developed. It also led him to recommend affirmations as a way of realizing goals (did he just use that word or was that me?). In other words, he’s dealt with some vexing and troubling issue,s as well as the day-to-day hassles and challenges of life that we’ve all encountered, and he’s enjoyed some success. He’s allowed observation and experience to overcome skepticism, as in his use of affirmations. I appreciate someone who is that open-minded. Sometimes things work in ways we just don’t understand or that don’t make sense to us. But working knowledge can—and should—come before theory. 

If you read one contemporary self-help book this year (sorry, he can’t go ahead of the Greeks, the Romans, or the earlier Americans) and you want some chuckles to go along with many helpful suggestions and insights, then I recommend this book. And, as one final gem, I’ll leave you with Adams’s own recap of his happiness formula:

• Eat right.
• Exercise.
• Get enough sleep.
• Imagine an incredible future (even if you don’t believe it).
• Work toward a flexible schedule.
• Do things you can steadily improve at.
• Help others (if you’ve already helped yourself).
• Reduce daily decisions to routine.

Adams, Scott (2013-10-22). How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life (pp. 178-179). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.