Tag Archives: history of philosophy

Philosophy with a Whiff of Mysticism

17 Wednesday Aug 2016

Posted by in Blind spots in thinking, Subjectivity, Transcendence, Why thinking?

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Tags: thinking, creativity, freedom, philosophy, spirituality, transcendence, mysticism, logic, history of philosophy

The School of Athens

In the centre of the fresco “The School of Athens” (by Italian Renaissance artist Raphael, painted between 1509 and 1511 in the Vatican, Apostolic Palace) Plato on the left and Aristotle on the right are gesturing their disagreement, each pointing to what he takes to be the most important focus of philosophical curiosity and thinking, and in doing so setting the agenda of western thinking generally for a couple of thousand years. Plato points skyward, asserting his metaphysics, which features the cosmic dominance of otherworldly and timeless Ideal Forms, anticipating Christian spirituality. Aristotle has his hand extended horizontally, palm open and facing downward, indicating that it is more important to understand the concrete world as encountered in ordinary living, anticipating science. Regrettably, they were both wrong. The focus revealed in the key question What is thinking? is the power of spirituality on a strictly personal-scale.

The intense spiritual effort known as mysticism is based on a conviction that there are profound spiritual features of the human situation which remain generally unrecognized either because they are metaphysically remote from the ordinary circumstances of human living (as in the metaphysics of Plato, for example), or else they are somehow hidden in plain sight, occupying an unidentified blind spot in human perception, especially as that perception is guided by normal cultural influences. Part of the claim and program of any mysticism, of course, is that those unrecognized features can (and should!) be disclosed and explored with certain special techniques. In the case of philosophical thinking on the question What is thinking?, the techniques available are familiar enough: questioning, self-questioning, and re-conceptualization. However, even such philosophical thinking can carry a whiff of mysticism in acknowledging a shocking strangeness lurking within the ordinary, a strangeness concerning human spirituality, and that appropriate acquaintance with spirituality has a transforming effect on experience generally.

Existenz*

To say that spirituality is personally ‘interior’ is to say nothing more than that it is not an actuality among things, but is still the marker of what is most local for any particular person. In the work of Martin Luther, such subjective interiority was called inwardness. In Stoicism, as well as in the work of Luther and Immanuel Kant, freedom was recognized as an important reality but entirely limited to that personal inwardness, and everything overt and public was conceived as completely pre-determined either by divine plan (logos for Stoics) or by material cause/ effect, so by God or nature. However, all of those ways of thinking were guided in what they conceived by ideas of cosmic hierarchy, in which the power of the almighty eternal was so comprehensive that no ephemeral and finite force could divert it in any way. Such ideas of cosmic hierarchy are unjustified.

The creative freedom that is personal spirituality is not a formless nothing, and is much more than passive consciousness ‘of’ something. It is teleological time: an interventionist bearing into actuality conceived as open futurity shaped by the personal specifics of anticipation, aspiration, and evaluation, including pre-actual anticipations of alternative discretionary interventions. Freedom has the form of time as open futurity constructed of non-actual and increasingly remote possibilities and probabilities, incorporating lessons learned, all in continuity with the most local actuality of embodiment. That the actuality of the present state of affairs categorically and specifically excludes and negates the actuality of all other states of affairs (temporal discontinuity), means that the existence of other states, which is required for the existence of time, can only be existence as non-actualities ‘interior to’ some living person. This spiritual ‘interiority’ is an individual’s ever-present embodied orientation in a time-structure of non-actuality (the non-actual future, the non-actual past). As freedom-empowering non-actuality, teleological time is the form of transcendent spirituality. A very elaborated orientation and directionality of interventionist bearing is certainly ‘in here’, continuously self-building with a streaming force of original questioning, creativity, and basic sociability, along with variably intense anxiety, desperation, and gratification. Power is not something that originates from the barrel of a gun, nor is it created by institutional customs and habits of stratification, authority, and subordination. Power originates in this spirituality at the level of the embodied individual.

That Whiff of Mysticism

The idea of metaphysical transcendence (effective non-actuality or immateriality), of course, contains a whiff of mysticism, suggesting ideas about what is supernatural, typically conceived as divinity, and about how humans should bring ourselves into an appropriate relationship to the supernatural. However, what is encountered in recognizing the personally interior non-actualities in freedom and time, although transcendent, is emphatically embodied, not all-knowing or all-powerful, and certainly lacks universal jurisdiction, so is not divine in any usual sense. This transcendence suggests a scattered multitude of equals instead of “something than which nothing can be greater”. Here there is nothing to be known about how to evade oppressive astral powers on the path up to divinity, no divine messages or powers in letters, words, numbers, events or images, nor anything else that could be cultish. This is transcendent spirituality without the dissolving of personal individuality which is typical of mysticism. There are no glimpses here of an almighty provider, legislator, and enforcer. This transcendence involves no debt, and so no guilt or gratitude, and has no involvement of any kind with disembodied intelligent entities. This transcendence is without the “all is one” or cosmic consciousness, without the supreme-source or cosmic moral ledger keeping and final day of reckoning. There is only this whiff of personal creative freedom which is not a thing. Perhaps the surprise is that spirituality and transcendence are still recognizable as such without the more grandiose features of mysticism.

Still, the personal use of thinking (on the question: What is thinking?) as a gateway to the experience of spirituality carries a distinct whiff of mysticism. For one thing, there is the recognition that working up a theory of spirituality is insufficient. In this thinking, the task at hand is not the construction of conceptual or abstract knowledge, but instead a personal experience, an encounter with and recognition of ‘interior’ non-actuality as transcendent spirituality. It is more a re-orientation to a grounding in that transcendence than any word-based knowledge or model-building. This is a personal and practical re-orientation as opposed to critiquing and tweaking the logic of theories and intervening in theoretical puzzles, which quite properly make up the important substance of academic work. This is personal in ways that theory never is. Nobody does this for money, but for intrinsic value, just as with mysticism. This alone is enough to put such thinking at the outer fringe of philosophy, where it should be unable to cast an unwelcome light on institutional philosophy, already considered fringy enough with respect to scientific knowledge.

Thinking and Time

To think is, sometimes, to question (doubt) in a way that is profoundly different from requesting information from a catalogue, such as people do with internet search engines or in the student – teacher interaction. This different kind of questioning or curiosity is not something with definite linguistic form. It is to have personal orientation progress outside previously habitual markers, categories, rules, and boundaries. It is a sense of unknowing and vigilant curiosity which specifically rejects established patterns. Questioning is a dissolving or failing of previously stable elements of subjective orientation: expectations of identities and relationships. They dissolve frequently in the process of an individual’s developing orientation. To think is to be vigilant to that dissolving, and so to unleash the gushing interior stream of alternative possible reconstructions: new and incompatible ‘propositions’ to be considered. This thinking as the movement between questioning and re-conceptualization is done in the context of both a person’s interventionist bearing, and the simultaneously expanding overall orientation at this moment of flight into actuality toward the openness of futurity. So, thinking is re-making the provisional stability of futurity, the personal specifics of anticipating, aspiring, evaluating, planning and executing interventions: re-conceptualization. There is no modelling or representation of this mental operation in logic theory, neither in inductive or deductive logic. The whole spirit of formal logic is to be coldly rule-governed and determinate, but re-conceptualization is indeterminate and warm, which is to say, creative. The active presence of a scattered multiplicity of embodied spiritualities, intervening as individuals into local actuality, makes the whole world indefinite, indeterminate, not yet a completed particular. Time is the incompleteness of everything. Thinking is a way of being in an indeterminate world, a world of possibility, a way of making such a world. This isn’t psychology, but rather the metaphysics of time.

Descartes was Right

If there is to be an event of questioning (thinking on the way to re-conceptualization) there must be an oriented bearing of intervention, anticipation, aspiration, evaluation, and so a thinking subject in flight between past and future. The inseparable combination of the temporality of thinking and the subjectivity of time establishes that Descartes was right about “Cogito, ergo sum.”.

Missing Spirituality

In an era when the decline of spiritual ideologies from antique religions is no longer seriously lamented, potentially clearing the field for better guides, the vacuum was filled instead by the modern ideology of competitive materialism, celebrated relentlessly in mass media and aided and encouraged by science in its role as dominant intellectual discourse. Thoroughly secular people still inclined to have spirituality in their lives, and there are many, often do so by involvement with the arts, cultivating appreciation of art and beauty. It is a positive thing that there are still so many determined to keep a sense of spirituality alive. However, ascribing spirituality to beauty directs attention outward toward some eternally mysterious source, remote and unattainable. Contemplation and appreciation of art and beauty, as a way of being spiritual, invokes a kind of Platonic idealism in which beauty represents a transcendent world which is otherwise inaccessible, almost perfectly alien to individuals. In such a context, the human connection to spirituality is occasional, passive, unreliable, and dependent on treasured properties for possession of which the most wealthy compete. This is a misconception of transcendence. The top-down metaphysical orientation re-enforces the hierarchy that is typical of arts culture, largely overlapping the hierarchy of competitive materialism.

The promise of philosophy reclaiming the metaphysical question of transcendence as its historically essential issue, even with its whiff of mysticism, is to open a more appropriate experience and discourse of spirituality. Regrettably, reputable philosophy has made itself as science-like and un-spiritual as possible, and so unavailable as a source of spiritual discourse. However, there is plenty of spiritual discourse in the history of philosophy, some of it cited above. Spiritually relevant philosophy comes of personally making something important of the question: What is thinking? What thinks is spirituality, a flight of creativity and so of indeterminacy, projecting creativity into actuality. Such a conception of spirituality upsets the Platonic-scientific sense of the world (including the social world) as a rigidly furnished bundle of structures waiting to be discovered, with all essences already finished and in place, and so where everything is as it must always be. As an act of creation, thinking is the reality of freedom at the level of the embodied individual, and keeps open the indeterminacy and incompleteness of the self and the world. Emphasizing thinking as spiritual power also shifts the sense of human wellbeing in a way that upsets the ideology of competitive materialism. Thinking itself is the best and essential achievement, self-conferred. Tapping the personally interior gusher of spirituality (intelligence), and bringing creations into the world is the way to fulfillment for both individuals and collectives.

Note:

* Some observations in this posting are responses to points made in:

What is Existenz Philosophy, written by Hannah Arendt, published in Partisan Review 8/1 (Winter 1946): pp. 34-56.

Copyright © 2016 Sandy MacDonald.

The Question of the Gaze

07 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Golden Age Culture Studies

In pre-modern times, when a cyclical conception of history was normal, people had the idea of a golden age, far in the past, when human society and knowledge were closer to authentic origins, sources, and general truths, and consequently nearly perfect in justice, happiness, and relations to nature and the cosmos. The human story was understood to be a gradual but inexorable corruption and decline from that original high point to the present. People now are generally aware that there is no evidence for, and plenty of evidence against, such a view of history, but there are still living vestiges of golden age mythology. Those vestiges are apparent in attitudes of reverence toward the spiritual attitudes and practices of ancient civilizations and aboriginal cultures. However, no human culture has ever made the essential philosophical breakthrough to get beyond fear of projections of the universally imprinted parent, and so no philosophical or spiritual breakthrough is possible from studying pre-modern cultures, tribal cultures, folk cultures, ancient civilizations, different civilizations, high cultures, nomadic cultures, aboriginal cultures. What is interesting spiritually and philosophically is not some exotic culture or set of beliefs but what there is to any person which was there before she had any culture and always remains unspoiled by culture.

Philosophical Innovation

According to Jonathan I. Israel, in Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790, the political revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which effectively put an end to the oppressive Old Regime in Europe, would have been inconceivable without previous innovations in philosophy, in fact a prior revolution of ideas which provided a ground from which the pervasive social dominance of military aristocracy and Christian Churches could be challenged. Specifically, it was seventeenth century rationalism and especially the materialist monism articulated by Benedict de Spinoza (1632-77) which provided the crucial ideas. This is not to say that Spinoza invented those ideas, because he did not. However, Spinoza presented an important selection of ancient (especially Stoic) ideas in the innovative form of geometric proofs, stunningly persuasive to the rising rationalism of his time.

The change to modernity brought about by the European Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was an entirely novel transformation in the history of adult mentality and the human interconnectedness, but the result remains unsatisfactory and unsustainable. It would be sadly parochial to believe that humanity is finished developing social and institutional improvements. In fact, the Enlightenment accomplished only a half-assed job because it had only single substance monism, materialist monism, the (half-assed) philosophy pitched by Spinoza. All along it was declared that materialist monism required complete determinism. Such a philosophical position was adequate in the ideological quarrel with religiously based authority institutionalized in Christianity and aristocracy, but it provided no grounding for a serious confrontation with the rising wave of purely secular inequality. Although materialist monism, including strict determinism, helped historically with dislodging beliefs in divine control of world affairs, especially through sovereign power and religious authority, it is clear that determinism and monism can’t be a long-term foundation for pluralist individual freedom. Consequently, the Enlightenment failed to have much effect on the systems of subordination that now structure secular inequality. Another set of innovations in philosophy, something far more pluralist than Spinoza, will be required to advance the culture of interconnectedness and adult mentality to the next stage of improvement. It is still possible that the best days of the human interconnectedness are to come, and that they will be more dramatically different from the current status quo than we are from Christendom.

Begin Where You Are

Science is the great intellectual edifice built from materialist monism, so much so that modernity manifests something close to an ideological dictatorship of science. However, under the scientific model of explanation everything is just immutable causal chains. There is never any real novelty or freedom conceivable with science, making it a philosophical dead end. The revolutions of the Enlightenment were attempts to dislodge forms of top-down human-on-human parasitism, but they were only minimally successful. The most fundamental mechanism of human parasitism, of sustaining systems of subordination, is cultural control of the criteria of individual self-identification, self-worth, self-definition. The rewards offered by the capitalist politico-economic system are all external to the individual and as such are controlled externally and work by diverting individuals from authentic self-recognition. Urgings to “dream big” and “live your dreams” look like a celebration of individual freedom, but the kinds of personal orientation which count as “dreams” for this are all constructs of transferable properties such as jets, yachts, corner offices, or vacation properties: controlled, commodified, commercialized, all depending on what money can buy and how money can be procured. Institutions which control the flow of those rewards take advantage of mass dependence on systems of subordination, such as employment hierarchies, to skim off a parasitic revenue stream to preserve structures of inequality in favour of a controlling ownership faction. Scientific ideology provides nothing useful in getting beyond that cultural control, and actually supports it, and so it becomes necessary to reconsider what philosophical thinking might offer.

The Question of the Gaze

The human outward gaze beholds beauties and wonders but often fails to notice itself, the gaze itself, the beholding, as remarkable, as what is most remarkable about the wonders beheld. It doesn’t have an appearance, isn’t part of the scene beheld, and yet there is much to notice about the gaze: it has a direction, and not just a direction but a questioning directed-ness. The questioning in the gaze is fleeting, accumulating, ephemeral, building toward some new questioning, with a sense of coming from a particular prior questioning and going toward a larger, still partly indefinite, subsequent questioning, of being incomplete and renewing. To notice that the gaze has a particularity of direction, of questioning directed-ness, is to notice it editing, contributing context and interpretation to, constructing what is beheld.

The questioning gaze that edits itself into a blind spot is science. Venturing into that blind spot, the contemplation of questioning itself, of being in a life in the world, is philosophical. The philosophical impulse has sometimes taken the form of wondering if the beauties and wonders beheld are somehow deceptive or misleading, hiding something more fundamental or profound ‘behind’ or ‘below’ them, a substrate of eternal reality. Such speculations of a metaphysical substrate mis-express an intuition of the importance of the gaze itself in constructing what is beheld. The intelligence of the gaze is the formative force which is not an item among appearances. The tendency for intelligence to self-efface or self-alienate in this way is the reason for saying that each intelligence exists in its own blind-spot.

As observed many times in postings to this blog, intelligences can’t be part of nature because nature consists of strict actualities, the totality of the categorically actual (being), but we intelligences orient and define ourselves (live our lives) in a structure of time (becoming) which is a fabric of non-actuality, almost entirely beyond what is actual; for example constructing a directionality always exiting a non-actual past and with a heading or bearing structured in terms of increasingly improbable possibilities for a non-actual future. It isn’t that intelligences just make imperfect wild guesses at things that really exist in some actuality, because past and future really have no actual existence. They are creations of intelligences. Nature does not accumulate. It gains nothing and loses nothing: the law of conservation. Each intelligence, however, accumulates experience, invents, and learns. That orientation-complex of non-actuality defines ‘the interiority of an intelligence’ as outside the actuality of nature, and it is a unique creation by every individual intelligence. There is no reason or requirement for, or benefit from, postulating some separate super-intelligence as the source or origin of individual intelligences, initiating their agency, or unifying them. Such a universal in addition to all the individual intelligences would be a gratuitous violation of Ockham’s Razor.

Mindfulness

Ordinary activity is already consciousness of creative agency in the gaze itself, of ‘interior’ construction processes. There is so much subjective involvement in every instance of action and thinking, editing and identification of surroundings via sensations, including an ever-developing emotional condition which contributes much to engagement with the surroundings; so much re-constructing of personal orientation within developing events, that it is impossible not to be somewhat conscious of subjective mental processes the whole time of active engagement with the environment. No special introspective faculty or technique of awareness is necessarily involved in that consciousness. We are aware of it because we are doing it, living a basic characteristic of agency. It is not as if the ‘interiority’ of intelligence is removed or distant, not as if you have to roll your eyes back into your head, locate and direct your gaze into some mysterious obscurity. However, it has been noted that intelligence does show a tendency to edit out its own creative presence from the beauties and wonders it gazes upon. That is, it has a tendency to self-efface or make itself unidentified in that operation of perception.

Philosophical Skepticism

Philosophical skepticism is an example of a technique used as a ‘mirror’ of the extra-natural interiority or semi-blind-spot which intelligences tend to structure into their gazing. The most celebrated and familiar presentation of that process, probably, is in Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes uses age-old philosophical observations on the nearly complete unreliability of sense-perception as a revelation of whatever might be objective and ‘out there’ in the strict actuality of nature. By applying such ways of questioning all systems of belief or knowledge, Descartes clears a way to a direct experience of his intelligence-as-such in its state of innocence, which he reports in something like the following language: “I am thinking (specifically questioning or doubting), therefore I exist!” (That is reminiscent of Aristotle’s “Thought that (in this case suddenly) thinks itself”.) The emphasis tends to go to the fact of finding something that cannot be doubted, but it should go to what it is that cannot be doubted. It is the questioning gaze in action which turns out to be indubitable, in spite of its being so self-effacing. What makes this especially striking is that the questioning intelligence of the gaze is entirely unlike the beauties and wonders beheld by the gaze, unlike and far more wondrous than anything in nature. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the undeniable self-existence discovered by Descartes is just an ordinary operation of active engagement with surroundings, namely questioning, and not a glimpse into any dark mysterious place.

Another crucial moment of skepticism in modernizing philosophy, similarly founded on heroic doubting, (prior to and clearly inspirational for Descartes’ self-discovery) belongs to Martin Luther (1483-1546), who, from an education in Hellenistic philosophy including skepticism, fully confronted doubt in his contemplation of (what he considered to be) the truths of Christianity. In recognizing that the doctrines of Christianity could never be known with certainty, Luther arrived in anguish at unmitigated doubt and uncertainty about the grounding of his personal existence, and in that skeptical extremity he discovered an unexpected grounding for his existence, namely the inward freedom and power to take a creative leap, which in his situation was a leap of faith. Martin Luther was pretty clearly the original (uncredited) existentialist, the breakthrough philosopher of freedom in the modernizing cultural system of Europe. It was Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55) contemplating Luther’s discovery, a couple of centuries after Descartes, which occasioned the beginnings of self-identified Existentialism, a contemplation of individual freedom with a Romantic tendency to overstate the futility of that freedom.

Existentialism: The Interior is Empty

Existentialism, in an authentic development of only certain aspects of the Lutheran experience, places complete emphasis on the individual freedom of intelligences, but sometimes goes so far as to claim there is nothing identifiable as a subjective interior, resulting in inescapable anguish at total uncertainty about personal existence and identity, and a sense of the absurdity of all existence. On that view what is exceptional about intelligences is that we exist inside-out in a total blind-spot, aware of only what is not-ourselves, since there is nothing interior except the freedom (and limited power) to create some outward expression, mark, or declaration of personal existence. In that condition, intelligence is entirely and categorically outward-looking, existence without an essence (apologies to Sartre), burdened with inescapable freedom in the form of a need to project markers of an interior character which remains entirely indefinite (and so free in a particular way). This interpretation of Existentialism is certainly individualistic and pluralistic, but it fails to recognize Descartes’ discovery. Such an Existentialism over-states the hidden nature of the interiority of intelligence, completely discounting the unavoidable (and identifiable) interiority of a rich personal orientation in a time-structure of non-actuality. A very elaborated directionality or orientation is certainly “in here”, along with (even in existentialism) the distress around consciousness of uncertainty, and a force of questioning and creativity. That’s quite a bit of existential interiority.

Given the religious culture of the age in which they lived, it is remarkable that neither Luther nor Descartes discerned any channeling of a unifying super-intelligence in their discoveries of their own individual intelligences. Both contributed powerfully to philosophical individualism and so pluralism. Between them the western tradition gained cultural pointers for individual creative freedom and self-recognized interior agency in re-orientation, thinking. In fact Descartes’ questioning agency and Luther’s leap of creativity bring to light that there is lots for intelligence to encounter other than objects or words. Individuals have a rich innocent subjectivity, an effortless gusher of curiosities, questions, and creative impulses to change things in specifically meaningful ways. This is not a matter of interpreting words or the meaning of words. The interior gusher isn’t something that can be known adequately from any kind of description but it can be known by discovering ways to de-efface its activities. There is an innocent, extra-linguistic, experience to be de-effaced and brought into a new relationship with the questioning directed-ness as a whole. It isn’t knowledge that fountains up from subjectivity but rather what might be called inspiration, questing. Action does result and skepticism does not apply.

When intelligences undertake to communicate with one another about their innocent experience of being intelligences, their philosophical experience, the effort necessarily takes a cultural form, and that form is going to be local, provisional, circumstantial, originally used for something else, limited, and ephemeral. Cultural infrastructure such as language has lots of limitations. However, intelligence-as-such is not limited to the circumstances of its cultural setting and, contrary to some claims, culture is not the entirety of any individual’s knowledge, specifically not the entirety of self-knowledge as illustrated by Descartes and Luther. There is the pre-cultural or innocent self-knowledge of any intelligence as an intelligence (unfortunately somewhat alienable by culture in addition to being somewhat self-effacing). Innocent experiences are foundational and entirely without the imitative nature of cultural expressions. I mention innocence and the cultural expression passes quickly but inspires a re-orientation which can be noticed as such.

Skepticism, as a rejection of all knowledge, is a version of the philosophical quest for self-discovery through innocence. The aspiration of all rigorous skepticism must be either the calm passivity of surrender to utter nihilist futility, or the freedom of personal innocence, because those are the only possibilities when you destroy the foundations of all knowledge claims or systems of belief; and, sure enough, as just illustrated by Luther and Descartes, there is something interesting left when such a program of destruction is finished, namely intelligence in action, questioning and projecting creativity. Admiration for personal innocence as a self-deliberative condition of intelligence must be a feature of all authentic skepticism, but skeptics can’t make claims about innocence because such claims look like claims of knowledge about some object-of-knowledge. Luckily, nothing has to be claimed about intelligence-in-innocence because direct self-experience as intelligence-as-such is the point of the exercise and available to anyone at every moment.

Values and Gratifications: Philosophical Innovation

Given that the most fundamental mechanism of human parasitism is control of the criteria of self-identification, self-worth, self-definition, it is important that here in the familiar philosophical archive is the pointer to an alternative ground of self-recognition quite beyond parasitic control. It is an example of how external parasitic control can be resisted and overcome by philosophical thinking and by developing an orientation toward an individual process of creation, curiosity, and expression.

There are many deceptions in the mainstream belief system identifying human fulfillment in terms of levels of dignity/ love/ support/ money/ power/ honour. The pitch from the hierarchical alpha-structure is that you don’t need much in the way of inward self-awareness to enjoy perfect freedom. All you need is an unregulated commercial market which produces some choice of consumer products for self-definition by shopping (including belief and value packages from religions and political brands) and a personal chance to compete for the scarce goods and treasures of life. It is crucial to that alpha-story that the goods and treasures of life are scarce, and progressively scarcer as their value increases, so only the most worthy, divinely endowed celebrities, achieve the holy grails. It is such a beautiful story. The problem is that the greatest treasures of life are subjective intelligence and its expressive voice, powers freely intrinsic to everybody, and so the alpha-pitch is a deception, a control mechanism, even though the managers of the incentive-and-reward systems are themselves completely deceived (zombified) by it.

Language is full of legitimations of top-down parasitism. Sidestepping those prejudices requires thinking elementally, thinking without language. Intelligence has a thinking ‘voice’ prior to language. The primal, elemental, innocent voice is the sustained developing directionality of personal curiosity, pre-linguistic questioning, and the impulses that express it.

Selected Sources

Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790, written by Jonathan I. Israel, published by Oxford University Press (2011), ISBN 978-0-19-954820-0.

Kierkegaard: A Biography, written by Alastair Hannay, Published by Cambridge University Press (2001), ISBN-10: 0521560772, ISBN-13: 978-0521560771.

Martin Luther, written by Martin Marty, A Penguin Life, Published by the Penguin Group (Viking) (2004), ISBN 0-670-03272-7.

Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose, written by Kenneth Burke, published by The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc. (1935, second revised edition 1954, second printing 1965), Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-66067. This is the source of the idea of orientation in my thinking.

Copyright © 2014 Sandy MacDonald.