[netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
Kerry Miller
{ > ... on the other, a small
{ > group that resists the structural imperatives and stands for an
{ > embattled humanist tradition...
{
{ I guess you will call that last group the "new heroes" :-)
{
The 'media' would call them heroes, because in their usage, its any underdog
that comes to their attention. Ralston Saul uses his language pretty carefully,
and for him the Hero is 'brought foward' by *public demand* (not to mention the
'opinion leaders') -- and the humanists are not in the running. Martyrs might
be a better title, but titles of course are not a humanist thing...
{ Sounds as if the author is opposing efficiency and democracy. This
{ cannot be accepted. Yes, aiming at the best efficiency will lead away
{ from democracy. OTOH a democracy that is too inefficient won't last
{ either, because it will call for something radically more
{ efficient. This is exactly how Napoleon managed to keep the power,
{ after his coup.
{
{ Manicheism won't ever help anything. The problem is, as always, a
{ question of balance more than anything else.
{
I think you can have a pair of opposed concepts without necessarily
excluding the middle ground. Of course a democracy will get things done; the
question is whether 'argument, in "marginalizing the whole idea of opposition")
{ > Opposition becomes a refusal to participate in the
{ > process. It is irrational. And this trivialization of those who
{ > criticize or say no from outside the power structure applies not only
{ > to politics but to all organizations.
{
{ A good observation but only for cultures which rely on consensus
{ rather than on alternatives. This is true for e.g. the US but not for
{ most of Europe, where the lack of opposition between moderated
{ groups automatically gives more importance to extremists. This has
{ well been demonstrated during the past 15 years.
{
You knew he was Canadian (the land of the moderates)?
{ >a
{ > confusion over ownership and management in the corporations.
{
{ it cannot be blamed on reason, but on greed (the search
{ for immediate profit through speculation). And it is very
{ short-sighted, as the 1929 crash has shown.
You argue well - for JRS! Rationalism *is* short sighted.
{ If you look closer at the structures, you will also see that mutual
{ ownership of corporations finally gives the real power to a very small
{ number of people (and that's the real *structural* problem). Among
{ these, you will find as many (or even more) owners as managers.
{
I'm not sure we (the three of us ;-) are using the terms the same way.
Does 'mutual ownership' mean stockholders? Or linked boards?
{ >These
{ > structures make it almost impossible for the law to judge illegal that
{ > which is wrong.
{
{ Hmmm... why ?
'Wrongness' is a moral ('reasonable') concept; 'illegal' is a legal
(rational) one.
(Speaking for myself ;-) thats why the impeachment hearings are such a tragi-
comedy: the House of Reps is trying to hang Clinton on an essentially *moral*
issue, as if somewhere they enacted legislation defining US morality...
{ > For example, never have so few people been willing to speak out on
{ > important questions. Their fear is not tied to physical threats but to
{ > standing apart from their fellow experts or risking a career or
{ > entering an area of nonexpertise. Not since the etiquette-ridden
{ > courts of the 18c has public debate been so locked into fixed
{ > positions, fixed formulas and fixed elites ...
{
{ This seems, at least to me, to be just another sign of the new
{ Victorianism that's coming. *All* behaviour is getting more and more
{ standardised again. The 70's are definitely out :)
{
You make a general observation ('just another sign') in reply to JRS'
specific hypothesis (' in lieu if taking a real part in the evolution of
society'), but I don't see any disagreeemnt. Imo, not questioning the nature of
power remains a profound symptom of *something*.
{ >That progress has been central to our
{ > sense of our own immortality and the completion of it has had a
{ > profoundly destabilizing effect on our sense of what we are.
{
{ Stated this way, this just sounds like a lot of crap. But maybe there is
{ an explanation somewhere else in the text ?
{
I think so. I've only just begun the book, but he does like to come back to
the same ideas.
{ > On top
{ > of that, the undermining of universal language, in large part by the
{ > dialects of expertise, has meant that we can’t turn to the word to
{ > steady ourselves.
{
{ There never has been a "universal" language and there have always been
{ dialects of expertise. The appearance of dialects of *ideology* and the
{ greater importance of experts in society are the real problems.
{
I think he means *relative to the community* - yes, up to a point, the
gentry might use one 'language' and the hoi polloi another, but they could
understand one another. Now we are hard pressed to define community in any way
but the purely physical property of juxtaposition. (He speaks to this in an
interview, and some scraps of _The Doubter's Dictionary_ that Ive posted at
www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/london.htm and
www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/saul-d.htm )
{ > Instead, the writers and their pens, having invented
{ > the Age of Reason, are now its primary prisoners and so are unable to
{ > ask the right questions, let alone break down the imprisoning
{ > linguistic walls of their own creation.
{
{ Yes. Still, in a non-consensual society, the writers using a
{ non-dominant ideology's dialect might ask the right questions
{ (unfortunately, they also often provide the wrong answers) and are
{ heard by a large part of the society. The problem then becomes more
{ one of inter-communication between different parts of the general
{ population than between the "leaders" and the others (exactly what
{ fascist or communist parties, as well as sects, aim at). And that is
{ the defeat of Reason.
{
I'll leave you to argue this one with the author ;-)
{ >
{ > p 39 The [manager or] technocrat began his existence as the ideal
{ > servant of the people -- a man freed from both irrational ambition and
{ > self-interest.
{
{ I cannot see how this applies to managers...
{
{ > Then, with surprising rapidity, he evolved into one who
{ > used the system with a distant contempt for the people.
{ And common sense is very dangerous, because it very often is mistaken
{ for logics or reason. And I don't understand how "reasonable men" can
{ be opposed to men of "Reason".
Surely you jest! If you trim your rosebush 'reasonably,' do you do it on
strictly rational lines? (Start at the top, you know, so as you tire you'll be
able to move lower and lower, and not have to lift the pruners so much ;-))
{ Yes, Jefferson was a man of common sense... and this led him to say
{ very stupid things as well as very clever ones.
{
Neither reasonableness or Reason predicts either stupidity or cleverness,
does it?
{ Philosophy has never had any big influence of everyone's "real" life.
The entire pattern of schooling was overhauled by
pedagogy -- the philosophy of education -- just around 1917, as it happened...
I would guess that has had a big influence on everybody on this list, at any
rate (I dunno about Usenet ;-)
{ > And yet, since the beginning of the
{ > Age of Reason, there has been a parallel growth in both knowledge and
{ > violence, culminating in the slaughters of the 20th century.
{
{ What knowledge ? The ignorance that leads to fear and then to violence
{ is the ignorance about one's neighbours. In that respect, we haven't
{ learnt a lot since the Renaissance !
{
Exactly, what knowledge? We not only dont learn anyhting about our
neighbors, but we 'invent 'social mobility' to make it almost impossible to
learn anything about them, either -- that is, this doesnt even count as
knowledge, compared to technological gimmicks of one sort and antoher..
{ Scientific knowledge, OTOH, can only increase the fear of the use
{ others could make of that knowledge...
Shouldn't we have to distinguish between *how the scientist thinks* and how the
public thinks of science? 'Sc knowledge' doesnt increase the *scientist's*
fear, does it? And its been known for years that the public understanding of
'science' is dismal (being fixated on _results_ (that is, really technology)
rather than the method of scientific skepticism) -- so we could say its public
ignorance of science itself that makes 'us' fearful.
kerry, praying for rain
Carsten Laekamp
Hello, all,
Since this has got rather long, and since a general idea can never
emerge from a point-to-point comment, I am starting this with a
general comment first. Of course, this is not a comment on the book,
which I haven't read, but on the impression I got about it from
Kerry's quotes and comments.
The first problem is that "Reason" hasn't been defined here, which is
a bad thing per se, since this word has got several meanings, as every
dictionary shows. However, the use of a capital "R" and what appears
to be the general line of the book (as well as the subject line of
this thread), it seems mainly to refer to Rationalist (in a
philosophical sense) concepts.
Still, I wonder... Reason would then be the capacity of everyone to
think on his own, with his own mind, independently of thoughts imposed
from the outside and of feelings. It also involves the ability to
think in abstract and/or general terms, i.e. the use of concepts, to
understand the World. However, there are contradictions in the text
(and in Kerry's comments ?): Reason is opposed to logics (!), said to be
short sighted and presented as the reason uniformity in thinking and
as the engine of today's political and economical systems
What is left is a strange impression that Reason and Rationalism have
only something to do with technocracy and "rationalising the means of
production". Of course, this is the way Reason is presented today by
those who need to justify their "rationalisations" and their attempts
to increase the power of the technocrats. But this hasn't got anything
to do with Reason. On the contrary, it does mean imposing Thought on
man. It cannot be equated either to the ideas of the rationalists,
since these had a high opinion of Man: a being, according to them, not
only being capable of abstract thinking (which they gave as a
definition of Man, as opposed to animals which were only working
according to stimulus-response mechanisms) but also capable of
*individual* thinking.
The opposite of Reason, according to the context, would be either
obscurantism (religious, ideological, technocratic, ...) or the rule
of feelings (as opposed to thought). If we look at today's political
systems, only Western-type democracy is based on Reason, whereas
dictatorships (as old-style monarchies) are based on
obscurantism. Capitalism, OTOH, is based on feelings (greed), even
reduced to their simplest stimulus-response form, if we take the
financial markets as an example. (I am not saying that capitalism
doesn't work, but only that it cannot be seen as a rational
mechanism).
What worries me is the part on knowledge being rather useless. This
makes me think that the author is happily accepting the lies that say
that technocracy is based on Reason, only to reject Reason as a whole
and to promote some kind of obscurantism (either political or
religious). In that sense, what appears to be the thought of JRS
according to the excerpts posted here, seems to hide some dark design.
Well, now for a more precise reply to Kerry, if anyone still cares to
read it :) (I actually hesitated to post it to the list, since it
is rather off-topic here but will still do so /this time/).
ker...@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) writes:
>. Ralston Saul uses his language
> pretty carefully, and for him the Hero is 'brought foward' by *public
> demand* (not to mention the 'opinion leaders') --
It would have been a good idea to give those definitions here from the
beginning, especially when they differ from the common ones.
> and the humanists
> are not in the running. Martyrs might be a better title, but titles
> of course are not a humanist thing...
Erm, what's your definition of humanism ?
> { > Opposition becomes a refusal to participate in the process. It is
> { >irrational. And this trivialization of those who criticize or say
> { >no from outside the power structure applies not only to politics
> { >but to all organizations.
> { { A good observation but only for cultures which rely on consensus {
> rather than on alternatives. This is true for e.g. the US but not for
> { most of Europe, where the lack of opposition between moderated {
> groups automatically gives more importance to extremists. This has {
> well been demonstrated during the past 15 years. {
> You knew he was Canadian (the land of the moderates)?
Oops, I didn't understand that "the West" was Canada...
And I think that at least Eastern Canada has some very active
extremists. But maybe "the West" refers to BC only ? :)
> { >a confusion over ownership and management in the corporations.
> { { it cannot be blamed on reason, but on greed (the search { for
> immediate profit through speculation). And it is very { short-sighted,
> as the 1929 crash has shown.
>
> You argue well - for JRS! Rationalism *is* short sighted.
Hmmm.... I wonder what your definitions of "rationalism" and "reason"
are. Certainly not those of the rationalist philosophers, which JRS
seems to take as a basis, if we look at the title.
> { If you look closer at the structures, you will also see that mutual
> { ownership of corporations finally gives the real power to a very
> small { number of people (and that's the real *structural*
> problem). Among { these, you will find as many (or even more) owners
> as managers. {
> I'm not sure we (the three of us ;-) are using the terms the same
> way. Does 'mutual ownership' mean stockholders? Or linked boards?
what I meant was companies owning shares of each others. Linked
boards, if I understand the term right, are, in part, a consequence of
this.
> { >These structures make it almost impossible for the law to judge
> { >illegal that which is wrong.
> { { Hmmm... why ?
>
> 'Wrongness' is a moral ('reasonable') concept; 'illegal' is a legal
> (rational) one.
Hmmm, does "Reason" concur with "rational" or with "reasonable" for
you ?
But your quote was about "*structures of power*" that made it "almost
impossible for the law to judge illegal that which is wrong", not
about the dichotomy of the reasonable and the rational.
The fact that law and morals aren't *always* compatible seems to be
self-evident to me. (OTOH, I wouldn't say that the law and
jurisprudence are entirely on the side of the rational).
> (Speaking for myself ;-) thats why the impeachment
> hearings are such a tragi- comedy: the House of Reps is trying to hang
> Clinton on an essentially *moral* issue, as if somewhere they enacted
> legislation defining US morality...
Something we agree on :)
> You make a general observation ('just another sign') in reply to
> JRS' specific hypothesis (' in lieu if taking a real part in the
> evolution of society'), but I don't see any disagreeemnt. Imo, not
> questioning the nature of power remains a profound symptom of
> *something*.
No, it wasn't a general point. "Another" was a reference to what I
said just before. Where I disagree with JRS is when he says that
people were happy with an appearance of freedom but would accept to be
imprisoned in the system at the same time. To be more specific:
- During the late 60's, 70's, the contestation targetted as much the
system as appearances (even if it went a bit too much for the
latter). Remember that it was the big time for the search of
alternatives in every domain: vestimental, of course, but also
societal (communitarisms of all kinds), moral, religious and
political (the birth of left-wing terrorist groups all over Europe, as
well as the fight against the Viet-Nam war in the US).
- Today, we are heading back to a very structured society (I agree on
that), and everyone accepts its constraints. Individualism is just
presented as freedom, but in fact it is just another constraint.
Therefore, what JRS seems to denounce as a plot to keep the masses
quiet (but, then again, it is an impression from an *excerpt*) is,
IMHO, just another swing of the pendulum.
> { > On top of that, the undermining of universal language, in large
> { >part by the dialects of expertise, has meant that we can’t turn to
> { >the word to steady ourselves.
> { { There never has been a "universal" language and there have always
> been { dialects of expertise. The appearance of dialects of *ideology*
> and the { greater importance of experts in society are the real
> problems. {
> I think he means *relative to the community*
So was I :) At all times, some words had a different meaning for a
specialist than for the "common man" (i.e. for someone who is not a
specialist in the field where that word has another
meaning). I.e. "pen" refers to something very different for a farmer
or an inmate or someone who is neither.
> - yes, up to a point,
> the gentry might use one 'language' and the hoi polloi another, but
> they could understand one another.
Well, that too, of course. But I doubt that the commoner would have
really understood what his Lord was saying, when speaking to other
members of the gentry :)
> { And common sense is very dangerous, because it very often is
> mistaken { for logics or reason. And I don't understand how
> "reasonable men" can { be opposed to men of "Reason".
>
> Surely you jest! If you trim your rosebush 'reasonably,' do you do
> it on strictly rational lines? (Start at the top, you know, so as you
> tire you'll be able to move lower and lower, and not have to lift the
> pruners so much ;-))
I hope for your back and your legs that you're *not* doing it in a
"rational" way :)
Still, how would you trim a rosebush "reasonably" ?
Seriously now, to be reasonable, you need a certain amount of reason !
> { Yes, Jefferson was a man of common sense... and this led him to say
> { very stupid things as well as very clever ones. {
> Neither reasonableness or Reason predicts either stupidity or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's exactly the problem: the word is "reason" too. And for good
reason (oops ! <g>)
> cleverness, does it?
I said "this lead him to", which means there was an implication:
- when he wanted to free all slaves, his "common sense" told him that
they could certainly not live in the same society as the whites. This
led him to the project to ship them off to Haiti. But this "common
sense" was the product of his experience (as c.s. always is). Had he
grown up in another society, he might have had different
thoughts.
- when he commented on Voltaire's theory about some sedimental stone,
his common sense made him find the better explanation (Voltaire's
really seems stupid today), because his empirism was better fit for
that kind of subjects than Voltaire's rationalism.
> { Philosophy has never had any big influence of everyone's "real"
> life.
>
> The entire pattern of schooling was overhauled by pedagogy -- the
> philosophy of education -- just around 1917, as it happened... I would
> guess that has had a big influence on everybody on this list, at any
> rate (I dunno about Usenet ;-)
French teachers are still unspoilt by pedagogy teachings, even today :)
And I'm sorry, pedagogy is in no way philosophy. Or you'd have to
call everything involving ideas in some way or another
"philosophy"... even politics !
> { > And yet, since the beginning of the Age of Reason, there has been
> { >a parallel growth in both knowledge and violence, culminating in
> { >the slaughters of the 20th century.
> { { What knowledge ? The ignorance that leads to fear and then to
> violence { is the ignorance about one's neighbours. In that respect,
> we haven't { learnt a lot since the Renaissance ! {
> Exactly, what knowledge? We not only dont learn anyhting about our
> neighbors, but we 'invent 'social mobility' to make it almost
> impossible to learn anything about them, either -- that is, this
> doesnt even count as knowledge, compared to technological gimmicks of
> one sort and antoher..
Well, thanks for agreeing with me on this, even if I meant
"neighbours" in a more general sense than just the Joneses next
door :)
But technology isn't knowledge. It's just something which *uses* some
kinds of it. Knowledge is about understanding, not about creating. In
that sense, understanding (in every way) your immigrant neighbour has
much more to do with knowledge than designing microprocessors at
Intel... even if Intel would certainly want to make you believe
the opposite !
> { Scientific knowledge, OTOH, can only increase the fear of the use {
> others could make of that knowledge...
>
> Shouldn't we have to distinguish between *how the scientist thinks*
> and how the public thinks of science? 'Sc knowledge' doesnt increase
> the *scientist's* fear, does it? And its been known for years that the
> public understanding of 'science' is dismal (being fixated on
> _results_ (that is, really technology) rather than the method of
> scientific skepticism) -- so we could say its public ignorance of
> science itself that makes 'us' fearful.
Well, there is a certain obscurantist fear of science.
Still, the first ones to warn about the real dangers of science or
technology are always scientists themselves: Oppenheimer was one of
the first opponents of nuclear weapons. The first ones to have really
warned about possible excesses of modern biology were biologists. Of
course, there are some "mad scientists", but not all scientists are
mad (and it seems that they're less so than hi-tech engineers).
> kerry, praying for rain
You should have said so a few days ago, I could have sent you
plenty... <g>
--
Carsten Läkamp
clae...@mindless.com
Kerry Miller
Carsten,
{ Since this has got rather long, and since a general idea can never
{ emerge from a point-to-point comment, I am starting this with a
{ general comment first.
...
{ I actually hesitated to post it to the list, since it is rather
{ off-topic here
Far from being off-topic, I think we've stumbled onto something that is
directly related to the concept of Netizens. We (here and elsewhere) all
preach that the net expands 'communication' and promotes international
'understanding,' but the terms are always left undefined, so that (to be
precise) the effects of the very difference you mention, between thoughtful
general comment and 'quick and dirty' point-by-point response, are left
unexamined. I won't pretend to make an ironclad argument here, but I think
these two styles (which are both typically called dialog) parallel the ideas of
'reasonableness' and 'rationality.'
Broadly, I believe one typifies an effort to understand the idea; the other, to
bring the *expression of the idea into line with what one already understands.
One tends to lead to broader contexts; the other, to narrower ones. One
maintains a dynamic parity between speakers; the other, a static 'one-up/ one-
down' relation. As long as these possibilities are ignored, very little
understanding is actually achieved *either way* -- because whatever
'communication' or understanding or intelligence or even knowledge is, it
cannot be a unidirectional thing; some exercise of *alternatives* is needed.
Conventionally, this is construed as the 'back and forth' or 'give and take' of
conversation between two parties - but if the *choice of who is giver and who
is taker is not itself negotiable, then the relation collapses into simply
'giving' or 'froing'; there is no cycling. Or, one party may 'rant,' and the
other party says nothing -- parity collapses. Or again, one may post without
any evidence of having read what another had posted; certainly it demonstrates
'equal opportunity,' but where is any sense of relationship at all? For there
to be what is called 'real' communication (etc), I am convinced that 'cycling'
has to take place *throughout* the range of association: sign to symbol, symbol
to idea, idea to intention. As soon as a 'fiat' is put in place (say,
'Rational' means such and such," or "*I* mean thus and so" or "It's not my
field" or "The Internet requires governance"), the power *structure* takes
over, and ultimately the only thing that can be communicated is that one
either accepts or rejects the position assigned by it.
I chid Ronda the other day for not responding to Becky Burr by claiming the
high ground -- that just this kind of 'vague,' 'inefficient' dialog is just
what science (which is simply the Latin word for knowing) *is* -- not just
falling into (or out of) line with a 'top-down' decree of what is to be
'decided.'
Therefore I continue the present dialog as a 'demonstration communication,'
*regardless of whether we 'agree' or not on the 'content'* -- as this is, I
think, what JRS has in mind when he refers to humanism and specifically, to
'speaking out' as an 'exercise of power.'
If this be off-topic, then make the most of it ;-)
====
{ The first problem is that "Reason" hasn't been defined here, which is
{ a bad thing per se, since this word has got several meanings, as every
{ dictionary shows. However, the use of a capital "R" and what appears
{ to be the general line of the book (as well as the subject line of
{ this thread), it seems mainly to refer to Rationalist (in a
{ philosophical sense) concepts.
{
{ Still, I wonder... Reason would then be the capacity of everyone to
{ think on his own, with his own mind, independently of thoughts imposed
{ from the outside and of feelings. ...
JRS describes Voltaire's 18c as one in which "justice still used torture as an
official means ofd interrogation, and the condemned faced a variety of brutal
punishments, being broken on the wheel, for instance. This and other tools of
arbitrary power constituted a social form of darkeness. The philosophers of
Europe, England and America threw themselves into the arms of reason, convinced
that birth would be given to new rational elites capable of building a new
civilization...
" And yet the exercise of power, without the moderating influence of any
ethical structure, rapidly became the religion of these new elites. Their
reforms included an unparalleled and permanent institution of state violence...
acoompanied by a growing struggle between democratic and rational methods,
with the rational increasingly at an advantage." (p 5)
My interpretation is that JRS is distinguishing the human capacity of reason
from the *institution* of reason -- thus the capital R -- in order to gather
together a number of concepts which otherwise tend to be left in isolation --
especially when it comes to technocracy and "means of production" in relation
to society. (The way political power is treated as if completely distinct from
physical power is a prime example; really, do the Texas Freemen have nothing to
do with being "off the grid"?)
In all other respects, I think we can take reason to be defined as you say.
{ ... this is the way Reason is presented today by
{ those who need to justify their "rationalisations" and their attempts
{ to increase the power of the technocrats. But this hasn't got anything
{ to do with Reason. On the contrary, it does mean imposing Thought on
{ man....
{ The opposite of Reason, according to the context, would be either
{ obscurantism (religious, ideological, technocratic, ...) or the rule
{ of feelings (as opposed to thought).
I agree, and i think JRS would agree, this is true for reason *as an idea*, if
we can sum up the small-r 'individualistic' reason this way. But when you
write,
{ If we look at today's political
{ systems, only Western-type democracy is based on Reason, whereas
{ dictatorships (as old-style monarchies) are based on
{ obscurantism. Capitalism, OTOH, is based on feelings (greed), even
{ reduced to their simplest stimulus-response form, if we take the
{ financial markets as an example. (I am not saying that capitalism
{ doesn't work, but only that it cannot be seen as a rational
{ mechanism).
then I think it misses the point. Economic and political *systems are not
ideas, but institutions, with their own 'compelling logic.'
Institutionalization is not 'just another layer' of social organization, but is
the embodiment of power. That is, it takes power away from the citizen and
doesnt give it back; in ergonomic terms, its a non-reversible ('non-
recyclable') conversion. Thus 'Western-style democracy' operates on a more and
more ad hoc basis -- Sure, it preaches a fine line, but its practictioners do
'whatever works' to and never mind the greatest good for the greatest number or
any other public, humanist *cause for government in the first place.
{ What worries me is the part on knowledge being rather useless. This
{ makes me think that the author is happily accepting the lies that say
{ that technocracy is based on Reason, only to reject Reason as a whole
{ and to promote some kind of obscurantism (either political or
{ religious). In that sense, what appears to be the thought of JRS
{ according to the excerpts posted here, seems to hide some dark design.
{
"Ours is a civilization astonishing in the degree to which is seems to see
and to know. Never before have there been such enormous elites carrying such
burdens of knowledge. This success story dominates our lives...
"The possession, use and control of knowledge have become their central
theme... However, their power depends not on the effect with which they use
that knowlege but on the effectiveness with which they control its use. Thus
[we have] an absolute belilef that the solution to our porblems must be a more
determined application of [*]rationally organized[*] expertise. The reality is
that our problems are largely the result of that application. The illusion is
that we have created the most sophisticated society in the history of man. The
reality is that the division of knowledge into feudal fiefdoms of expertise has
made general understanding and coordinated action not simply impossible but
despised and distrusted." (p 8)
{ It would have been a good idea to give those definitions here from the
{ beginning, especially when they differ from the common ones.
Are they so different? It was your comment that the 'humanists' were perhaps
'the new heroes' which seemed to me to twist the meaning. In contrast to the
_cynical suggestion that JRS was setting out toly 'prove himself' by the same
standards he was using to criticise the establishment, I wrote that he was a
_careful writer.
{ > and the humanists
{ > are not in the running. Martyrs might be a better title, but titles
{ > of course are not a humanist thing...
{
{ Erm, what's your definition of humanism ?
Humanism accepts the full spectrum of human characteristics -- "spirit,
appetite, faith and emotion, but also intuition, will, and most important,
experience." ( p15; in the London interview, he lists "common sense,
creativity, ethics, intuition, memory, and reason.")
{ Oops, I didn't understand that "the West" was Canada...
{ And I think that at least Eastern Canada has some very active
{ extremists. But maybe "the West" refers to BC only ? :)
What extremists? The point of contention is simply that Reason is only *one*
such characteristic, and deserves to be kept in proportion. By means of its
(institutionalized) power (the 'Age of Reason'), it has "driven the other
elements into the marginal frontiers of doubtful respectability."
{ > Does 'mutual ownership' mean stockholders? Or linked boards?
{
{ what I meant was companies owning shares of each others. Linked
{ boards, if I understand the term right, are, in part, a consequence of
{ this.
Isnt it more accurate to say the shareholders are the owners and members of the
board(s) are *managers*?
{ > 'Wrongness' is a moral ('reasonable') concept; 'illegal' is a legal
{ > (rational) one.
...
{ The fact that law and morals aren't *always* compatible seems to be
{ self-evident to me. (OTOH, I wouldn't say that the law and
{ jurisprudence are entirely on the side of the rational).
The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the rational.
There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it still in a humanist
way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble.
{ > ... not
{ > questioning the nature of power remains a profound symptom of
{ > *something*.
{
{ No, it wasn't a general point. "Another" was a reference to what I
{ said just before.
The larger question is which interpretation leads to further thought
('improves understanding'). "A" (JRS) made a claim, and provided an example in
support; "B" (CL) disputes the example, but "C" (KM) doesn't see that the claim
of cyclicity ('just another swing') _leads_ anywhere. (In short, I'd call it
_ex post facto_ -- but maybe in 1989 you foresaw the penchant for body
piercing?)
{ - During the late 60's, 70's, the contestation targetted as much the
{ system as appearances...
{ - Today, we are heading back to a very structured society ...
And now do you think the drive for bigger faster *personal* computers reflects
something else? What about the revival of automotive extravagance? Or the
whole drug milieu?
{ Therefore, what JRS seems to denounce as a plot to keep the masses
{ quiet (but, then again, it is an impression from an *excerpt*) is,
{ IMHO, just another swing of the pendulum.
'Plot'? No, just the alienation of the indiv from any *real sense of power.
{ > I think he means *relative to the community*
{
{ So was I :) At all times, some words had a different meaning for a
{ specialist than for the "common man" ...
I disagree. The common man used to know 'everything he needed to know' to live
his life; now I need a plumber to fix the water pump (what's a 'foot valve'?)
somebody else to repair the gas furnace (wheres the 'sensor switch'?) -- and
both are useless when the electricity goes off!
{ Still, how would you trim a rosebush "reasonably" ?
I would do whatever was necessary to make it look reasonably trimmed ;-)
{ I said "this lead him to", which means there was an implication:
{
{ - when he wanted to free all slaves, his "common sense" told him that
{ they could certainly not live in the same society as the whites. This
{ led him to the project to ship them off to Haiti. But this "common
{ sense" was the product of his experience (as c.s. always is). Had he
{ grown up in another society, he might have had different
{ thoughts.
{
{ - when he commented on Voltaire's theory about some sedimental stone,
{ his common sense made him find the better explanation (Voltaire's
{ really seems stupid today), because his empirism was better fit for
{ that kind of subjects than Voltaire's rationalism.
I'm confused; are these examples of cleverness or stupidity?
{ French teachers are still unspoilt by pedagogy teachings, even today :)
{ And I'm sorry, pedagogy is in no way philosophy. Or you'd have to
{ call everything involving ideas in some way or another
{ "philosophy"... even politics !
Call it whatever, but there are always two ways of thinking about things:
synthetic (how they fit together) and analytic (how they come apart). The main
effect, imo, of institutionalization is the glorification of the analytic, and
in a culture which gets the message that 'breaking down' things is the only
road to success, anybody looking 'upstream' for causes and explanations is cast
as a philosopher.
{ But technology isn't knowledge. It's just something which *uses* some
{ kinds of it. Knowledge is about understanding, not about creating. In
{ that sense, understanding (in every way) your immigrant neighbour has
{ much more to do with knowledge than designing microprocessors at
{ Intel... even if Intel would certainly want to make you believe
{ the opposite !
I dont know how it is in France, but I guess that in English, the phrase
'know *how*' is heard 10 times more often than simply 'know.' And what but the
same *instrumental* idea explains the use of 'knowledge' as an exact synonym
for 'information'? Or, for that matter, to use your own example, the
identification of an 'ology' as 'something'? ( _Technique_ uses knowledge;
technology *ought to mean the knowledge embodied in (or abstracted from)
technique. But, you see, this is looking *back* for the meanings of words, and
is no longer readily acceptable in 'popular' discourse, which prefers to always
push ahead, as if 'whatever' will fully cover any confusion of what one means.)
{ Well, there is a certain obscurantist fear of science.
{ Still, the first ones to warn about the real dangers of science or
{ technology are always scientists themselves
Yes, science 'looks both ways'; there are really very few surprises in the
field. The general public 'understands' only the _institution of science, which
cranks out toys for us to play with: we arent 'supposed' to worry about
'negative' consequences. Occasionally, a scientist speaks out (individually,
ex cathedra) to say that the negatives are always there, and (yes, like
Oppenheimer) is criticised by 'the establishment' for 'abusing his authority'
or 'not having the facts' -- meaning, there is not yet 'proof' because there
has been no *institutional* study of the 'issue.' Thus, the hazards of
ionizing radiation, or (to move beyond the 'risks' aspect) the fact that early
childhood nutrition leads to better health and 'performance' in school wait for
'thorough research' and peer reviewed blind studies before 'we' need to believe
in them, when any South Pacific islander or 'underdeveloped' family has known
such things for years.
Cheers,
kerry
Carsten Laekamp
> We (here and elsewhere) all
> preach that the net expands 'communication' and promotes international
> 'understanding,' but the terms are always left undefined, so that (to be
You've certainly got a point here. Ok, I'll keep replying on the list :)
> precise) the effects of the very difference you mention, between thoughtful
> general comment and 'quick and dirty' point-by-point response,
I didn't mean "quick and dirty". Only, point-by-point arguments often
lead far away from the initial topic. I thought we had gone that far.
I would have sent that second part to you directly, anyway ;)
> JRS describes Voltaire's 18c as one in which "justice still used torture as an
> official means ofd interrogation, and the condemned faced a variety of brutal
> punishments, being broken on the wheel, for instance. This and other tools of
> arbitrary power constituted a social form of darkeness.
Certainly. Note that JRS calls this a *social* form of darkness
(remember that a bit further down :) )
But things weren't that clear cut either: e.g. England had already
adopted the Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights when Voltaire was
born.
> The philosophers of
> Europe, England and America threw themselves into the arms of reason, convinced
> that birth would be given to new rational elites capable of building a new
> civilization...
This is a bit reductive. Their design wasn't political only. They
wouldn't have been called philosophers otherwise. And I doubt that
their vision of reason was that of an instrument either.
Also, it is dangerous to mix all the "philosophers of England, Europe
and America" together. Everyone had his own definition of knowledge,
reason, etc... and thus different conclusions about their relative
importance.
Voltaire warned of the dangers of dogmatism that came along with
rationalism. And Locke, who was certainly the most influent on the
evolution of political ideas before Marx, advocated the separation of
powers, which isn't fundamentally elitist :) Montesquieu, who did
consider an aristocratic Republic among other alternatives, based the
Republic (either democratic or aristocratic) on Virtue, not on Reason
(he was also the one who gave the final form to the separation of
powers).
Yes, the "pure" rationalists saw Reason in a *central* role. However,
their targets were religion and science, NOT politics.
> " And yet the exercise of power, without the moderating influence of any
> ethical structure, rapidly became the religion of these new elites. Their
> reforms included an unparalleled and permanent institution of state violence...
> acoompanied by a growing struggle between democratic and rational methods,
> with the rational increasingly at an advantage." (p 5)
>
> My interpretation is that JRS is distinguishing the human capacity of reason
> from the *institution* of reason
I must admit that the more I read the less I understand what JRS calls
"rational". I also wonder where and when reason got institutionalised.
I think JRS's big mistake is to consider that the structures of
18th-century democracy are a direct consequence of the 17th-century
philosophical ideas. Of course, the latter are also used by today's
institutions as a *justification* for themselves.
One has to see that the American Revolution wasn't a proper
revolution: its primary goal was not to change society but to adapt
the political organisation to the social and economical
structures. The French Revolution started out the same way, then
became a real (failed) revolution and, 2 republics, 2 kingdoms and 2
empires (!) later, ended up the same.
The influence of the philosophers was rather limited in both cases: it
made the idea that the structures could be changed popular, it was
certainly the basis for various Bills of Rights and for the inner
structures of government, i.e. the choice of a parliamentary
democracy.
This last point means that they had nothing to do with the structures
of power and with social organisation. The proof is that the US ended
up with 2 systems, one in the North and one in the South, that were
obviously different.
The setting up of a technocracy was not done on rational arguments but
rather on pragmatic ones (in France, the technocracy wasn't even the
deed of the revolution but of Napoleon).
> I agree, and i think JRS would agree, this is true for reason *as an idea*, if
> we can sum up the small-r 'individualistic' reason this way. But when you
> write,
>
Reason can only be an idea (or rather a concept). I don't see how it
could be anything else...
> { If we look at today's political
> { systems, only Western-type democracy is based on Reason, whereas
<CUT>
> then I think it misses the point. Economic and political *systems are not
> ideas, but institutions, with their own 'compelling logic.'
>
I said "based on" and should have said "set up with [...] as
their basic inner principle". I never said they were ideas !
But they certainly work *now* with their inner logic... or rather
mechanic. Opposition systematically criticising government, a certain
country's government starting a war or a bombing whenever the
president is in trouble are just mechanical acts, which rely on no
logic, rationality or "reasonableness", because they are even applied
when it is clear that they will backfire.
> Institutionalization is not 'just another layer' of social organization, but is
> the embodiment of power.
JRS himself says that torture and other means of power constituted a
*social* form of darkness (above). This does mean that *he* sees
instutions as part of society. Although it is certainly possible to
define both institutions and society so that the latter doesn't
include the former, their interaction (esp. in a democracy) is too
strong to separate them on the functional level. Moreover, this is
IMHO just a device to blame "the others", i.e. the institutions, for
the shortcomings of society in general.
> "Ours is a civilization astonishing in the degree to which is seems to see
> and to know. Never before have there been such enormous elites carrying such
> burdens of knowledge. This success story dominates our lives...
I don't really agree. The knowledge of the individual member of the
elites has rather diminished, due to specialisation.
> "The possession, use and control of knowledge have become their central
> theme... However, their power depends not on the effect with which they use
> that knowlege but on the effectiveness with which they control its
> use.
Hmmm... the control of technology (since this is what seems to be his
definition of "knowledge") is in the hands of the *economical* elites,
not of the political or scientific ones. And this is more true every
new day. The same also applies to the control of political power, and
even, now, to political power itself. This means moving away from what
we call Western-style democracy, hence it cannot be blamed on the
latter (but on society, which admits such things to happen). Ok, seems
we're back on topic now :)
> Thus
> [we have] an absolute belilef that the solution to our porblems must be a more
> determined application of [*]rationally organized[*] expertise.
I am starting to think that JRS means "pragmatic" when he says
"rational". Pragmatism cannot be blamed on rationality but on
"reasonableness".
Still, that evolution of the use of "expertise" is a tool of
controling knowledge, not a consequence of that control.
> The reality is
> that our problems are largely the result of that application. The illusion is
> that we have created the most sophisticated society in the history of man. The
> reality is that the division of knowledge into feudal fiefdoms of expertise has
> made general understanding and coordinated action not simply impossible but
> despised and distrusted." (p 8)
I agree. Still, I don't see the relation with the statement I was
commenting on, i.e. that knowledge was useless, since it didn't
prevent violence.
> { It would have been a good idea to give those definitions here from the
> { beginning, especially when they differ from the common ones.
>
> Are they so different? It was your comment that the 'humanists' were perhaps
> 'the new heroes' which seemed to me to twist the meaning.
As you said yourself, the media would present them as heroes. The
media follow in part common understanding and partly form
it. Therefore, they're a good tool to see what is generally
understood. :-) However, post-Roman history has more "self-made"
heroes as those "called by the people".
> In contrast to the
> _cynical suggestion that JRS was setting out toly 'prove himself' by the same
> standards he was using to criticise the establishment, I wrote that he was a
> _careful writer.
He clearly criticizes the system without looking behind the myths of
the system. The system claims to be rational and the system is bad,
therefore reason is bad. (ok, this is certainly over-simplified :-) ).
He doesn't ask the question whether the system is really based on
rational reason. When I talked about "dark designs", I was probably
wrong, since I forgot about him being N. American, which implies
believing in the basic myths of the N. American civilisation.
> Humanism accepts the full spectrum of human characteristics -- "spirit,
> appetite, faith and emotion, but also intuition, will, and most important,
> experience." ( p15; in the London interview, he lists "common sense,
> creativity, ethics, intuition, memory, and reason.")
What are the political implications of Humanism then ?
> { Oops, I didn't understand that "the West" was Canada...
> { And I think that at least Eastern Canada has some very active
> { extremists. But maybe "the West" refers to BC only ? :)
>
> What extremists?
Hmmm.... never heard about Quebec ? There are many extremists on both
sides (and I'm not meaning "Pro- or anti- <<French>> extremism" but
the general positions some take)
> The point of contention is simply that Reason is only *one*
> such characteristic, and deserves to be kept in proportion.
I agree on that. The points of contention are rather about the place of
reason in today's society and in history, as well as its definition,
then :-)
> By means of its
> (institutionalized) power (the 'Age of Reason'),
The "Age of Reason" is just another void, self-satisfactory, phrase
when applied to a society.
it has "driven the other
> { > Does 'mutual ownership' mean stockholders? Or linked boards?
> {
> { what I meant was companies owning shares of each others. Linked
> { boards, if I understand the term right, are, in part, a consequence of
> { this.
>
> Isnt it more accurate to say the shareholders are the owners and members of the
> board(s) are *managers*?
Yes. But who does nominate managers ? :-)
> The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the rational.
> There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it still in a humanist
> way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble.
No. Law is a very complex thing. The proposition of bills and passing
of individual laws depends on various factors, which can be of all
sorts: reasonable, rational (seldom), the action of pressure groups
and lobbies (no idea how this would be categorized :) ), the
predominant moral climate (emotional), etc...
The way the law is applied also depends on many factors: first on the
side of the police and prosecution (or other control organisms), it
depends on reasonable factors ("is this something we will bother to
handle, do we have enough ressources to do so or should we concentrate
on more important issues "?), on political and social pressure (what
will the general opinion say ? We want to show that we can handle the
drug problem... let's go get some marijuana dealers <g>), this all of
course in addition to (or rather: moderating) the law. In the case of
the US, there is even a further possible step, all on the side of
reasonable reason: negotiation between the parties. Judgements also
depend on a) the law (which is, from this point on, neither reasonable
nor rational. It just *is*), b) jurisprudence (rational), c) the
personal ways of thought (reasonable, rational, etc...) and morals
(emotional) of the judge or members of jury. It is also based on
wealth and luck (the quality of the lawyers and/or prosecutors, the
ethnical, social, etc... context of the jurisdiction) and even, in some
cases, public and/or political pressure (as in the O.J. Simpson case).
> The larger question is which interpretation leads to further thought
> ('improves understanding'). "A" (JRS) made a claim, and provided an example in
> support; "B" (CL) disputes the example, but "C" (KM) doesn't see that the claim
> of cyclicity ('just another swing') _leads_ anywhere. (In short, I'd call it
> _ex post facto_ -- but maybe in 1989 you foresaw the penchant for body
> piercing?)
I see it this way:
A) JRS made a claim ( people are being turned into sheep and accept it
as long as they keep the appearances of freedom)
B) CL disputes the example, saying that those appearances of freedom
are vanishing at the same time as the freedom itself... and that this
is due to the people (via the revival of morals and conformism) at
least as much as to the "elites".
This was already the trend in 1989. It may even be possible that the
end of the swing is near.
I am not saying that what I'm saying is leading anywhere. I'm just
saying that JRS's statement isn't.
But real questions would be: how come that this swing was that strong
? What are the influences of Eisenhower's and Reagan's policies on it
?
A question on appearances: what do you think of some branches of Rap
music, where people make millions while telling others to rebel
against the system ?
> { - During the late 60's, 70's, the contestation targetted as much the
> { system as appearances...
> { - Today, we are heading back to a very structured society ...
>
> And now do you think the drive for bigger faster *personal* computers reflects
> something else?
> What about the revival of automotive extravagance ?
Well, it just means appearances are back.... but those of the consumer
society, not those of rebellion.
> Or the whole drug milieu?
Which seems to be rather outside society: on one side those who have
been left out of it, on the other side those who deem themselves above
it.
> { Therefore, what JRS seems to denounce as a plot to keep the masses
> { quiet (but, then again, it is an impression from an *excerpt*) is,
> { IMHO, just another swing of the pendulum.
>
> 'Plot'? No, just the alienation of the indiv from any *real sense of power.
The plot would rather be to make them accept to have it taken away
from them. But still, I don't follow him there.
> I disagree. The common man used to know 'everything he needed to know' to live
> his life; now I need a plumber to fix the water pump (what's a 'foot valve'?)
> somebody else to repair the gas furnace (wheres the 'sensor switch'?) -- and
> both are useless when the electricity goes off!
But that hasn't got anything to do with the vocabulary ! Even in the
middle ages, you had to go to the specialist for some things (e.g. the
smith, the miller, ...). Our society is more based on technology than
theirs was, that's got nothing to do with language.
Now, swap your gas furnace for wood ovens (which are much more
effective -- and cost effective -- than anything else today) and you
won't need a sensor switch anymore. For getting a well, it might be a
bit more difficult, if you're living in town :)
>
> { Still, how would you trim a rosebush "reasonably" ?
>
> I would do whatever was necessary to make it look reasonably trimmed ;-)
You were commenting on the action of trimming, not on the result...
> { I said "this lead him to", which means there was an implication:
> {
> { - when he wanted to free all slaves, his "common sense" told him that
> { they could certainly not live in the same society as the whites. This
> { led him to the project to ship them off to Haiti. But this "common
> { sense" was the product of his experience (as c.s. always is). Had he
> { grown up in another society, he might have had different
> { thoughts.
> {
> { - when he commented on Voltaire's theory about some sedimental stone,
> { his common sense made him find the better explanation (Voltaire's
> { really seems stupid today), because his empirism was better fit for
> { that kind of subjects than Voltaire's rationalism.
>
> I'm confused; are these examples of cleverness or stupidity?
One of each :) The second one should be clear enough, for the first
one consider also his beautiful writings about Man and you'll see that
the two don't fit.
> The main
> effect, imo, of institutionalization is the glorification of the analytic, and
> in a culture which gets the message that 'breaking down' things is the only
> road to success, anybody looking 'upstream' for causes and explanations is cast
> as a philosopher.
Great, I'm a philosopher ! :)
No, be honest: if you keep re-inventing words, there is no way
have a conversation.
> I dont know how it is in France, but I guess that in English, the phrase
> 'know *how*' is heard 10 times more often than simply 'know.' And what but the
> same *instrumental* idea explains the use of 'knowledge' as an exact synonym
> for 'information'? Or, for that matter, to use your own example, the
> identification of an 'ology' as 'something'? ( _Technique_ uses knowledge;
> technology *ought to mean the knowledge embodied in (or abstracted from)
> technique. But, you see, this is looking *back* for the meanings of words, and
> is no longer readily acceptable in 'popular' discourse, which prefers to always
> push ahead, as if 'whatever' will fully cover any confusion of what one means.)
If you really looked back for the meaning of "technology", it would
mean "the study of techniques" :)
The problem with using "knowledge" for "know-how" is that the first
meaning of the word disappears. The same is true for "science" used in
place of "technology". The meaning disappears (since the word isn't
replaced by another one), followed shortly by the concept itself.
The result is that people don't feel a need for "real knowledge"
anymore. This has two consequences:
- scientific research is replaced by development. This is already
what's happened in the US. It works because you can still rely
on the scientific research of other countries and, when in need of
competent people for transferring that new scientific knowledge to
technology, you can import scientists ( does "von Braun" ring a bell ?)
But what happens to your own folks ? They cannot get those well-paid
jobs (which wouldn't be that well paid then, I agree :) ). What will
happen when all countries have followed the same way (and be afraid,
this will be the case soon !) ?
- The few people who still have the knowledge in the US won't be
understood by the vast majority, even of "know-howers". And here comes
your rule of the experts. I wouldn't have thought that you would
promote that !
> Yes, science 'looks both ways';
Well, that's what you wouldn't admit before :)
> the fact that early
> childhood nutrition leads to better health and 'performance' in school wait for
> 'thorough research' and peer reviewed blind studies before 'we' need to believe
> in them, when any South Pacific islander or 'underdeveloped' family has known
> such things for years.
Very nice example, because it allows me to say a few more things :)
First of all, those islanders certainly didn't know about such things
a few generations back. They just ate what they could get (which isn't
much, in terms of variety, on a small island).
Second, this (health) is exactly a domain where no scientific research
is necessary to make such or such product popular in the US. Various
food brands and/or pills will be available for a "new" substance,
will be advertised and massively bought even before a study on their
possible harmfulness is carried out. There are enough recent examples
for this.
Therefore, the rule would rather be: advertising instead of knwoledge.
--
Carsten Läkamp
clae...@mindless.com
Kerry Miller
Carsten,
{ I didn't mean "quick and dirty". Only, point-by-point arguments often
{ lead far away from the initial topic. I thought we had gone that far.
{ I would have sent that second part to you directly, anyway ;)
{
Its that 'often' that I had in mind. Of course there is no ironclad
association between idea and technique, in writing or any other medium, but it
would be fascinating to tweak some listserv so as to be able to
relate posters' 'turn-around time' and lets say the 'depth' of a thread. When
so many people say they want to join 'communities of like-minded people,' isnt
it likely that this implies finding people who use the medium the same way? -
either replying as fast or as slow as oneself, or as 'point-by-pointly'? My
suspicion is simply that these are *correlated* variables.
{ Yes, the "pure" rationalists saw Reason in a *central* role. However,
{ their targets were religion and science, NOT politics.
You couldnt prove it by me ;-).
{ I must admit that the more I read the less I understand what JRS calls
{ "rational". I also wonder where and when reason got institutionalised.
Re the imbalance of reason over other characteristics:
" The practical effect of such a mesmerizing and prolonged solo has been to
turn the last half millenium into the Age of Reason. We habitually divide this
period up under a multitude of headings: the Enlightenment, Romanticism, Neo-
Classicism, Neo-Realism, Symbolism, Aestheticism, Nihilism and Modernism, to
name just a few. But the differences between these periods, like the difference
betwen the school born of Bacon versus the school born of Descartes, all blend
into one another when we stand back far enough to get a good look. And so
Descartes' deductive, abstract arguments which prove their conclusions
mathematically melt into Locke's empirical, mechanical approach which melts
into Marx's determinism. In other words, since the 1620s, if not the 1530s, we
seem to have merely been fiddling with details or rather, shifting from side to
side to disguise from ourselves the fact that we have taking in that long
period but one clear step -- away, that is, from the divine revelation and
absoulte power of church and state.
... Our ideological bickering... has added extremely little to the central
line.. Instead, a series of grandiose and dark events --- religious bloodbaths
in Europe, Napoleonic dictatorships and unlimited industrial competition, to
name three -- overcame Western society and seemed to do so thanks to rational
methods. The original easy conviction that reason was a moral force was
gradually converted into a desperate, protective assumption....
...And yet... we carefully, in fact rationally, assign blame for our crimes
to the *irrational* impulse. In this way we merely shut our eyes to the central
and fundamental misunderstanding: reason is no more than structure. And
structure is most easily controlled by those who feel themselves to be free of
the cumbersome weight represented by common sense and humanism. Structure suits
best those whose talents lie in manipulation and who have a taste for power in
its purer forms.
" Thus the Age of Reason has turned out to be the Age of Structure; a time
when, in the absence of purpose, the drive for power as a value in itself has
become the principal indicator of social approval. The winning of power has
become the measure of social *merit*" (p15-16, emph added)
{ I think JRS's big mistake is to consider that the structures of
{ 18th-century democracy are a direct consequence of the 17th-century
{ philosophical ideas. Of course, the latter are also used by today's
{ institutions as a *justification* for themselves.
{
Isn't it hard to claim someone else has made a mistake when the possibiltiy
remains that one's own understanding of his argument is open to improvement?
{ I said "based on" and should have said "set up with [...] as
{ their basic inner principle". I never said they were ideas !
{
{ But they certainly work *now* with their inner logic... or rather
{ mechanic.... which rely on no
{ logic, rationality or "reasonableness", because they are even applied
{ when it is clear that they will backfire.
*Clear* to whom? - you and I and ordinary folks, whose powers of reason are
still mixed in with other human characteristics? Again, we are up against the
'observer effect'...
{ JRS himself says that torture and other means of power constituted a
{ *social* form of darkness (above). This does mean that *he* sees
{ instutions as part of society.
I read him as distinguishing social from psychological (specif, religious)
darkness.
{ Although it is certainly possible to
{ define both institutions and society so that the latter doesn't
{ include the former, their interaction (esp. in a democracy) is too
{ strong to separate them on the functional level. Moreover, this is
{ IMHO just a device to blame "the others", i.e. the institutions, for
{ the shortcomings of society in general.
{
As you like, but to say we are unable to separate them, and then to apply a
label like 'the others' seems to me to be a trifle confused. But then, this
confusion is what JRS is on about: we, the public at large, no longer have
sufficient knowledge about our own lives to make sense of them, or even to
understand that this is not a healthy state of affairs.
"Organized and calm on the surface, our lives are lived in ann atmosphere of
nercvous, even frenetic agitation. Hordes of essential answers fly about us and
disappear, abruptly meaningless. Successive absolute solutions are porvided for
major publilc problems and then slip away without our consciously registering
their failure. Neither the public and corporate authorities nor the experts are
held responsible for their own actions in any sensible manner because the
fracturing of memeory and inderstanding has created a profound chaos in the
individual's sense of what responsibility is.
This is part of the deadening of language which the reign of structure and
abstract powwer has wrought. The central concepts upon which we operate were
long ago severed from their roots ad changed into formal rhetoric. They have no
meaning/ They are used wildly or (administratively) as masks. And the more our
language becomes a tool for limiting general discourse, the more our desire for
answers becomes frenzied. (p 17)
The same also applies to the control of political power, and
{ even, now, to political power itself. This means moving away from what
{ we call Western-style democracy, hence it cannot be blamed on the
{ latter (but on society, which admits such things to happen). Ok, seems
{ we're back on topic now :)
{
{ Still, that evolution of the use of "expertise" is a tool of
{ controling knowledge, not a consequence of that control.
Abstractly, of course you're right; here and now, have you looked at the
numbers of students who lay outtheir professional careers entirely by the
'prestige' (read, money) of one 'field' over another? Have you tried to publish
a theory which applies meterology-derived math, say, to the social dynamics of
war and peace? (L F Richardson did, in 1938, and got absolutely nowhere,
according to another book Im working on. Citations on request ;-))
{ > The reality is
{ > that our problems are largely the result of that application. The illusion is
{ > that we have created the most sophisticated society in the history of man. The
{ > reality is that the division of knowledge into feudal fiefdoms of expertise has
{ > made general understanding and coordinated action not simply impossible but
{ > despised and distrusted." (p 8)
{
{ I agree. Still, I don't see the relation with the statement I was
{ commenting on, i.e. that knowledge was useless, since it didn't
{ prevent violence.
{
Useless was your word; JRS was simply pointing out the blithe contradiction
between the espoused principle and the reality. He's not after renouncing
knowledge, but just to keep it in perspective.
"In his last interview, the French historian Fernand Braudel ended by saying
that althoughg knowledge meant mankind had less excuse for his barabarism, he
wwas nevertheless 'profoundly barbaric.' ... We are born with the schizophrenia
of good and evil within us, so that each generation must persevere in self-
recognition and self-control. In ceding to the automatic reassurance of our
logic, we have abandoned once more those powers... Darkness seems scarecely
different from light, with the web of structure and logic woven thick across
both. We must therefore cut away those layers of false protection if we wish to
regain control of our common sense and morality." (p 37)
Another way of putting this (thanks to Wes Jackson, who grows perennial grain
crops) is that we can estimate the proportion of what we know to what we dont
know about the world as about 1:10. Relying on the 10% as the sole basis of
action comes off looking pretty problematic, doesnt it?
Ah, says the rationalist, you mean we should just throw up our hands, forget
the 10% and act out of 90% ignorance? Of course not - but its just this kind of
false dichotomy that Reason makes appear to be the only way to fit idea to
action.
{ As you said yourself, the media would present them as heroes. The
{ media follow in part common understanding and partly form
{ it. Therefore, they're a good tool to see what is generally
{ understood. :-) However, post-Roman history has more "self-made"
{ heroes as those "called by the people".
{
Now "the media" is a great case in point. There once was a time when an
event occurred, and 'the news' *reported* that it occurred. Now we accept that
'coverage' *produces* events - or heroes.
But, to stay on track - a) what I said myself was to excuse your rather snide
remark. (If you dont want it excused, thats fine with me; Im not the pushy
sort. ;-)) b) or the moment can we stay with what you and I understand, and
let the media be a tool for aggregating the understanding that we collectively
reach? c) I'm no historian, but isn't the 'self-made' case falling out of
fashion?
{ He clearly criticizes the system without looking behind the myths of
{ the system.
Again, he is using the disparity between the 'system' and common sense *as an
example* or a symptom that something is wrong - morally, if you like, but the
whole environmental mess is a direct consequence, and its not something that
can be 'fixed' by a 'top-down' administrative, institutional change of
'policy.'
{ Hmmm.... never heard about Quebec ? There are many extremists on both
{ sides (and I'm not meaning "Pro- or anti- <<French>> extremism" but
{ the general positions some take)
Quebec is West of here! In any case, what's so extreme about just another
expression of nationalism?
{ > The point of contention is simply that Reason is only *one*
{ > such characteristic, and deserves to be kept in proportion.
{
{ I agree on that. The points of contention are rather about the place of
{ reason in today's society and in history, as well as its definition,
{ then :-)
By and large, I dont quote just to say 'youre right,' but since this is the
essential point, I thought I might leave it in ;-)
{ Yes. But who does nominate managers ? :-)
Well I nominated myself to the membership committee, but ICANN didnt take up
the option ;-) Otherwise, in my long experience as a shareholder, Im pretty
sure I never heard of any of the candidates I get to vote on.
{ > The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the rational.
{ > There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it still in a humanist
{ > way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble.
{
{ No. Law is a very complex thing. The proposition of bills and passing
{ of individual laws depends on various factors, which can be of all sorts...
If we cant separate institutions from society, can we at least distinguish
between institutions and their functionaries? (There's hope: you say,
{ The way the law is applied
as if it means something other than 'the way officers of the law practice.')
{ I am not saying that what I'm saying is leading anywhere. I'm just
{ saying that JRS's statement isn't.
It has got us this far, hasnt it?
{ But real questions would be: how come that this swing was that strong
{ ? What are the influences of Eisenhower's and Reagan's policies on it
{ ?
We may have to read Richardson after all!
{ A question on appearances: what do you think of some branches of Rap
{ music, where people make millions while telling others to rebel
{ against the system ?
AFAIK, the rappers arent making so very much. The merchandisers are another
story, but of course the Media dont see that as worth reporting.
{ > 'Plot'? No, just the alienation of the indiv from any *real sense of power.
{
{ The plot would rather be to make them accept to have it taken away
{ from them. But still, I don't follow him there.
{
'Plots' 'making' people do things imputes a plotter or three, but there's no
need to think that way; people (by and large) simply accept the options they
see, and never ask about the options they dont see. There's no need to take
this as something insidious; its just our 'human nature.' 'You cant ask
critical questions if the topic is never discussed.' (Chomsky)
{ But that hasn't got anything to do with the vocabulary !
Of course it does - how come I *need a foot valve if I dont even know its
there? How do I find out what's there? Ive got to ask somebody -- and nowadays,
even if I find a plumbing shop, I shouldnt expect the front storeperson to know
what all is in a well (even if I bring this thingamajig in and show it to hym) -
but they'll have the language down pat, you bet.
{ Even in the
{ middle ages, you had to go to the specialist for some things (e.g. the
{ smith, the miller, ...)
Have you ever tried to *talk over a grist mill? ;-) I bring in my grain, he
knows what I want and we dont say a thing. How fine? I pick up some lying
around and rub it between my fingers. How long? He points to the 6 bushels
ahead of mine...
{ Our society is more based on technology than
{ theirs was, that's got nothing to do with language.
Take a vow of silence for a couple of days, and discover something ;-)
{ > I would do whatever was necessary to make it look reasonably trimmed ;-)
{
{ You were commenting on the action of trimming, not on the result...
But isnt it reasonable to take account of what the bush looks like in the end?
The disjunction between deed and result is a Rational artifact.
{ > anybody looking 'upstream' for causes and explanations is cast
{ > as a philosopher.
{
{ Great, I'm a philosopher ! :)
{ No, be honest: if you keep re-inventing words, there is no way
{ have a conversation.
{
Its your turn: what's a philosopher?
{ > technology *ought to mean the knowledge embodied in (or abstracted from)
{ > technique. ...
{ If you really looked back for the meaning of "technology", it would
{ mean "the study of techniques" :)
{
'Study' is why I added the parenthesis, but perhaps Im reinventing... Can
you explain what you study that doesnt involve the knowledge of the technician?
{ The problem with using "knowledge" for "know-how" is that the first
{ meaning of the word disappears. The same is true for "science" used in
{ place of "technology". The meaning disappears (since the word isn't
{ replaced by another one), followed shortly by the concept itself.
Yes.
{ - The few people who still have the knowledge in the US won't be
{ understood by the vast majority, even of "know-howers". And here comes
{ your rule of the experts. I wouldn't have thought that you would
{ promote that !
{
Did I decree (plot?) the substitution? No, I just reported the fact.
{ First of all, those islanders certainly didn't know about such things
{ a few generations back. They just ate what they could get (which isn't
{ much, in terms of variety, on a small island).
It took the US 50 years to admit that dumping junk on Bikini and Eniwetok wasnt
very smart *from the residnets POV* - that is, that a few measly local
inhabitants were a 'reason' they should have taken into account.
Cheers,
kerry
Kerry Miller
{ > The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the
rational. { > There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it
still in a humanist { > way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble. {
{ No. Law is a very complex thing. The proposition of bills and passing {
of individual laws depends on various factors, which can be of all
sorts...
If we cant separate institutions from society, can we at least distinguish
between institutions and their functionaries?
----
I should have included your comment
{ > Yes, science 'looks both ways';
{
{ Well, that's what you wouldn't admit before :)
{
in the response: _science_ as the art of knowing looks both ways; what any
particular practitioner of science does is something else again. In this
sense, the difference I drew between 'scientists' ad 'the public' is a matter
of degree, not some hard and fast certifiable line.
kerry