• Overview, Irritation Alert!

in the blind spot

~ Philosophy in the Dystopian Context

in the blind spot

Category Archives: Blind spots in thinking

Mathematical Rationalism in the Baroque Era

10 Friday Feb 2012

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Freedom, Hierarchy, Leadership, Political Power, Transcendence

≈ 1 Comment

Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, and Benedict de Spinoza, would be my picks to represent Baroque rationalism. They all loved geometry and mathematics generally and judged it to represent a fundamental structure which also underlay nature, thought, and language. Language and mathematics belonged together as logical structures which extended into nature and into rational thinking. In fact it was unity with the logical structures of nature and mathematics which made thinking especially powerful for those philosophers. Language competence was inseparable from logical competence, and logic was a foundation common to extended substance or nature, as well as rational thought, mathematics, and even music (music of the spheres). However, language competence and the voice it enabled were also inseparable from an enduring and individual thinking entity, a person.

Although Baroque rationalists worked to undermine or overthrow the power of Christianity, they retained a basically Christian world view which included the dualism of body and soul. None of those philosophers would have questioned the presence and power of a bestial aspect in human motivation. The bestial was considered to be both compulsive, slavish, and urgently self-interested, without any sense of bonding to a collective or to mutual relationships. These impulses endured as the lower aspects of human nature, but they were not the whole story. Mathematics, and especially geometry represented a higher level.

There is very little sense of human freedom rising above nature in the work of Baroque rationalists. The effect of philosophical rationalists was to push thinking and objective nature closer together. These philosophers did not doubt the existence of the ‘spiritual’ entity assumed to be the individual human person or subject, and they did not doubt the importance of thinking and individual intelligence. They were professional practitioners of higher levels of human nature, and respected those powers. Yet, they did not have a profound sense of the transcendence of intelligence. They sensed that nature was flexible enough to include intelligence, and so they made efforts to describe how that might be conceived. These philosophers make an interesting contrast to the Hellenistic humanists (Sophists, Epicureans, Skeptics), also a variety of rationalist, since those humanists were achieving a mental state of ‘being in the world without being of it.’ By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries people were much more interested in being in and of the world, and they weren’t convinced that intelligence could do much more than engage with nature, figure it out, and create a better life by controlling and exploiting it.

Nature as Clockwork

For rationalists, nature was no longer spooky and frightening but possibly rewarding. It was no longer a realm of spirits but merely extended substance, dead clockwork, and as such measurable, chartable, available for painstaking study. That created an urgent need for “freedom to philosophize” which was not available under Christendom.

The Baroque and Enlightenment sense of philosophy was the application of individual thinking, modeled on geometry, to achieve an accurate understanding of nature which would exclude beliefs inspired by superstition and fear of the unknown. That was different from the Stoic tradition, although still based on the power of rational thinking. Baroque philosophers aspired to transcend nature not through indifference to it but by understanding the principles of its determinism. The old philosophical idea of a separation of eternal reality from ephemeral appearances was evolving into the relationship between natural law and particularity. An intense gaze into the clockwork of nature, a calculating and measuring embrace of nature, would enable human control. That aspiration to control nature at the foundation of science was another transcendence of nature by intelligence, and yet it was a vision in which humans belong in nature instead of outside it.

There is still a whiff of transcendence in the Baroque attitude to math, especially geometry, a sublime realm available to pure reason. Yet that transcendence is relevant mainly in the service of science. There is also a whiff of the taint of original sin on human nature, seen as mainly selfish appetites and ambitions. For Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), humans are selfish atomic egos in a war of all against all. Hobbes envisioned a distinction between that “state of nature” and the social contract, which shows awareness of cultural contributions to individuals in everyday activities, especially from institutions of sovereign power: law enforcement and courts, and also other symbols of national belonging including warfare. Hobbes understood culture, in the form of enforceable law, as a gift from secular sovereign power, and so represents the movement away from Christian theocracy.

Both lower and higher natures are clearly present in Hobbes’ account of civil society. The innate force of natural self-preservation or self-interest acted as a centrifugal force that tended to prevent formation of, or to break down, social attachments. This is very similar to Augustine. Hobbes gives the impression that social attachments are fragile and difficult to achieve, “unnatural” in a certain sense and so not to be engineered into experimental forms once civil society is established. Hobbes did not deny the importance of rationality in these self-preserving atoms, and argued that rationality enabled people to agree to a contract to create civil society by establishing a sovereign with the power of life and death over his subjects. The egoistic force could be controlled by a rational fear of death imposed by a sovereign. Rational self-interest was taken seriously because rationality could be conceived as the region of self-interest which searches for relevant facts, and judges their strategic meaning.

Philosophers have always been dealing with the agonies of being in a life in the world. (Agony and misery are markers of individuality. Each individual must supply his or her own way through.) The world is dangerous on a biological/ natural level, a political/ cultural level, and on a conceptual level. In the history of philosophy, concern over the misery of the objective world was gradually replaced by concern over nature’s brute determinism. Development of science in the seventeenth century contributed to a shift from the focus on misery to a focus on determinism, and the Baroque rationalists were part of that. It makes a difference because to transcend misery you seek tranquility and calm, you rise above passions which are the turmoil of experience, and in doing so establish a more authentic self-possession. In the struggle against misery, calm and strategic rationality look like transcendent freedom. By contrast, to transcend determinism you need a richer sort of freedom. Stoic rationality was not free enough to transcend scientific determinism. To transcend determinism, freedom needs to be conceived as unpredictability or whimsy as it is in romanticism.

Copyright © 2012 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

Reality as a Construct for Concealing Class War

01 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Class War, Narrative, Political Power, University

≈ Leave a comment

Europe was a Backwater

By the time the network of European universities began, with the opening of the University of Bologna in 1088 A.D., the store of human knowledge was already old. The invention of writing had been accomplished 4000 years earlier in cities of Sumer, in the southern region of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Although individual life is brief, the culture of literacy permits access to a stack of experience that extends back to that beginning. At that time and for long to come Europe was a primitive backwater on a remote and isolated peninsula. It accomplished little on its own but benefited greatly from the gradual spread of advances from Asia.

There is a long historical process of European communities benefiting from more advanced cultures in the east. The first city societies were formed in very ancient Mesopotamia. The temple cities there based their agricultural calendar on careful observation of stars and planets. Agricultural calendar administration was one of the centralized functions of scribal schools. Records were accumulated and calculations developed to predict the arrival of the annual river-flood, which was crucial for the timing of planting and other agricultural functions. There was a sacred and ritualistic character to agriculture. The idea of observing and recording natural phenomenon and thinking about them with the goal of reaching a deeper understanding seems to have been important in that civilization. Development of astrology reveals a practice of careful observation of natural phenomena and systematic recording of observations. They developed mathematics and writing. Great cultural energies had thus been concentrated to sweep like tornadoes through subsequent societies. Cultural sophistication and literacy attracted attention. Mesopotamian wisdom swept outward from its cities of origin and inspired imitation near and far, in the Indus Valley, in Egypt, Crete, The Hittite realm, and in Greece.

We recognize the brilliance of the intellectual life of ancient Greece, at the eastern edge of Europe, but the proximity of the more ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Minoan Crete was indispensable for Greek development. Europe was a remote peninsula. On its eastern edge, near but not too near the influence of high civilizations from an earlier epoch, Greece engaged in a wonderful episode of creation and thought, and enthusiastic waves of Greek colonists sailed off to form new cities east across the Aegean, north to the shores of the Black Sea, west across the Adriatic to southern Italy and Sicily, and then at a string of sites along the north coast of the Mediterranean as far west as Spain. Eventually this upstart outpost of culture, naturally oriented toward the cultural radiation from the east, conquered the heartland of civilization within the territories of the Persian Empire and Egypt by the agency of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) of Macedon.

Rome: The Rise and Fall

Farther west into the wilderness of Europe another cultural outpost was emerging at Rome, home of the Latin language. Eventually this new upstart, naturally oriented toward the east, conquered Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean coastal region. Roman conquests surrounded the Mediterranean and spread tentatively north and west. Further west of Rome the cultural sophistication was still relatively primitive. The Romans colonized intensively north to the Danube then west from the Rhine to the Atlantic and even onto the island of Britain to a northern boundary marked by Hadrian’s Wall. (Hadrian was Roman Emperor from 117 to 138 A.D..) That Roman movement to the western limits of the European peninsula caught the attention of nomadic peoples beyond the borders. Much of Germany remained beyond the direct influence of the ancient Mediterranean culture and economy, and eventually served as a base from which migrations of peoples swept into the western territories of Rome’s empire and overwhelmed the economic and cultural systems there. Under the stress of large scale migrations of Goths, Franks, Vandals, Alans, Angles, Saxons, and other tribal peoples to settle among and control the now Latinized population, that western region, including Italy and the city of Rome itself, had to be abandoned to the invaders. Most of the abandoned territory was still sparsely settled, without cities of importance beyond the immediate locality, and those few and far between in the primordial wilderness of forest and bog. The capital of the empire moved east to Byzantium, later called Constantinople, to a region still under the influence of Greek culture, but now severed from ancient Greece by both a Roman-identified ruling class and the dominance of Christianity.

Although the Roman empire in the west was erased by what has been called an external proletariat, there were also internal class conflicts in classical societies. For example, the hundred-year struggle between patricians and plebeians in ancient Rome achieved a brittle truce arrangement by around 300 B.C. by means of the addition of some political representation for plebeians. The class struggles of ancient Greece, in Athens and Sparta for example, are also well documented. Ancient societies incorporated a dependence on slavery into their economic functioning, and that remained even after the broad adoption of Christianity.

The society of the fallen west was not far above subsistence agriculture as developed originally in the bronze age, but there was some access to special resources which accelerated economic and cultural development. “Romance” languages in France, Spain, and Italy demonstrate that a great deal of Roman culture survived on the level of local folk-culture. “Vulgar” Latin is the foundation of all those languages. There was also the surviving eastern chunk of the Roman empire, the most populated and culturally accomplished part, now the empire of Byzantium. The society of the fallen west had close encounters with that culture during the Crusades. Ancient Mediterranean civilization continued there, although changed by official conversion to Christianity, and truncated more and more by losses of eastern territories. There was soon a new Islamic Empire which included the cities and much of the culture of ancient Persia and Mesopotamia, and by 711 it also occupied the entire south coast of the Mediterranean and the European Iberian peninsula almost to the Pyrenees mountains. That was to be a crucial resource for the backward west. On the local ground of western Europe there were remnants of the works of architecture and engineering accomplished by the Romans, and there was the late-Roman religion of Christianity which maintained an officialdom which was devoted to literacy in Latin. Related to that elite of literacy were institutions which preserved libraries of selected literature from antiquity. From those resources there was large-scale cultural regeneration.

European Christendom as an organized community was forged in the aftermath of the violent breakdown of Roman imperial institutions, and mass influxes of peoples from beyond the reach of the classical city-centered culture of ancient Greece and Rome. Medieval societies in Europe were conscious of living in a civilization reduced in wealth, power, and sophistication from the greatness of the Roman Empire. They were aware of living in a fallen world in another sense also, derived from Christianity, a human world in exile from the Garden of Eden. As the latest and greatest road builders had been Roman imperialists, it was still the case that all roads lead to Rome, and that gave the Bishop of Rome crucial advantages in communications and in exercising influence. Rome was still Europe’s head office both in cultural memory and in physical infrastructure. Medieval Europe was always in the process of being made into a Roman Church theocracy. The process was never entirely successful against centrifugal forces such as local forms of religion and independent minded war-lords, but the Church of Rome had substantial success in exercising hegemony.

Focus One: Christendom as a Reality Construct

Ever since human communities began to abandon the nomadic life of gathering and hunting and accumulated surpluses of vital resources, wonders of physical culture, and records of wisdom, their outlying surroundings of conservative nomadic peoples were drawn in to loot. Certain nomadic tribes devised ways of surviving by animal herding and husbanding and turned those techniques of parasitism onto communities of human farmers. Social control by landowning aristocracies, by military-estate families, derives from that innovation. An important part of the attraction of looting is to avoid having to live by daily work. A whole system of masculine pride was bound up in the ideal of living by looting other people’s work. It was the high point of accomplishment to murder rival males, destroy what property could not be used and take possession of the rest, including women. Looting is inseparable from mass murder, rape, and enslavement, and these are important attractions of war to the present day. A remnant of the romance and pride of looting exists still in the glorification of trophies won in competitive sport and fortunes won from financial speculation. It has been a slow and fragile process for human societies to conceive accomplishments more impressive than looting. Empire building is nothing more than sustained looting.

Collective identity, personal identity, means of livelihood, and the distribution of autonomy, all have to be understood in the context of stark inequality between a class of people able to live from ownership and a class of people who have to live by working. Every individual’s class identification is culturally assigned on the basis of his or her means of making a living.

There are philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau who expressed nostalgia for an imagined pre-modern closeness to nature, but the religious and literary record shows since ancient times a pervasive sense of nature as a place of exile for humans where we are marooned but which we transcend in a deep hidden reality. That narrative was at the core of Christendom, which thought of itself as a universal City of God which unified all local ethnic, political, and linguistic cultures within a spiritualized continuation of the Roman empire. In the rural/ agrarian middle ages of Europe, the Church of Rome mediated between the estate-owning military ‘aristocracy’ and a working peasant class by enforcing a spiritual collective focused on the Church’s narrative of transcendence, its magical sacraments and relics, its priestly hierarchy, its art and architecture. It was difficult for anyone in that society to think beyond the Church’s narrative of transcendence which trivialized the actuality of brutal social inequality by emphasizing justice in an afterlife-world. That was the ‘reality construct’ of Christendom, and it still maintains considerable influence. The personnel of the Church functioned as the literate mediating class, schooled in the fine points of the narrative, the middle class in that sense, of Medieval Christendom.

Blows to the Credibility of the Christian Construct

Justinian I was Byzantine emperor from 527 to 565 A.D., and his role in providing curriculum materials for future western universities was momentous. Justinian commissioned a systematic compilation and codification of Roman emperor-made laws beginning from the time of Hadrian. It was published in twelve books by 529 A.D., and later supplemented with collections of ‘common law’ legal decisions, commentaries, legal theory and training materials, to form an organized legal canon in Latin, the Justinian Legal Code. An edition of that canon was discovered in Italy late in the eleventh century and inspired founding the first university, the University of Bologna. The University of Bologna was opened in 1088, three years after Muslim Toledo was captured by a European Christian commander, Alfonso VI. The libraries of Toledo contained Arabic translations of philosophical and scientific texts from ancient Greece which were unknown in Christendom, but which would soon shake literate culture there, as those texts were translated into Latin and incorporated into materials for university study.

Medieval Christendom was supposed to be a singular collective transcendency within the Roman Church. However, the Church was directed and managed by people who normally came from ‘aristocratic’ military-estate families and also partnered with the wealthiest and fiercest of those families in the project of social control. Captains of the Church also claimed the privileges of aristocracy, and so were thoroughly corrupted by bias in their claims to legitimacy as social unifiers. That perfidy of the Church inspired a spiral of revolt from around the time of Wycliffe and the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.

There was a gradual breakdown of the credibility of the Christian reality construct under the weight of Church failures (the great plague) and development of knowledge of the wider world, with its richness of alternative lives and interesting secular vistas and opportunities. Secularism developed as a generally increased complexity of knowledge and access to the broader world. Philosophical ideas, technological innovations, and physical conditions such as disease and climate change also contributed. The failure of the reality construct of Christendom sent the Euro-American system of cultural connectedness drifting toward modernity in which the singular book-of-the-Church was replaced by a literature ranging over a broad landscape of thought. The story of the world became an alternative mental organization to replace the Christian story.

Christendom could not isolate itself from the rest of the world or from natural processes beyond its understanding, and it could not prevent a breakdown of the rural-agrarian economy due to the spread of money, population expansion, the cultural stimulation of cities, and increased knowledge of the superior accomplishments of eastern civilizations. Consequences of the Crusades, for example, included European discovery of the superior intellectual culture of the Islamic east. Contacts with the empire of the Mongols in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries brought awareness of the commercial and material superiority of China. Those unanticipated events had natural, cultural, and psychological consequences that gradually reshaped the medieval social order. In particular, two sub-cultures went wildly beyond the control of medieval sovereign elites for several centuries. The two sub-cultures in question are literacy and commercial entrepreneurship, both inspired by the cultural superiority of the middle east and the far east. The Black Death plague of the mid-fourteenth century (spread from central Asia) undermined the Church’s claim to be the good shepherd protecting the human flock by mediating between sinners and a violent God. There was ongoing loss of faith in the supernatural protection of the Church.

The Worldly Coup

What burst through and succeeded Christendom was a patchwork of more localized jurisdictions and ethnic-nations with some crucial fundamentals in common, most prominently the rule of monarchies emerging from within the military aristocracy. The theocratic authority of the Church of Rome encountered competition from those rural-military private property hoarders. In the roughly 250 years between 1534, when Henry VIII officially replaced the Roman Church hierarchy as supreme power in England, and 1789, when George Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the U.S.A., and the French rose in revolution, we see the rise and fall of regional aristocracy, sometimes in the form of nation-state monarchies. That style of sovereign supervision developed alongside Protestantism without being identical to it. Niccolo Machiavelli (1467-1527) advocated a rejection of the Church as senior universal supervisor, and supported claims by more local and secular power-holders to legitimacy as social supervisors on their own turf. There were efforts to stabilize a new reality construct based on “the divine right of kings”, which demonstrates how the idea of divine prophets still served as a template of sovereignty, even when those claiming sovereignty mainly carried and expressed the ancient culture of looting by organized violence. The legal and financial reach of official organization around monarchies provided some legitimacy to monarchy’s claim to mediate between the working class and the military-estate overlords.

Nationalism had not been an important feature of life within the Roman empire or in Christendom, which was a kind of spiritualizing of the empire, Augustine’s City of God. Of course people generally feel a loyalty to family and clan or tribe, but nation states are cobbled together in the game of military-estate families. There is no fundamental ethnic unity to the nation “France” or “England” or “The U.S.A.” for example. Inspiring devotion to such arbitrary abstractions requires heroic myth making. Some national myths turned out to be as attractive as religions. Even where secular engines of social supervision remained local or regional, the papacy and Church hierarchy lost influence and control to aristocracy between 1534 and the French Revolution of 1789.

The aristocratic seizure of power from the Church had consequences for the organization of society and the communal experience of most people. The Church remained a powerful force of social control, demoted to junior partner. The rise in importance of secular jurisdictions meant that secular authorities had to be given more reverence than previously. There emerged that other layer of community identity between each person’s strict locality and the vastness of Christendom. It required development of a new system of popular emotional devotion, this time to a semi-secular-state. Otherwise the rural-agrarian form of society remained much the same as during High Christendom, even though the economic and cultural forces mentioned earlier were quietly building. There was a lag in training people to fanatical patriotism/ loyalty with the emotional attachment characteristic of religious devotion. Some countries carried it off more grandly than others.

The great sea-voyages by which European Christendom discovered planet-Earth-as-a-whole were quests for commodities of trade and for routes over which commodities and luxury goods could be moved better for commercial purposes. The Islamic Ottoman empire took possession of Constantinople by armed force in 1453, which made overland European trade with the far east dangerous and uncertain. The event was experienced by Christendom as encirclement of its eastern and southern flanks by a hostile threat, and as such a major spur for expansion from the western rim. European nations on the Atlantic coast were now advantaged by opportunities offered by ocean-crossing ships, where previously the Mediterranean coastal regions had been advantaged both culturally and commercially. With this first wave of globalization, capital accumulation expanded beyond real estate into luxury goods trade and finance on a transformative scale. Also important in the European discovery of America in 1492 was the mythic presence of America as a “blank slate”, a new beginning, a place of opportunity for the disadvantaged. That changed the myth or cluster of ideals animating Western culture, partly by further distracting popular interest from the narratives of aristocracy and religion.

Until about 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, the momentum in culture, population, and wealth remained on the ground of ancient Roman and Greek civilizations, the north coast of the central and eastern Mediterranean. After the discovery of America in 1492 there was a major geographical shift in the cultural energy of European society. With discovery of the New World, energy and initiative went west, and for the next 500 years the European countries with most Atlantic coastal exposure became centers of economic and cultural investment and expansion, and the engines of European wealth. The great Old-Regime monarchical states of France, Spain, Portugal, and Britain blossomed from that energy. Emergence of nation-states is cited as a defining development of the Old Regime, but “unification” of Germany, Italy, and most other modern states occurred much later. “The rise of nation-states” is code for a new set of reality constructs in which national monarchs claimed to mediate between workers and the ownership/ exploiting class, with God’s blessing and support.

Johann Gutenberg of Mainz, Germany, introduced the printing press into Western culture around 1442. Gutenberg’s first printed book appeared in 1457. The printing press enabled the slow blossoming of a culture of written conversation outside churches and universities and independent of them, the ‘Republic of Letters’. In spite of the fact that Germany was peripheral to both the classical and the Atlantic seacoast engines of wealth, Germany has had enormous influence on European culture since Gutenberg. For example, credit for beginning a modern post-theological philosophy is usually given to Rene Descartes (1596-1650), but Descartes and the rest of modern philosophy is understood better as footnotes to the the work of Martin Luther (1483-1546). Germany was the centre of the protestant reformation which sent waves of influence through the entire European social and cultural system and changed forever its character and direction of development. The reformation rejection of Roman authority flourished in the region of Europe which had kept beyond Roman authority, and Roman roads, in ancient times. Germany suffered horribly for Protestantism. The Thirty Years War (1618-48) brought armies from all over Europe to loot, destroy, and do battle on German ground. That war caused more loss of life in Germany than the Great Plague of the fourteenth century. Recovery took more than a century.

Literacy’s Spiral of Revolt

The history of John Wycliffe (1328-84) and his Oxford university disciples, the Lollards, illustrates tensions playing out between monarchy/ aristocracy and universities. Oxford fell into disrepute after the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 because Oxford Lollards were blamed for helping to inspire the revolt. Wycliffe’s mission of universal literacy was the future, however. In a sense it was the university bursting out from campuses and conquering the world.

Although two events of the “spiral of revolt” are known as The English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the German Peasants’ Revolt of 1524-25, they did not occur in a cultural vacuum. Each was inspired by a Christian intellectual innovator, first Wycliffe, then Martin Luther, both campaigning for universal vernacular literacy. In Medieval society intellectual culture was mainly concentrated within institutions of religion, but Wycliffe and Luther put a novel emphasis on individual innocence as opposed to trained and educated sophistication. Such religious controversies were translated into social movements which included armed revolts by groups made up mainly of peasants. No doubt those revolts expressed long-seething rage in peasant experience against the supervisors of their society, aristocracy and the Church hierarchy.

Two more noteworthy events in that spiral of revolt were the uprising of Bohemian Hussites 1400-25, and the English Lollard uprising headed by Sir John Oldcastle in 1414. John Huss (1369-1415) was a Czech theologian who came under the influence of the writings of John Wycliffe and inspired a large following. In 1420 Pope Martin V proclaimed a Crusade against the Hussites. Their heroic survival against the destructive might of the Church made a deep impression on many including Martin Luther. Incidentally, it was in the self-defense launched by Hussites against the crusading looters blessed by the Church that, for the first time in western history, gunpowder was used to win battles against large armies centered around armored and mounted knights. The military innovator who devised the winning tactics was Ian Zizka (1359-1424).

Wycliffe’s English Lollards inspired Huss’s Bohemians in and around Prague, who remained a cultural presence involved in the inspiration of Martin Luther and his movement’s dramatic pietistic turning inward for justification by faith alone assisted and supported by personal literacy. The religious schism in Germany championed individualism and proletarian literacy. Luther’s stand against the Church is associated with the German Peasants’ Revolt. A campaign for universal literacy was the foundation of this spiral of revolt which ultimately culminated in the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789.

Within the culture of advanced literacy, renaissance re-discovery of Hellenistic philosophy, notably in Cicero’s writings, inspired both the spread of Greek-style humanism and the “republic of letters” outside cultural institutions. The availability, and spread through broad literacy, of humanist individualism began a new cultural force resisting both top-down collectives and radical inequality. Seventeenth century rationalism asserted a geometry-based affinity between individual powers of rationality and a lawful nature. There was a snowballing appeal of knowledge over theology.

The Big Change

Until the industrial revolution, the main working sector of society was still communities of peasants, with everything invested in gardens. The many revolts of peasants can be understood if they found that other classes of society contributed nothing to them but only exploited and looted them, which seems an accurate assessment. Since the revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a new claim to society’s rewards has arisen from commercial investors, entrepreneurs, and captains of organization. Not only has marketplace planning and adventuring entered the contest, but it displaced land-based aristocracy as the over-dog in the control of labour. That new ruling class developed in the same set of social transformations which shrank the agricultural peasantry and expanded enormously the numbers of urban commercial and manufacturing workers. That set of transformations involved a further loss of the reality construct of European Christendom, also the partial failure of attempts to replace that construct with “the divine right of kings”, and finally the rise of a new reality construct which might be called Euro-American Modernity.

Focus Two: Modern Reality as a Social Construct

In urban/ industrial modernity, although the Church was replaced by a combination of science ideology and institutions of secular states, it is an international literate class of professional engineers, lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs, and organization administrators which mediates between owners of accumulated capital and proletarian labour. That professional “middle class” functions by providing the capitalist class novel opportunities to derive income from mere ownership, and the proletariat with a variety of opportunities to exchange work for wages. This balancing of class interests is the social construction of modern reality, ‘modernity’. The social construction is the repeated, continually re-imitated activities in which people fit into processes of production and consumption, conversations, and crowds. The professional class made the urban market a practical alternative to traditional rural life in the grip of God and Nature. Knowledge-building literacy, in arrangements with accumulated money, broke through the cocoon of timeless natural cycles, but the literacy-based vision, from the eighteenth century Enlightenment, of the rule of rationality degenerated into modernity from the dominance of money culture.

Be a Scribe

Literacy is the key to middle class effectiveness. The core is knowledge trades built around advanced literacy skills and specialized education, functions that can be characterized in a general way as scribal. Professions are knowledge-trades, and knowledge is always hierarchical, organized around elite possession of arcane expertise. The middle class submits to lengthy training so not to live by body-labour. It lives by knowledge or investments and marketplace ventures, by knowledge of the marketplace. The middle class likes objective markers of accomplishment and self-definition. They become their economic function to build an appearance of stability and respectability. Having invested so much in a particular self-declaration, the nature and degree of personal substance gets stuck in socially defined and socially pre-constructed forms. Conspicuous distinction from less accomplished people, from “the crowd”, is crucial to the reward system.

Knowledge is always hierarchical. All-important knowledge supposedly justifies and requires, for its preservation and eventual fulfillment, a whole structure of social control, hierarchical supervision and obedience, and loyalty or commitment to belonging in the collective. Knowledge is, among other things, a tool for justifying the existence of oligarchy as preserver of knowledge. The delusion that this arrangement perpetuates is that fulfillment in life is achieved from service to the oligarchic supervisory and educational system, from receiving its rewards for service. All persons incumbent as social/ cultural authorities are required to endorse and enforce the myths of an oligarchy based on the unquestionable value of knowledge.

Capital as a money-spinner has been stable since the industrial revolution. Industries change, but market-commerce has continued to grow in fits and starts. A case could be made for the claim that large scale investors and market entrepreneurs have some control of modern cultural drift. Regimented organization of modern life by clock and organization chart, by market incentive and reward, is apparently the soul of modernity. Systems of human effort function like machines, ruled by abstractions, in an apparent triumph of the various counter-revolutionary efforts launched to limit the effects of the French Revolution. Victorian control and cold formalism were among those efforts and were applied to the control of factory workers, so they would be disabled from further revolt.

In modernity the professional middle class is the source of manic optimism from a conviction that the other two classes can be mediated into mutual engagement satisfying everybody economically, and so concealing the ugliness of class injustice which discredits nearly all societies. However, the modern economic machine satisfies superficially without approaching real equality, and the manic optimism is not shared by either the treasure hoarding class or the working proletariat, because each knows that an enemy lurks within the gates. In accomplishing much success in the mediating effort, the professional class is the creative heart of modernity but is biased by dependence on the pleasures of a style of life requiring high-volume consumption, the unsustainable benefit accruing from radical inequality. Although professional families depend on a strong “work ethic” for livelihood, there is an overriding identification with the ownership class, similar to the aristocratic identification of the masters of the Medieval Church.

Copyright © 2012 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

No Stinking Badges

20 Friday Jan 2012

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Class War, Freedom, Political Power, Subjectivity

≈ Leave a comment

Proposition One: Philosophy of a Voice

An intelligence is more like a voice than like a face, shaped through time rather then in space. Objects which are shaped and extended in space, and as such have an appearance, can display their image, a distinct force of presence, in a flash. Without an appearance, intelligence has to intentionally construct itself by exercising agency through a lifetime. The shape that a voice inscribes through time has to be assembled from memory by other intelligences. It exists nowhere in nature since nature is limited to the timeless actuality of the instant. Since intelligence has no flash-image as a bounded, continuous, and exclusive entity, it is vulnerable to acute self-uncertainty within a world of things which have appearances. Ever since the ancient Greek sage Heraclitus of Ephesus, who is famously quoted as saying of his thinking “I have searched myself”, a recurring intent in the personal use of thinking has been discovery of, or encounter with, the self-who-has-no-appearance, subjective questioning and intent in-the-blind-spot of day to day activity. When Heraclitus went searching within himself he found a river which was always different from one moment to the next. A river is a force and a voice.

Proposition Two: Politics and the status quo ante bellum

The private international banking system failed in 2007-08, and in failure was revealed as viciously addicted to ‘investment’ gambling, deeply fraudulent, and alarmingly immune from accountability of any kind. (The Occupy Wall Street Movement of 2011 marked widespread outrage at these revelations.)

In the wake of that failure (the metaphorical bellum of the title), current political agendas divide into two categories: 1) business as usual, with a little tinkering and tweaking to restore the 2007 status quo ante bellum, and 2) radical change offers the only hope of controlling the value-sucking gambling addiction, fraud, and criminal immunity which have created extreme social inequality. The media divide along similar lines, with the large-scale advertising and entertainment media covering events from the point of view of investors and financial markets who dream of having the pre-2007 world returned to them; but with internet media frequently interpreting events from the point of view of the victims of investors, banks, and financial markets. This division illuminates something else.

A vast class war was exposed by the failure of the banking system. Study after study has detailed the disproportionate and illegitimate political and media control practiced by organized wealth, of which the banking system is an important part. The radical enrichment of a tiny minority achieved by the policy reforms of Ronald Reagan (US President 1980-88), Margaret Thatcher (United Kingdom Prime Minister 1979-90), and their followers, enabled organized wealth to fund political parties, ideological lobbyists, and mass communications enough to gain effective control of taxes, laws, administration of justice, environmental exploitation, and wars, the faculties of sovereignty. Organized wealth has repeatedly used war both to drive pervasive social control and as a private money spinner in support of its own power. War is the ultimate destroyer of broadly distributed agency, self-possession, and personal freedom.

Can The Personal Use of Thinking Make Any Difference?

The self-uncertainty that is perfectly normal for an entity that has no appearance can be exploited by bullies, the greedy, political adventurers, as well as by enthusiastic people absorbed within supra-individual collectives, to sell their version of false self-certainty. They will give out money, things to do, special clothes, hats, badges, names, marks of rank and position, to convince you that you are something definite: tinker, taylor, soldier, beggar man, on a hierarchy of inequality. Distracted from personal agency, people can be quite willing to accept those role-play characters assigned from a script made by outside interests, instead of self-inventing avatars in their personal creative process. That is how we are persuaded to submit to wars and to be silent about collective crimes.

An attachment to practicing freedom through a personal creative process does reduce vulnerability to that kind of psychological manipulation. The subjective river of intelligence is a power for self-agency in uttering a voice through day to day life.

Copyright © 2012 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

Transcendence in Ancient Philosophy

15 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Freedom, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ Leave a comment

There were two main bearings or vectors to ancient philosophy. The first was an aspiration toward transcendent experience through thinking. There was a sense that the life of the mind is the life of gods. The world-view in which transcendence was an urgent desire was nested in metaphysical or spiritual ideas elaborated in ancient Persia, concerning an ongoing war between the god of good and the god of evil. In that duality, the everyday world of tangible and visible events was seen as the creation and realm of the god of evil, the lesser god, the deceiver, the dark principle. Events in this world were completely determined by the dark god in league with some lesser demons. Stellar constellations and planets were among those demons and they controlled and toyed with the lives and fates of people on the earth below them. The very material from which bodies are composed was thought to be corrupt as the creation of a flawed and imperfect creator, and evidence of that corruption was change in the material world, things transforming into other things, becoming and passing away. Time itself was taken as a flaw in the created world. The natural appetites, sensitivities, impulses, and emotions of human bodies led to ever more flawed, fragile, and perishable bodies, often ill and suffering, and always in an arc of decay, putrefaction, and mortality.

Each human body was thought to be animated by a spark or fragment of the high god of good, recognized as each person’s soul or spirit. The relationship which the god of light and good had to the world of bodies was transcendence. Feelings and impulses closely associated with functions of the body were identified as the lower aspects of humanity, and experiences of deliberative intelligence and rationality were identified as the higher and transcendent aspects. The fate of the spirits within human bodies was often suffering and despair. However, the spirits themselves were parts of the high god, and so were ultimately immortal and joyful, as glimpsed sometimes in the innocence of childhood. In that way each person was understood as a local version of the duality of the universe at large, a microcosm of the war between good and evil. Human spirits, as sparks or fragments from the high god, suffered more than their eternal source. Imprisoned within bodies, human spirits were soon imprinted and poisoned by body, eclipsed, isolated, and alienated from their higher truth. However, their truth was still their truth and a person could, with an effort to disregard impulses and sensations from the body, regain some degree of higher spirit. Rational thinking, or some other mental exercise, was a way a person could move along an arc upward toward the perfect god and true self-possession. Concentration on pure mentality (Aristotle’s “thinking, thinking about thinking.”) would ultimately achieve transcendent freedom from the misery of the mortal life of the body and from the astrological demons in the sky.

In that primal dualism the inner vs. outer separation came before the distinction between higher and lower, since you can take the lower aspects of subjectivity, arising from the body, as the world of outwardness penetrating or invading the world of subjective inwardness. That world-view presented human life as exile, as not belonging in nature, as being alien in the world of time. This is a life of catastrophically injured dignity and energy, an inappropriate life, fallen, disgraced, and deceived. There are echoes of that in the Old Testament story of humanity’s exile from Eden. That world-view was broadly influential around the eastern Mediterranean in ancient times and still has some congruence with popular religious and metaphysical assumptions.

Early philosophers rejected much of the world-view of good and evil spirits, but intellect vs. body experiences could not be dismissed so easily. The pessimistic assessment of the body, and of the dangerous environment in which the body carries on its mortal life, was based on ordinary experience, always vulnerable to misery. Within that mortal misery of the body there was the life of subjective intelligence which seemed to have a degree of independence from the body and to represent different principles. Intelligence seemed already transcendent to some extent and so it inspired efforts to understand transcendence more fully and to practice transcendence in the delight of intelligence as such. The abstract projects of mathematics and metaphysics, for example, were connected to the practical project of living transcendence, experiencing mental release from the vile prison of the body.

Copyright © 2011 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

Sovereignty and Spooks

25 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Freedom, Gender culture, Hierarchy, Leadership, Political Power

≈ Leave a comment

There were in ancient times many culturally acknowledged gods and demons with personal, local, or cosmic influence. Spirits were thought to account for a great deal of the day to day world, with recourse to powers, helpers, and operating methods unknown to mortals, and therefore capable of deeds which seemed miraculous. Each family devoted itself to the spirits of its dead, for example, expecting some help in return. Cities propitiated one or several local patron deities. As noted in an earlier posting, humans have imagined personalities in all sorts of natural phenomena such as trees, storms, and the universe as a whole. Emotion, purpose, or curiosity as explanations of events in the objective world have generally been preferred over ‘brute’ causal explanations, even when the imagined intelligent entity can’t pass the crucial test of carrying on an imitation game with us. Babies can do it but rocks and bushes do not do imitations.

Early philosophers rejected much of the world-view of good and evil spirits. Philosophical efforts were distinctive in removing rowdy and whimsical personalities from nature, the non-human part of the world. That was a main vector of ancient philosophy, a thinking out of nature without magical or spiritual assumptions, removing intelligences from nature. It was not accomplished at a single stroke, however. There were still important divinities in Plato and Aristotle, but they were more like impersonal forces, first or final causes without the capriciousness of persons. They were mainly characterized by eternal sameness rather than by the discretionary responsiveness of intelligence.

Materialism in Nature

Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers started materialist descriptions of nature in terms of elements: Water, Fire, Air, Earth, or combinations of these. Democritus of Abderra devised a theory of atoms in the void. The original program of materialism was to remove spooks from explanations of the world to liberate people from the fear of gods and of death, so to achieve existential happiness. Hellenistic Stoics and Epicureans defended the materialist metaphysics of Democritus as a secularizing project. In spite of their materialism, their focus was subjective and existential since the central question was how to use reasoning to manage fear and dread and live a happy life as an individual.

The philosophical campaign against unjustified attribution of intelligence to phenomena is still relevant, perhaps most importantly in considerations of sovereignty and nation states. Although nation states are pitched as semi-secular religions, they have no legitimacy as sacred powers. The assumed consent of people to function within a system of production and distribution, over which they have no effective control, can never accomplish the miraculous creation of a semi-divine sacred entity, the nation state. Yet each modern military/ industrial state is a territorial power demanding reverent devotion, worship, sacrifice, and obedience enforced by an iron fist of law, tax, and lethal military force. The state is an internally motivating culture of social control, accepting worship as a transcendent arbiter of life and death. However, states are merely mundane arrangements to protect a system for the concentration of wealth and power, and for armed forces recruitment. The state is focused on armed protection of accumulated private capital as well as of a hoard of national resources, treasure, and weapons. That is not entirely bad. States function as a framework for production of transferrable wealth, security of property and person, and decisions of justice. The state is the framework in which politics is acted out, and politics is class war (with elements of gender and inter-generational conflict) mediated into non-lethal forms. Politicians and government officials are political entrepreneurs and not prophets, not the voices of god or the hands of god, and not the voices or hands of some other spiritual entity arising out of the collective of the people.

Claims to legitimacy of sovereign power typically rely on the model of legitimacy established in ancient times from superstitions about gods and spirits, a mystery-based uber-parental ownership of worldly territories, including ownership of people. States still employ war to found sovereign authority, and so are based on terror and misery artfully made to appear sublime by a rhetorical shift of agency from the actual individuals in command to some aggrandized spiritual entity beyond accountability. An entity is invoked which is claimed to be superior to ordinary individuals and indeed sacred in some unexplainable and occult way. Human collectives certainly can be gigantic, terrifying, and unpredictably destructive, but that is as close to sacredness as they get. There is a fundamental identity between old-time religious mind-control based on terror of spirit-world spooks and that of sovereign elites in contemporary real-world societies.

Thinking and Freedom from Spooks

Freedom of thought is still rooted in the ancient philosophical struggle to be free of the oppressive fear of gods, ghosts, demons, and spooks of all kinds. In the transfiguration from Medieval Christendom to modernity, the centralization of social supervision characteristic of theocracy was not demolished but merely fragmented into a number of less all-embracing hierarchies, which learned to cooperate and compliment one another. Spooks continue to be identified as a variety of awesome abstract entities commanding patriotism such as the U.S.A., Russia, China, “the Dear Leader”, Capitalism, Islam, Christendom, IBM, Microsoft, the R.C.M.P. or even ‘the free world’. Modern societies are largely a landscape of mountainous commercial organizations. Every corporation is a mini-Vatican with its own brand-myth and corporate culture which includes company-spirit and a star-system of corporate celebrities. Corporations are not persons, they are spooks. Indeed, every high school is a training mini-Vatican with its religion of school spirit and sport team troops, its heroes and enemies. Fundamental questioning, criticism, or dissent is received like an offense against something sacred, like heresy. An appeal to the sacred answers all questions simply by killing thinking.

In their internal operations, corporations are force-fields of distorted reality, as detailed in a previous posting. Being presented externally as supra-individual persons with benign intentions and morality is just another face of the reality-distorting field they construct. Spooks are deliberately constructed distortions of reality for the purpose of diverting critical thinking and moral judgment away from organized crime, from acts which are unjust, immoral, or appalling, such as the mass killing and destruction of war; looting and despoiling the natural environment; disempowerment and exploitation of women and children for sexual or reproductive control; malicious blockade of a sub-group defined by race, ethnicity, or class; profiting from the misery of disadvantaged people; or evading just-process for the benefit of private interests. Given that reality, it is especially important to start questioning and investigating for injustice and criminality whenever any spooky ‘higher purpose’ or ‘greater good’ is invoked, whenever there is an appeal to something sacred or more awesome than the ordinary individual person.

Copyright © 2011 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

Ground and Sky

16 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ 3 Comments

We are Grounded

Ground is important to us because we are pressed against it. Ground is what dwellings and furnishings are supported on, so we can say that when we stand on a floor or rest in a chair we are still pressed against the ground. We have merely provided ourselves with a convenient shoe. Ground is what we plant gardens in, and sometimes bury treasure and our dead in.

Being pressed against ground involves first that ground draws us toward its own centre with a force we have come to call gravity. The ground also prevents us from approaching its centre. That exclusion is a general characteristic of ‘material’ objects, manifested in 1) resistance to change in their shape and integrity (resistance to penetration is a form of this) and, 2) resistance to change of place or movement (momentum or inertia). These resistances can be overcome if enough pressure is brought to bear. The effect is our being held at our point of contact on a surface, fetched up against an impenetrable, pressing, presence.

Jelly

Our own presence on the ground is a body whose material is mostly a translucent jelly, in surroundings that are often hostile or indifferent. Simple survival requires us to defend ourselves against the surroundings, to devise shelter from weather and predators and we have to eat our surroundings to stay alive. That work produces a sense of personal force against the environment, a kinesthetic force of personality, even in the face of weakness from hunger, fatigue, illness, and injury. Some parts of the environment are very good to eat and contribute to that force of personality in being eaten.

Our body of translucent jelly has cores of rigid bone, and sensitive vulnerability. Hold your hand to a strong light, and red and blue blood vessels are visible inside. It is living jelly that springs and vibrates. It is sometimes tough and stringy, sometimes soft and floppy but always changing shape, giving way under gravity, voluntary movements, or touches from outside. In the belly and in large muscle bundles in thighs and shoulders it has liquid qualities. Skin communicates its own surface luster and the shape and structure beneath: muscle bulges around the wands, balls, and sockets of bone, red-blue blood in its pattern of tubes and capillaries, subcutaneous fat. Sometimes the muscle, bone, and skin structure feels like a container for liquid guts and belly organs, deep waters of the body. Thin, tremulous bands of muscle cover those deep waters, holding them in a tough but elastic and sloshing cellular column.

Muscle-Frame Opening

From birth, except for rare occasions when we are falling in open space, we feel the ground pressing on that body. Our skin is sensitive to the pressure and vibration of touch, to textures and temperatures. It might seem that much of our attention throughout life would be directed at warding off such a continuous assault. Yet, it is not so, because we manage to overcome the holding pressure and move. Since we cannot overcome it all at once, like space rockets do, in a great push into orbit, we overcome it in quantities sufficient for a little movement, again and again and again. We adapt the muscle structure of our body to hold ourselves poised on ground against gravity, and as part of that alignment, we adapt part of our body structure, a pair of movable limbs, as a flexible contact capable of pushing against ground with enough force to move away from the point of contact. We make our contacts with ground into a routine, a simple repeatable stepping, that we perform without much attention.

Even more important are sensations of strain that muscles make across joints in the bone frame of the body. A very rich and extensive array of distinctions is available in these sensations. Moving a particular finger is clearly distinguishable from moving a different one, and both are distinguishable from moving a leg or changing the posture of the back. A small movement is precisely distinguishable from a larger one, a slow one from a fast one, a slightly resisted one from a strongly resisted one.

Sensations of muscle-frame tension are sensations of directed pushing against a resistance or holding off a pressure. We sense the solidity of the object upon which we are bearing and the pressure of our body against the object. In ordinary standing we sense in our muscle tension the firmness of the footing and the force with which our body is pressing against that footing, normally the standard force of gravity on the particular mass of our body.

We are moving creatures in our very structure, and, except when we are falling, our movements are resisted by gravity at least, and quite often also by various obstacles. The space outside the surface of ground is largely not occupied by impenetrable presences, so if we propel ourselves in an unoccupied direction we move.

We use ground itself to propel ourselves. By its qualities of (relative) rigidity and immovability, ground provides us with something to push away from in directions we pick. We use it to push against when we want to travel in an open direction, and when we want to stop. This constitutes the region along ground’s surface as space in which we carry on controlled movements and play out our force of personality.

That we have enough leg power to overcome the holding pressure of ground does not negate the continuous presence of that holding pressure. Our overcoming it is not an annihilation of it, nor even a suspension of it. Our overcoming it is always a cost to us. It is an effort in which our vitality is reduced, and it always requires us to make up the reduction with food and rest.

When the only means you have of moving is the power of your own muscles the flat ground virtually rises up around you and closes you off from other places. Ground’s holding pressure constitutes a virtual upward slope, a gradual but important barrier to movement. Because of the costs of moving and barriers in specific directions we are easily marooned, stranded, at a particular place and with the material values of that place. The limits of kinesthetic force, costs of moving, and the resistance of barriers maroon each person at some particular place or locality most of the time. The material particulars of the place determine what becomes of the needs we suffer, what pleasures we have, what shelter we have, and what we are nourished or hurt by.

Down, Up, and Sideways

Ground itself is opaque, so our orientation is mainly lateral to the pressure of ground. Our lines of movement go along the surface rather than into it. Not only do we have to give a lot of attention in the direction of our movement to avoid mishaps, but also the very possibility of moving through a region invites attention there for opportunities, resources, and dangers. We put the continuously pressing presence away from the centre of our attention, but not too far away. In doing so we constitute the direction to the ground as a fixture of our orientation, as “down” and “under”.

Places very near to one another are yet very different in their relative accessibility. Most of us most of the time find ourselves between two great inaccessible regions. Ground itself is one of these and it has in most places a very abrupt beginning, a surface.

The other great region of inaccessibility stands roughly parallel to the surface of the earth and extends in the opposite direction from “down”. It is not marked by a surface but rather a gradual increase in inaccessibility. It is the sky above the surface of the earth. About half the time it is full of light, sometimes glaring, sometimes hazy. When the sky is not full of light it offers a very different spectacle. Given these conditions the portion of the world accessible to us is rather ‘tablet’ shaped on the medium scale, a narrow space between an interesting sort of ceiling and a floor.

Although an individual’s sensitivities and perception are local and anchored at a locality, we are aware of the vastness of the world in which we are placed. We are aware that the vastness we do not see or know may contain and deliver threats and hazards. The moment is always unfinished, never possessed of a fixed essence. There is more to come, which we have a thought (a hand) in creating. We live in that ‘not yet’ as if it were an opening in which we might create a larger, unfolded, form of ourselves. Our questions point us into it. The light of our questions beams into the ‘not yet’ opening, the future.

When momentum does not account for what happens, a person tries to fit events into patterns from subjectivity, assigning subjectivity to otherwise separate and different presences. To recognize intelligence, other than personal subjectivity, is to recognize an entity moved by intuitions of predicament, value, and opportunity, a memory-based sense of the relevance of things, a sense of the future, and problems of achieving presence in the world. It is to distinguish a voice, actions which express desires, judgments, and sensitivities instead of movements due to mechanical momentum. You cannot see or touch another intelligence. You have to sense it in action. For example imitative action, especially mimicry with an original addition, is a declaration and communication of intelligence. Rocks and bushes do not imitate.

We recognize intelligence too much, sensing human-like personalities in the form of gods, ghosts, or spirits ‘behind’ all kinds of natural events and irregular occurrences. The assignment of intelligence to separate beings changes a person’s presence in the world into a being-with these others. Being-with is a sense of having an existence larger than personal privacy, of self-experience as something others might be aware of, share, and possibly meddle in.

When sensing personality outside ourselves we are recognizing questions and intentions that are not our own, and so recognizing other entities acting from intelligence. We are making sense of movements of people and animals by recognizing intelligence as a force. Empathy is difficult in that awareness of external personalities. Fear and enmity seem to be common. Toward the external personalities identified as gods, people do not feel empathy but fear. Still, beings moved by intelligence sometimes shelter each other from the boundless darkness, uniting by imitation as well as by physical closeness. The first experience of other intelligence is probably mother.

Humans have imagined personalities in all sorts of natural phenomena such as trees, storms, and the universe as a whole, and we might next imagine personality in computers and robots. Desire, purpose, or curiosity as explanations of events in the objective world have generally been preferred over ‘brute’ causal explanations. “Somebody did it.” “A spirit did it.” “God did it.” These are still accepted among educated people as sufficient accounts of why and how something happened. There is even an inclination to fall back onto such act-of-personality explanation where it is clearly not appropriate: “There is a little guy inside the machine who counts the money you put in and drops out the change.” Anyone who claims belief in god, gods, or a deity is irrevocably committed to subjectivity and its acts of reason, desire, or questioning as the final, ultimate, original, and primordial creative source and cause of everything that exists.

Living has to be maintained continually by effort. We need to be taking in food, water, and breathable air which are unevenly and thinly scattered. The survival of a body requires coverings and shelter. Embodiment brings the necessity to work. Work is required to produce food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities of life. That is especially problematic because everybody wants to escape from work to enjoy and wonder at the mysteries of nature and intelligence. It has been customary, culturally structured, for people to unload tedium, fatigue, discomfort, and filth onto others when they can. Based on that, tedium, fatigue, and filth, ordered onto you by someone in a more powerful position, are defining qualities of the experience of work. Humans have always had disease, injury, fatigue, hunger, weakness, and old age. Anchored to the ground, the human body is at the mercy of wild nature, disease, parasites, predators, and hostile marauders, in a situation that is often out of control.

Considering all this, humans worry about survival and well-being, and not just because of uncertainty about invisible spirits. Such worries support formation of collectives. There is a longing for grandeur, the supra-individual nation, social-class, race, Church, or even civilization.

Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star

There is lots of evidence that, for most of human presence, the landscape of the night sky looked far better than the clutching ground. In a world without urban crowding and smog, and without artificial lights, the awesome beauty and fascination of the universe as revealed in the night sky likely had an importance quite lost to modern minds, in fact seeming more real than the world on the ground. Life on the ground has been nasty, brutish, and short. People struggle, fight and run, get sick, hurt, tired, weak, and enslaved. People looked up at night and saw a landscape of soft light. It was huge, bigger by far then the turf below, and movements were few and slow. The daily drift from east to west is unvarying, recurring in a continuous pattern. The movement made it seem alive, yet without vulnerability.

Because the rotating pattern of stars does not change, in contrast to things close to the Earth, including the moon and planets, the starry sky was taken as a model of eternal being. It occurred to some that the realm of stars did not change because it was a vision of perfection. The fact that stars are immeasurably high and distant, pure light, and incomprehensible did not stand in the way of interpreting them as sacred and peculiarly real.

The night sky was an early inspiration for the idea of a transcendent world, everlasting, completely primal, and sacred. That world was imagined to have a different kind of Being, subtle, ethereal, pure luminosity, and immune from organic growth and aging processes, wear, tear, random change, or decay, the Being of Eternity. It was separated and different from the ordinary surroundings of human lives, but there is a historical pattern of people believing that the sky above creates and moves the earth below, the idea of the sky as a top-down causal and creative force. It seemed to be the foundation and source of ordinary surroundings, apparently creating them as a sort of imperfect echo or model of itself. The sky is the primordial clock, apparent driver of time. The night sky is always drifting or coasting (and falling) around a set of complicated cycles. Intelligence brings time to the brute actuality of nature. The great firmament of the night sky had a message for intelligence: together we hold time.

Intelligence has an analogous relation to the brute actuality of unintelligent nature. Both stars and subjective intelligence separately were sources of an impression of a kind of Being more subtle and sublime than the material world-of-work, but the star-world is easier to point toward. People of ancient times used qualities from the star-world to express intuitions of their self-experience, of intelligence and thought. The star-world gave them an image of an ethereal, subtle, and present-but-separate kind of existence suggesting thought itself. In the delicate beauty of the clear night sky they thought they saw a reflection of their own invisible Being.

Interpretation of the star world has been complicated. An element of gnosticism asserted that events in the world experienced by people are controlled and determined by the great stellar patterns of the zodiac. These celestial powers were sometimes conceived as demons, fallen angels, or lesser gods called archons. Those powers author the fate of individuals and humanity as a whole, but they are not ultimate powers. There is a higher and greater power which can be touched by individual persons. Inward awareness and contemplation of the highest deity can achieve release from the zodiac powers, and profound self-determination. The gnostic claim is that authentic self-determination is the best life, and it can be achieved only by that very special inward mental accomplishment.

Copyright © 2011 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

Employment as a Force-Field of Distorted Reality

08 Tuesday Nov 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Hierarchy, Leadership

≈ Leave a comment

People are objectified in terms of the job they perform, and they are diminished and misrepresented by that. Within organizations there is an assumption that the job category occupied by an individual is a representation of that person’s character and personality, and individuals are treated differently according to their place on the organization chart. There is an assumption that individuals choose a job as a way of expressing personal identity. However, people do not base personal identity on being fitted into a box such as a job category or organization. Instead, we construct a sense of identity with the whole range of Plato’s “three-part soul” (from the Republic): appetites that inspire us, impulses to make a distinctive mark on the world, and innocent curiosities. Of course we should add considerations such as loving attachments also. Happiness is related to the flow and fate of these and other personal creative impulses. An individual’s participation with an organization may have connections with some of these but will not completely engage any of them. That is how an individual’s “fit” with his or her job is a kind of being squeezed into a box which is too small.

People cannot be happy if they have to become smaller than they really are to “perform” jobs, and they always do. There are the fragile egos of supervisors to contend with and often those persons do not like to see the people they supervise as anything but smaller than themselves. The pretense required is profound and generally pushed to a level of semi-consciousness because it is just the way the world is.

Incumbents of higher office like to understand themselves as part of a meritocracy instead of, say, a ‘greed-ocracy’, an ‘ego-ocracy’, or a ‘bully-ocracy’. Everyone must collude in the myth that the supervisory system is a meritocracy. The result is that workers must act toward those incumbents as if their merit were greater in some general unspecified way. Every worker must be careful not to give holders of higher power anything that might give offense which could be a motive for retribution or disfavour. The higher you go on the organization chart the more calculated is everything presented to you. That might make day to day life pleasant for higher levels but is a stress for everyone else and can result in disaster.

Everything management communicates is calculated to uphold the meritocracy myth and present supervisors as “on the ball”, decisive, and smart. Much is hidden so employees do not have opportunity to assess and find fault with decisions and practices. People are unhappy at work because of false inequalities which are normalized there, indignities of hierarchical inequality. There are special indignities of inequality for women and visible minorities. Whole categories of people have the experience of being diminished by the culture of their employment, and by the general culture of objective market-values. In addition there are distortions of world-view imposed by corporate culture.

Below grand narratives of general contentment, there are complaints and dissatisfactions. There are ways in which working a job is similar to being on the rack: compulsion, insult, indignity, fatigue, sweat, and tedious repetition. People make the best they can of these conditions because they need money to survive. Even Stoics admitted that it is not possible to be happy on the rack. The counter-examples, martyrs and saints, fit a religious-style appeal to higher inspirational powers. Nobody could defend the claim that the only employees who perform well are those who accept their employer organization as a quasi-divine inspirational power. Yet within organizations there is a culture of denial that doing a job is often intrinsically repulsive. That is a reality distorting force.

It is still possible to have episodes of fun at work. Unpleasant aspects can be “bracketed” psychologically and so placed at some emotional distance from the present moment, much as people normally know that there is a great deal of misery in the world but insulate that knowledge from day to day routine and so avoid being crushed emotionally by grief in the world at large. Everyone needs a lot of this every day. Indeed there are always positives to employment that are good reasons to be happy: evading the great indignities of unemployment and poverty, and having access to things bought with earned money.

If bracketing off negative experience becomes important in an organization’s culture, then that culture has much in common with a collective delusion in which people agree to support one another in focusing on a strictly edited misrepresentation of reality. The whole culture of organizational hierarchy says, “Be very careful what you do or say, because it is not safe to be spontaneous!” That must be quite common, since the challenge of “speaking truth to power” is proverbial. Power is a feature of organizational hierarchy.

The organization of work is an oddly private domain, like an authoritarian family. “A man’s home is his castle” is still interpreted to mean that ‘the boss’ can do what he chooses to do within his organizational domain, and no one may question it. All values are trivialized by the overriding value of stardom itself in that star-system hierarchy.

It is remarkable how little difference has been made in employment organizations, in the organization of production, by scientific research in social sciences and psychology. It has made work more mechanical and formulaic.

These are remarkable realities which co-exist with the now ever-decreasing benefit-packages, pension plans, and decent pay-scales provided with the best modern employment. These abusive and injurious realities form a pattern of corporate value-culture undermining each individual’s interpretation of his or her own experience.

Copyright © 2011 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

Political Considerations

26 Wednesday Oct 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Gender culture, Political Power

≈ Leave a comment

Right-wing political ideology champions a certain claim about what is natural for the human species. It is very much Thomas Hobbes’ vision of the state of nature, a primal competition of all against all, unfettered individual freedom where the luckiest displace, destroy, or enslave the rest. Such is the right-wing utopia. (That characterization needs to be expanded at some point to account for the contradictory right-wing enthusiasm for interfering in private judgements about such matters as patriotism and sexual orientation. On those issues right-wing ideology demands conformity.) The right-wing utopia is a caricature of masculinity projecting a wish-fulfillment day-dream. It is not difficult to spot the fatal flaw: There are no children to be nurtured in that utopia. It would survive for precisely one nasty, brutish, and short generation. When the value of nurturing children enters the picture then what is natural is co-operation, play, sharing, and love.

The Conversation with Children

People continue to have children not because children are cute, or from brute instinct to continue the species, but because children are contributers to collective experience, essential interlocutors for adults. The innocent love of honest attachment and discovery characteristic of children is valuable in itself and not just as a stage to be rushed through on the way to adult mentality. Children are crucial contributers to the vitality of the human conversation. The realm of child-nurture, managed and cultivated by women, was effectively unknown, ignored, and despised by men from time out of mind. Due to that prejudice there is general lack of recognition for the female managed, child-care focused, culture in which all humans learn our first language and most other profound culture. It is not an unlikely, scarce, or exotic community. It is as universal for humans generally as first-language acquisition itself. There is no place for a contract because social attachment is an innocent accomplishment for ordinary people.

It isn’t just that children bring innocence to their conversation with adults, but also that children are the smartest people on the planet. Their brains are growing so fast that they learn a language from scratch ‘spontaneously’. The Suzuki music teaching method attempts to mimic first language acquisition with parental engagement, positive feedback, and playful repetition. With only these simple declarations of mutual attachment, children learn. Generation after generation of mothers have worked out how to sustain this work with some co-operation and mutual support. First language acquisition is inseparable from the domestic nexus of attachment, co-operation, and play, inseparable from the innocent love of attachment and discovery characteristic of children. Since the general underlying intent and purpose of language is to declare a distinctive voice in mutual play (rocks & bushes do not imitate), language is not as strictly rule-governed and game structured as Wittgenstein and others judged. Proto-linguistic play is fun and done casually all the time.

Hobbes and Schopenhauer represent philosophers who were childless and single privileged men immersed in a special minority culture of alpha-male competition, class, gender, and political dominance. It is not surprising that they grasped human nature as little more than egoism and a war of all against all. In ancient times Plato and, much later, Augustine also were embedded in privileged male culture-pods. Those philosophers believed human attachment is difficult and possible only under special circumstances as a gift from awe-inspiring power. They glorified the state as the greatest human achievement. (Check out Hegel.) The modern state was conceived and put into practice in the cultural matrix accumulated around the strategy for radical inequality which made life interesting and fun for competitive alphas.

On Meaning

A standard criticism of modernity is that secularism, democracy, and commercialism have destroyed meaning in people’s lives. Hegel claimed that meaning is bestowed on people by a hierarchical social order in which everyone has his or her place. (Something like: “It’s not much, but it’s home.”) In a variation of that view, Hitler observed that his best experience of meaning and purpose in life was as a soldier in the Great War of 1914-18. The war provided an overriding need in which everyone was willing to accept regimentation and personal sacrifice for a great cause. Hitler’s gift to his people was their nation at war, gloriously meaningful suffering and death. Leaders of all kinds are influenced by Hitler’s doctrine, often in more moderate forms.

It could be claimed that the ultimate Medieval narrative, the meaning of Medieval life, was the Roman Christian narrative of transcendence. Matching that claim would be that in modernity the ultimate narrative, the meaning of modern life, is competition in the market economy. However, it is just as plausible that the conversation with children and the family life which surrounds it have been more rewarding and meaningful all along. It looks like another instance of a cultured contempt for the female-managed and child-centered value matrix. Children still count as the focus of meaning for all classes. The imperative to nurture children ties people to stability in production and consumption, but not to any particular system. Many things have a presence in a person’s sense of meaning in life, with some being taken as more important if others are reduced. Individuals are fountains of meaning, and creatively confer meaning on their surroundings. A living legacy of classical heroism is the dignity and sanctity of individual self-invention, heroism turned inward. Anyway, mystery and uncertainty are not always problems. There is never a total absence of mystery and people are generally happy with that.

Copyright © 2011 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

The Personal Use of Thinking

14 Wednesday Sep 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking

≈ Leave a comment

“In the blind spot” refers first to the observation: “Thinking is an act of subjectivity, and subjectivity is the blind spot of science.”. Science is not going to help us much with the personal use of thinking. Science also tries to stay clear of politics and the personal use of thinking is definitely political. However, even though thinking is an act of subjectivity, it is not performed in isolation from nature, culture, or history. In fact the meaning of “in the blind spot” could be extended to focus on history. History is a blind spot in all of us, because we just weren’t there and we need so much of our energy and attention to survive the present. Learning something helpful about history is a painstaking process and there is too much to permit a really thorough thinking through it. Unfortunately, ignorance of history does not free us from the influence of the past. It is worth making some effort to reduce the ignorance and to build a better sense of what looms over us in that blind spot.

Copyright © 2011 Sandy MacDonald. The moral right of the author is asserted.

 

Newer posts →

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • December 2025
  • October 2025
  • August 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • November 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011

Categories

  • Blind spots in thinking
  • Class War
  • Culture
  • disinterestedness
  • Embodiment
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Gender culture
  • Hierarchy
  • Leadership
  • Narrative
  • Nature
  • Political Power
  • Strategic thinking
  • Subjectivity
  • Transcendence
  • Uncategorized
  • University
  • Why thinking?

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • in the blind spot
    • Join 84 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • in the blind spot
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar