• Overview, Irritation Alert!

in the blind spot

~ Philosophy in the Dystopian Context

in the blind spot

Category Archives: Political Power

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.

 

The Two Traditions

12 Thursday Jan 2012

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Freedom, Political Power, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ Leave a comment

There are crucial differences between each individual’s situation as understood in transcendental dualism (the posting of December 15, 2011, “Transcendence in Ancient Philosophy”) and the individual’s situation as understood within the worldview of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. To clarify the differences, it is helpful to refer to a summary of the religion of the God of Abraham provided by Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) (1138-1204), generally recognized as authoritative on this issue. Based on Maimonides’ summary, all the Abrahamic traditions embrace the existence, unity, primordiality, and incorporeality of a creator God, uniquely meriting and commanding worship and obedience from humans. God attends to and knows the actions of individuals, will resurrect the dead, and will reward the obedient and punish the disobedient. Instead of direct general Revelation, God uses certain special persons as prophets, His messengers and avatars on earth.

That set of beliefs situates every individual on an externally imposed axis of submission to, or defiance of, authority, an axis of deserving reward or punishment, grace or disgrace, in a way that is alien to transcendental dualism. It suggests that the primal sense of the sacred among the herder-nomads represented by Abraham was childhood fear and awe of the typical father’s unpredictable and mysterious rages. The God of Abraham is a father in the sky, all-knowing, all-powerful, but unreliable, quick to anger, and inclined to terrifying violence. God’s prophets cannot be verified for authenticity, and yet they claim a profound sovereignty by divine authority, and regrettably serve as perennial role-models of sovereignty within our cultural tradition.

500 B.C.

If we imagine the cultural geography around the eastern Mediterranean in 500 B.C., we encounter a rich variety of ethnic communities. In Egypt, we see a culture focused on the gods of ancient Egypt. In Palestine we see the religion of the Old Testament, the emergence of the God of Abraham, with influence in the surrounding region, perhaps especially in Arabia. Further east in the highlands of Persia, we see the emerging dualism of a religious innovator, Zoroaster, self-proclaimed prophet of the ancient Aryan god Ahura Mazda. Looking west, we encounter ancient Greece with the Olympian gods and Apollo’s oracle at Delphi. Farther west again, the city of Rome had its own pantheon of gods. These communities were known to one another to various degrees, but beginning with the Persian assaults on Greece from 490 B.C. until around 449 B.C., there was increasing contact, especially at first between Greece and Persia.

The religion of ancient Greece was focused on a set of gods with close similarities to humans, including bodies like humans, although with powers to transfigure into whatever they wanted, and who were in close, easy, and frequent contact with humans. The oracle of Apollo at Delphi was a popular institution and the initiative lay with ordinary individuals to present specific questions to Apollo’s Pythia. There was no place for divine prophets. Orphic mystery cults were also active and had common assumptions from transcendental dualism, perhaps accounted for the exile of human spirits within physical bodies as punishment for transgressions in a previous existence, but they did also include promises of rewards and punishments in an afterlife. In a contrasting cultural development, it was characteristic of Greek philosophical thinking to remove disembodied spirits and divinities from an account of the world, to value scientific instead of narrative explanations. For example, Plato’s philosophical work completely abandoned the Olympian gods. In the work of Socrates (possibly) and of Plato there is a development of a non-mystical, non-religious ethics inspired in part by the widespread myths of transcendental dualism. It seems to have been the encounter with Persian dualism which jolted Greek thinking to a new profundity, which we see in the philosophy of Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.). However, the version of dualism that penetrated Greek culture as transcendental philosophy retained not a trace of the prophet Zoroaster, or any personified divinities such as Ahura Mazda. The resulting philosophical form of dualism spread widely in the classical Mediterranean world and then later endured a long competition with Abrahamic religion.

Plato’s Cave Parable

Plato’s parable of the cave, from Republic, Book VII, shows that he drew much from transcendental dualism, but removed the battling gods of good and evil in such a way that completely eliminated subordination of individuals to divine command and with it the importance of prophets, the psychological control of divine reward or punishment, and of divinely sanctioned sovereignty in general. It highlights the difference between acting from an imperative for obedience, for example in matters such as diet and genital mutilation, and acting from the personal impulse to find your way home. That reveals an historically important liberating force from the philosophical tradition. Plato’s hierarchical conception of thinking ability, noted in a previous posting, was a weakness that fortunately does not undermine that liberating force.

In primal dualism the world of ordinary objects is the creation of an inferior and jealous rival of the authentically creative god, and so is tainted by a mocking intent as well as by shoddy design and craftsmanship. In Plato’s vision there is a parallel to the idea that the world of bodies is flawed and deceptive. In the cave of the parable, perceived appearances of things are shadows of passing images of eternal Ideal Forms, and so they are a false appearance of reality, a mirage. As in transcendental dualism, Plato’s emphasis was on the assets and liabilities of subjective intelligence in finding a way to go from appearances to reality. His particular description of metaphysical Reality is less important then situating the individual on a personal arc of transcendence. Plato’s Ideal Forms were a specific interpretation and elaboration of a previously broadly familiar idea of “logos” which was thought to underlay the mysterious unity of words, thoughts, and things. Plato’s approach wasn’t religion, and it wasn’t science either. Although his theory of Ideal Forms is a kind of metaphysical speculation he was not basing his claims about personal transcendence on speculations about a supernatural world or stories about what might have happened at the origins of the world. Instead, he was describing the immediate situation of subjectivity in general, immediately available to anyone. He was in the tradition of the earlier Greek sage Heraclitus (“I sought myself.”) which marked out a distinctly philosophical questioning. Plato was writing about thinking in its overall relationship to nature and to culture. In that specific way he was different from both scientists, spiritualists, and religious reformers.

The Third Way

In Plato’s vision, accepting ordinary appearances as reality is encouraged and sanctioned by belonging within a collective. The hero of the parable is among a crowd in the cave, encouraging and cooperating with one another in the pretense that shadows are substantial properties, but when the hero goes out and experiences reality he goes as an individual. Perceived appearances are permeated by cultural influences, and objects of ordinary perception are inseparable from culture. Channelling culture, imitating social and cultural models, being immersed in the language-games of a community, these conditions solidify a cave of certainties which imprisons the mind. The parable of the cave, in combination with the beginning of Book X of Republic, indicates that culture itself, myths that poets and storytellers, or priests, kings, politicians, or advertisers make popular, is a cave of delusion. That is highlighted by Socrates’ declaration in the Apology: “I know only that I know nothing.” To escape from the cave you have to abandon the knowledge that culture has provided, that is, to think independently of the language-games of any society. You become a philosopher when you think without language and exercise innocent subjectivity. Socrates did not claim revealed visions of gods and their purposes. He was no shaman, mystic, or prophet. Socratic inwardness was not mysticism. One of the crucial points about the originality of Socrates and his legacy in Plato and others is that he is exactly not mystical. Socratic innocence was a contribution to the civilization of the west which provided a genuine alternative to mystical religion as ultimate value.

Transcendental practices which originate outside religious organizations divide into two main streams: a mystical anti-individual stream, and a non-mystical individualistic stream with a lineage through ancient Greek philosophy. The purpose of intellectual or mental activity was very different in the two streams. In the mystical stream the purpose was loss of individuality through union with the largest and most all-embracing force of divine nature: the great power “behind” the world of appearances. For the non-mystical stream the purpose of mental activity was often individual happiness through self-knowledge and self-realization, virtue, authenticity, self-possession. For example Stoics considered rationality, reasoning, as the most worthy feature of a person, the feature by which individuals realize freedom, and as such the only portal to virtue. They reached for truth as individuals, and thought that rational processes could find it.

Plato’s parable of the cave is a narrative of climbing out of darkness into light and grace, a narrative of transcendence. Transcendence has dualism built-in or pre-supposed. If there is to be a ‘rising above’, there must be something below from which to begin the ascent. The higher-lower dualism can also be seen as an inner-outer dualism such that inner (subjective intelligence) is higher and outer (the objective world of bodies) is lower. The profound promise of that philosophy was freedom from slavery to nature and culture through the practice of rational thinking. That was the craft of living the life of gods. Plato’s parable of the cave is the exact reverse of the biblical myth of Adam’s and Eve’s exile from Eden, humanity’s fall from grace.

The Two Traditions

The two traditions have had an uneasy co-existence ever since an historical tsunami of Abrahamic theism from Palestine and Arabia washed over the classical Mediterranean world system. That is, since the Jewish diaspora, the spread of Christianity, and the conquests of Islam. The philosophical legacy of transcendental dualism had, for a long time prior to that tsunami, held the high cultural ground of the Hellenistic system and then the Roman Empire. It illustrates the changes to recall that the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (reigned 161-180 A.D.) was a Stoic philosopher. Stoicism represents the legacy of transcendental dualism in spite of the fact that it claimed officially to embrace materialism, a monism. There was an essential spark of freedom to subjective intelligence in Stoicism. However, by the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine (306-337 A.D.), Christianity was being recognized as the favoured religion of the Empire. The old spooks were back in power.

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

 

Debunking Radical Inequality

09 Friday Dec 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Freedom, Hierarchy, Leadership, Political Power

≈ Leave a comment

Nihilism is a Bogeyman

Freud observed that humans are polymorphously perverse, meaning that if one method of erotic pleasure is made difficult then other methods will be devised to fill the void. Something similar can be said about the experience of meaning in life. When one framework of meaning is discredited then others are found. Ordinary people derive a sense of meaning from close loving attachments; from expressing an authentic voice in conversations, working and playing with others, helping and nurturing others (including plants and animals); learning and practicing crafts and skills, noticing the beauty of nature, craft, and art; polymorphous perversity; thinking about dreams; being creative without supervision, and having intelligent agency in making a life as well as marks on the environment.

Often the view from upper levels of social hierarchy is that inequality itself is the source of everybody’s meaning in life, so that questioning inequality amounts to “nihilism” which opens a terrifying abyss of meaninglessness. When celebrities of power feel their narratives and privileges being questioned they cry out, “Without us, the rest of you are nothing. …” (in the spirit of Atlas Shrugged) Leaders of the Church uttered this when the fear and gloom of Christendom lost its grip on the popular imagination. Aristocrats uttered it when the French Revolution tore at the old regime. Yet people generally still muddle along not especially worse-off then people were before. It would seem from this that meaninglessness is the recurring nightmare of “masters of the universe” who live off old myths of elite exceptionalism. Leaders of business and industry got worried by the flower-power counter-culture of the sixties, and especially by feminism. Their control of culture was put at risk by those movements and a counter-stroke was organized and executed using great wealth to increase control of news media, the selection practices of representative government, and judicial appointments.

That recent history was witnessed by the baby-boom generation and suggests that “capitalism” isn’t simply “private ownership of the means of production”, but actually the permanent control of key parts of an economy by particular groups which are motivated to retain control by an ideology glorifying their exclusive superiority. It would mean that the surface structure of capitalism conceals a deep structure dedicated to perpetuating radical inequality under the control of a self-appointing group aiming for decisive influence over taxes, laws, and war.

It isn’t uneven accumulation of property which is vicious, but rather the claims of a minority to have a mysterious right to control and supervise the whole collective. Uneven accumulation of property is simple inequality, but control and supervision is radical inequality. There have been theories of radical inequality since at least the time of Plato. Plato belonged to an anti-democratic aristocratic social pod and had a personal interest in legitimizing an aristocratic overthrow of Athenian democracy. He fantasized an apparently reasonable stratification of society and then imagined his model of stratification to be innate within the subjectivity of every individual. The three parts of subjectivity for Plato were appetites, competitive spirit, and abstract rationality. It is possible to interpret appetite and competitive spirit as motives for quick fix consumption and conflict which provide momentary thrills followed by deepening emptiness, the abyss of meaninglessness. Those impulses were the ones Plato claimed to dominate most people. Plato imagined the higher rational mind to be receptive to cosmic ideal forms, his ultimate source of meaning, but Plato gratified his class vanity by granting effective rationality exclusively to an educated and gifted few, so justifying control of the polis by the only social class with the leisure for higher education, the class of slave-owners.

The Medieval theory of social order in Christendom identified three functional groups which combined in a sort of human pyramid. Those higher in the pyramid had the right and duty to supervised and control those below. Muscle-power workers formed the most numerous and lowest stratum. Those peasant agricultural workers were identified as Plato’s appetite driven workers. Masters of war formed the next level up, were much fewer than workers, and held formal possession of most land and natural resources. That was the class of military-estate families, the aristocracy, identified as Plato’s spirited fighters. Priests and their organization, the Church, formed the apex of the pyramid. The priestly clergy were supposed to be Plato’s contemplative, highly educated, other-worldly ruling class. The upper hierarchy of the Church claimed special knowledge of God’s will through divine revelation, and exclusive ability to evaluate everybody’s compliance. Augustine’s teaching was that ordinary people needed to be supervised harshly in order to prevent them from expressing their hereditary sin and intrinsic evil derived from Adam’s and Eve’s original sin and expulsion from Eden. That doctrine was exploited by the Church hierarchy, as well as by military-estate families, to depict themselves as divinely appointed supervisors and as such justified in their parasitic taxing of peasants. Of course, there was an intimate connection between military families and the Church because the second sons, who would not inherit the family’s aristocratic title and estates, would often go to university and into the Church hierarchy. Peasants were not part of society as conceived by aristocrats, but merely parts of the natural environment to be exploited.

Both the class of military-estate families and the personnel of the Church were parasitic upon the agricultural labouring families. What those peasant families received in return for the labour and product confiscated from them as rents, fees, taxes, and tithes was very little, and it was meant to maintain a radical inequality between them and their lords. Often the rural labouring people had a status near slavery. Yet, they were not taught the skills of surviving from the land by the military-estate families or by officials of the Church. Those vital skills were part of the ‘folk’ culture of the peasants themselves, and they would have survived on their own using those skills. They did not need the social groups which taxed them.

In yet another version of radical inequality theory, right-wing expressions of Romanticism idolized special celebrity geniuses and understood them as incarnations of a supra-individual cosmic spirit. Napoleon Bonaparte was a great inspiration for such Romantics. The genius should be permitted to do whatever he wants and he must be forgiven. Napoleon illustrates the Romantic vision of how societies grow and develop. So could Hitler. Right-wing Romantics could see creativity only in celebrity geniuses. The contemporary cult of celebrity and the star system is a legacy of that nineteenth century Romanticism. The Romantic worship of celebrity geniuses contains a mixed message about individualism. It is the worship of certain special individuals only and includes a dismissal of “the crowd” which is assumed to consist of less than truly human specimens. Rigidly hierarchical social class was standard in Europe at the time, and inclined Romantics to think of creativity as a divine gift granted to few. They supposed that creative geniuses merited special treatment as “supermen” who were above the laws of society, not only because of their special contributions to art, literature, music, math, science, commerce, and government, but because they were uniquely animated by divine inspiration. Unlike the ordinary rabble they were incarnations of a feature of God or the metaphysical creativity which sustains the world. That was close to the idea of aristocracy which had endured since Medieval times.

The Economic Theory

The current form of radical inequality theory is an application of the idea that economic consumption, accumulation, production, and exchange express the dominant force in human nature. Every individual’s personal identity is culturally assigned on the basis of his or her way of making a living, both in terms of a specific purchasing power and a function or title in the system of production. In a market economy you can quantify the social esteem of each category of work by how much it is paid. The market price is an exact measure of its cultural value-assignment. Within that culture, people become their economic niche. Each individual is the inheritor of a unique kit of genetic and cultural characteristics, which then determine his or her personal economic place, each with a particular level of trophies, dignities, influence, and wealth from competitions for scarce resources. The consumer-competitor does not suffer the burden of work as punishment for original sin, but to merit a quantified license, in the form of money, to consume in pursuit of elusive happiness. Need and deficiency come first, and deficiency is the stimulus which drives productive labour. When economic accomplishment is the quintessential human fulfillment then subjectivity disappears into the objects it consumes and the trophies it wins.

There is a market incentive-and-reward system to motivate accomplishment, and placing high in that ranking is itself among the greatest goods. People choose professions, knowledge trades, partly to declare themselves as persons of substance and gravitas. Maintaining a high-volume cash flow, say by speculating on asset prices, is another means to the same end. Conspicuous distinction from less accomplished people, from “the crowd”, is crucial to the reward system. Stardom presents inequality in a positive light and glamorizes it as a creative principle.

In the economic system of stratification, just as in the medieval social pyramid, those higher in the system assume the right and duty to supervised and control those below. Hierarchical supervision in the context of knowledge or function-based division of labour might seem to be an instance of necessary and mutually beneficial stratification. However, these rankings are always overgeneralized. They are used to justify a general value assignment or value definition of each person. The value-ranking of individuals is always extended beyond the function that the division of labour is designed to achieve. For the vast majority these value assignments and identities are humiliating and insulting and based on an extremely narrow personal test, or none at all.

It is going to be unavoidable that a person must pick from a list of unsuitable ways of earning an income. An income is still a necessity. What is not unavoidable is social pressure on individuals to think of their means-to-an-income as representing their personality. People should not be led to expect personal fulfillment from what they need to do merely to pay the bills, to survive. Real self-expression is still a personal requirement and takes place outside the workplace and usually outside the market economy.

Leadership

In modern democratic societies citizens vote for representatives to speak for them in legislative assemblies. Political parties appoint party leaders. Somehow when the representatives arrange to form a government under a party leader, that person declares him or herself to be the leader of the people at large. A representative has transformed into a leader by some political alchemy.

Commercial culture has a significant leadership myth which looks like a recapitulation of right-wing romanticism. There is an assumption that important developments happen because of leadership. If you identify the budding leaders among the emerging generation, then you see the future of the society. This is odd with respect to declared democratic values, in which individual voices are supposed to count more or less equally and people are elected as representatives, not leaders.

There are indications that people high on organization charts actually consider themselves to be leaders and not just functional overseers. They believe people lower down on the organization chart need and search for leaders to teach them how to live and deal with problems. They believe people actually look up to them for direction and that they therefore serve a broader social function.

Commercial culture acts toward individual subjectivity as a bundle of deficiencies, needs, appetites, and a compulsion to self-assert, to win. Such an entity is fulfilled by being supplied with consumables and competitions, and the heroes are the few who win their way to the top of the ‘food chain” in the organization of supply. This view assumes that only collective projects and narratives lift individuals from insignificance and decrepitude and provide dignity and meaning to their lives. It supports the legitimacy of meritocracy, leadership, the star system, as if fulfilling purpose is a scarce commodity granted to the masses by special inspired geniuses. We now live within a cultural combination of the romantic vision of a meritocracy of celebrity geniuses mediated through the older system of estate-family hoarding of status, property, and power across successive generations. There is just enough opportunity for entrepreneurial geniuses from outside the permanent hierarchy to maintain the myth of meritocracy. It is taken for granted that the great productive and distributive operations that maintain the economic lives of modern populations inevitably lock people into a supervisory culture which determines how we define and experience our existence.

Dissing the Masses Culture

People in dominant positions encounter, create and participate in, to some degree, a culture of domination which accounts for and justifies their position. It is a culture with roots in Plato, Augustine, and right-wing romanticism. That culture teaches that the majority of humanity is more or less unconscious, stupid, and limited to primitive urges, that the masses are interested in simple forms of food, sex, glitter, other people’s misfortunes, religious spooks, daydreaming, and idle gossip. In their moments of highest alertness their world is full of superstitious terror from which they seek shelter. Since they contribute so little to the alleviation of their problems, help must come from extraordinary persons who conceive projects and arouse the masses to work in realizing visions. These extraordinary persons constitute a natural elite which has a duty to dominate the masses for their own good. This is the only way the masses will ever have a chance to experience something better than superstitious terror or semi-consciousness. The elite creates meaning for the masses, creates whatever small experience of the sublime is possible for them. Although leadership is a high honour and duty it is also a heavy burden, a sacrifice the elite makes for a higher good.

The dominating political group wants to believe that other groups are supervised and controlled for a good reason and not just for the advantage of the most vicious. Features of human nature which resist control, such as emotion or appetite, are marginalized and assigned to specific social groups to justify their marginalization and their being kept under special control.

Democracy as a Problem, Freedom from Control as a Problem

People have a problem with the idea of strong democracy because of mistrust of the majority, ‘the crowd’, a legacy of the long tradition of inequality and control theory. The majority of citizens is assumed to be ignorant, lazy, self-indulgent, emotionally flighty, thoughtless, forgetful, dishonest, and shallow. The idea of that lot being on the loose and possibly having political influence is a nightmare for many who see themselves as rational, acute, informed, and hard-working. Although that image of the majority is a gross exaggeration, it is true that we cannot assume some simple conception of good motives and abilities in human beings generally. This does not apply only to the undistinguished majority, however. Fluctuations in the stock market demonstrate the emotional flightiness of the investor class. Enron, Anderson Accounting, tobacco companies, asbestos companies, asbestos company doctors, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Roman Church protected pedophilia, and the laundering of tax evasion and drug money by mainstream banks, have all been tips of icebergs of organized criminal activity among the distinguished meritocracy. Criminals pass through all social filters purported to advance only the most worthy. They demonstrate that there are no trustworthy social filters and that bad motives and incompetence are prominent in the minority elite and are in no way especially characteristic of the majority. The meritocracy as well as the undistinguished majority is too often criminal and generally unworthy to rule.

The legitimate conclusion from general human fallibility and criminal intent is that absolutely nobody is sufficiently trustworthy to have power over others. The way to counteract faults and shortcomings of people is to restrict the control that some have over others and to give everybody the best chance to develop their own gifts and creative agency. No one is qualified or justified to keep the world safe from the masses by making sure we are all organized and supervised into corporate productive activity. That same activity is the inspiration for corruption. Still, we have to avoid somehow the tyranny of the most vicious, which is always the result of anarchy. The rule of law seems the most obvious way. The role of sovereign government must be protection and enforcement of laws against oppression. Acts of oppression and domination are exactly what ordinary people experience as crimes, the clearest cases of evil. Acts of oppression are those which situate people to be unable to proceed with their initiatives, enjoy the products of their work, make a distinctive mark, or be honoured. Tactics of oppression are confinement; corporal or verbal injury, insult, or threats of them; insufficient recognition, reward, or compensation for work or use.

Warnings of the terrors of nihilism exploit the fact that individual subjective intelligence has no appearance. That lack of appearance or substance seems to make it difficult to accept that subjectivity does have directionality and force. It speaks in its own voice. There is no abyss of meaninglessness waiting to swallow us up, because every subjectivity is a transcendent source of meaning. Fear no abyss, we are already soaring.

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.

 

Politics and the Personal Use of Thinking

18 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Freedom, Hierarchy, Leadership, Political Power, Subjectivity

≈ Leave a comment

The Value of Stardom

There are important organizations promoting the concentration and centralization of property, power, and esteem, in a structure that makes up the social star system. Those organizations operate to express the beliefs, values, and tactics which achieve those concentrations and so create stardom. Stardom itself is the dominant value, and the organizations promote themselves as opportunities to achieve stardom. Stardom doesn’t have to be fame as played out in popular culture, but sometimes it is. The exercise of power and influence is not always ‘in the limelight’. The security of that system requires a nervous vigilance for threats and alternative visions which might divert energy away. There is an effort to spread the beliefs and values of stardom, and to promote their dominance in the community at large. A tsunami of star-system glamour-imagery is washed over public spaces and communications media. The message put about is that the world simply works this way, that the stars with remarkable accumulations must be permitted special liberties and immunities, must be admired and followed because they are the leaders who create and develop the community culture. In that way the star system functions as a social control mechanism.

Right-Wing Oversights and Misrepresentations

The star system as just described is the core element of right-wing political thinking. Devotion to stardom is devotion to inequality. So it is that the basic idea of the political right-wing is inequality itself. In addition, the claim is made that inequality is simply natural, and uniquely represents the spirit of nature.

There are fatal problems with these right-wing claims. Perhaps most important is the evidence that people do not need leaders or contracts to create cohesive social systems, language, or meaning in their lives. The creation of those fundamentals is broadly decentralized and nonhierarchical. Leadership is generally parasitic on innocently created social groups. Individuals do not need to be provided with identity by a collective or culture since we already have it with our subjectivity as described in previous blog posts. Additionally, that subjectivity is not savage instincts, lusts, aggression, delusional imaginings, or a blank hole to be filled with outside influences. It is a specific intelligent questioning which accumulates. It does not require close supervision or hierarchical placement to prevent it from harming itself or others.

Right-wing political rhetoric claims to champion simple justice. The appeal is to individuals who have accumulated property through work, diligent application of their abilities and energy, and perhaps personal risk. Such people seem justified in not wanting the rewards of work and talent to be sucked away to support people who might seem lazy and stupid to them. Fair enough, but neither does accomplishment entitle anyone to control, exploit, or torment the less accomplished, and that is an assumption that typically accompanies such an appeal to ‘justice’. The star system as a social control mechanism lurks behind the rhetoric of rugged individualism, and meritocracy is a typical star-system. It is also important to acknowledge that nobody accomplishes anything without a lot of externalities provided by the contributions of many people, externalities such as the stability of law, health care, education, infrastructure development and maintenance, a fruitful and healthy environment, maybe summed up as a healthy human interconnectedness.

Rugged individualism as manifested in star systems takes just as much centralized administration and control as equality. That is why right-wing political forces always balloon the size, powers, and immunities of military forces, police, prisons, and secret intelligence operations and simultaneously reduce civil rights and the transparency of authority. Private property accumulators are terrified that their stuff is going to be revealed to public scrutiny, damaged, destroyed, or stolen. The more property a person has the more psychological coddling they need to feel secure, and the more pressure they can afford to apply to public officials to provide it. That becomes extreme as social inequality increases.

Psychological War

The personal use of thinking is to exercise and experience some agency, initiative, and control in a world where so much is beyond control. That was the point of Stoicism and Hellenistic humanism generally. Hellenistic Epicureanism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and Skepticism all developed ancient Greek heroism turned inward, the personal use of thinking to act as an individual force in the face of nature and the gods. Their teaching was not competitive, hierarchical, or star-system enabling. The message was a profoundly egalitarian call to exercise creative subjectivity no matter how small it may seem in relation to world-historical events. Feel the transcendence of your subjective intelligence. Find happiness in the freedom, creativity, and transcendence of it. Nurture yourself in happy creativity and Epicurean delight, even when the whole force of nature, gods, and culture works to drown you out and leave you silent. Cultural star-systems are important in those silencing spectacles. The personal use of thinking is still egalitarian. Philosophy has always been a presentation of the thinking of an individual person, not divine revelation or decree from occult inspiration or authority of any kind. It is thinking that can be considered and evaluated, and so thinking that is an invitation and portal to thinking for every individual. The gift of philosophy is validation of the power of individual thinking, and so the self-subsistence of individual identity, freedom, and self-possession.

Given the dominance and force of star-system culture and organization it is not too wild to characterize politics as psychological war raging around us and through us. The stream of messages from standard news and information organizations is a reality distorting campaign in support of systems of stardom. Star-system culture is an enemy trying to disable your agency and creative initiative. Inequality as a political value is an enemy to most people because it specifically discounts and writes off most people. That is the foundation of class war. In that psychological warfare the distribution of property, power, and esteem is far less important than the distribution of self-possession. That is the psychological battlefield on which the war rages between attempts to disempower and efforts to self-empower people at large. Stardom is the opposite of self-possession. The personal use of thinking is to wake up to self-possession.

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.

 

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