*
There is a very edifying feature on the official Anglican web pages, whereby anyone can follow the cycles of Psalms and Readings by selecting the 'Traditional' language form of the Church of England service:
http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/join-us-in-daily-prayer.aspx
In the traditional Anglican style, the daily 'office' is divided into Morning and Evening prayer - with about three psalms in each (with a monthly cycle), an Old Testament and a New Testament reading (with an annual cycle), and the various other parts of the service which are almost exactly the same every day.
There in optional-extra service of 'Night' prayer - or Compline - which is intended to be followed by silence and sleep.
*
It is difficult or impossible for most people to attend these daily services - especially in the traditional language form derived from The Book of Common Prayer; but the language is so beautiful and inspiring that solitary reading is (for some people, such as myself) well-worth doing, whenever it can be managed.
*
In particular the 'Collects' or general prayers, near the very end of the services, should be recited or chanted with deliberation; as they contain some of the most evocative devotional phrases in English (presumed, I think, to be the work of Protestant martyr Archbishop Thomas Cranmer; 1489-1556).
*
Saturday 15 October 2011
Life Enhancing (LEn) versus Life Extending (LEx) medical interventions
*
I believe that people know when they have reached the end of their own 'natural lifespan'.
This can come at a wide range of ages - between extremes of about 60 and 90 years.
Once people reach this natural lifespan, I think they should acknowledge the fact to themselves; and alter their attitude to medical interventions.
*
Most medical interventions are intended to be Life Extending (LEx) - these may aim at curing - such as antibiotics, and many types of surgery.
Or they may be LEx by virtue of controlling chronic disease - such as insulin replacement in diabetes, or drugs to reduce blood pressure.
*
But perhaps the very core of medical interventions are related to Life Enhancement - making patients feel better.
The primary example of LEn is analgesia - pain killers - such as aspirin and the opiates; and also symptomatic treatments to improve symptoms like anxiety, or functionally restricting problems such as arthritis of the hip.
*
Life Enhancing treatments that are effective and safe are (pretty much) always desirable at any age - but the same does not apply to Life Extending treatments.
*
When a person reaches the end of their natural lifespan, I believe there should be a clear distinction between LEn treatments which are good and desirable, and LEx treatments which are bad and should be avoided.
*
Another way of conceptualizing this is that after the end of the natural lifespan, medical treatment should only be accepted by a rational chooser when that treatment is palliative in aim (and preferably in effect).
Medical treatment should (rationally) be avoided and refused when it is Life Extending in intention (and perhaps in effect).
*
I am not at all talking about society/ administrators/ doctors/ relatives preventing access to Life Extending treatment to people beyond a certain age, but instead that people who judge themselves to have reached the end of their natural life span should themselves refuse medical interventions which have a LEx intention.
*
Another way of conceptualizing this, is that quality of life (equivalent to LEn) should be the priority after the end of natural lifespan - and that patients need to be aware that most LEx treatments will reduce LEn - either due to the more-or-less inevitable side effects of drugs, or the inevitable short-medium term deleterious effects of surgery/ radiotherapy.
*
In distinguishing between LEx and LEn interventions, I am not talking about anything esoteric or difficult.
For example, it is obvious commonsense that surgery makes people feel worse - in hope of making them feel better.
After the end of the natural life span, if you already feel bad then surgery may be worthwhile as a means to the hoped-for end of making you feel better - but, if you feel okay to begin-with, then surgery is to be avoided.
*
As a matter of self-defense; even if doctors provide inaccurate or biased advice to say that drug X will make you feel better (when that is untrue) then this will be very obvious after starting the drug.
For example if the patient feels OK and is being treated for 'bad numbers' like a raised blood pressure or high cholesterol (with the implicit aim of reducing 'risk' and extending life span) - then it will immediately be obvious that (in most cases) the medication makes people feel somewhat worse, and therefore should be stopped swiftly because life is being diminished, not enhanced.
For instance, when hypertension (high blood pressure) is mild, there are usually no symptoms; but many or most blood pressure drugs will have side-effects that impair the quality of life to some degree: fatigue/ 'depression' being a common problem. And 'Statin' drugs may cause people to feel and function worse in numerous ways - due to their widespread cellular actions on the body and brain.
*
When you have reached the end of natural lifespan, then why make the end of your life worse than it need to be in taking Life Extending treatments with the hope of an unnatural life extension which - even if 'successfully' achieved - often leads to many dark years of dementia or severe debility?
*
We are now in a situation where, for many people, the exhausted and failing human body is artificially kept-going long after it 'wants to die' and would die if nature was simply allowed to take its course.
Humans have for many decades been trying to dispense with, even outlaw, the metaphysical concept of the 'natural' as a basis for the good life. But we cannot do without it.
The end of human life is just one of many situations where we need a concept of what is natural, and where the lack of such has allowed us unwittingly to stray far down a path of misery and wickedness.
*
I believe that people know when they have reached the end of their own 'natural lifespan'.
This can come at a wide range of ages - between extremes of about 60 and 90 years.
Once people reach this natural lifespan, I think they should acknowledge the fact to themselves; and alter their attitude to medical interventions.
*
Most medical interventions are intended to be Life Extending (LEx) - these may aim at curing - such as antibiotics, and many types of surgery.
Or they may be LEx by virtue of controlling chronic disease - such as insulin replacement in diabetes, or drugs to reduce blood pressure.
*
But perhaps the very core of medical interventions are related to Life Enhancement - making patients feel better.
The primary example of LEn is analgesia - pain killers - such as aspirin and the opiates; and also symptomatic treatments to improve symptoms like anxiety, or functionally restricting problems such as arthritis of the hip.
*
Life Enhancing treatments that are effective and safe are (pretty much) always desirable at any age - but the same does not apply to Life Extending treatments.
*
When a person reaches the end of their natural lifespan, I believe there should be a clear distinction between LEn treatments which are good and desirable, and LEx treatments which are bad and should be avoided.
*
Another way of conceptualizing this is that after the end of the natural lifespan, medical treatment should only be accepted by a rational chooser when that treatment is palliative in aim (and preferably in effect).
Medical treatment should (rationally) be avoided and refused when it is Life Extending in intention (and perhaps in effect).
*
I am not at all talking about society/ administrators/ doctors/ relatives preventing access to Life Extending treatment to people beyond a certain age, but instead that people who judge themselves to have reached the end of their natural life span should themselves refuse medical interventions which have a LEx intention.
*
Another way of conceptualizing this, is that quality of life (equivalent to LEn) should be the priority after the end of natural lifespan - and that patients need to be aware that most LEx treatments will reduce LEn - either due to the more-or-less inevitable side effects of drugs, or the inevitable short-medium term deleterious effects of surgery/ radiotherapy.
*
In distinguishing between LEx and LEn interventions, I am not talking about anything esoteric or difficult.
For example, it is obvious commonsense that surgery makes people feel worse - in hope of making them feel better.
After the end of the natural life span, if you already feel bad then surgery may be worthwhile as a means to the hoped-for end of making you feel better - but, if you feel okay to begin-with, then surgery is to be avoided.
*
As a matter of self-defense; even if doctors provide inaccurate or biased advice to say that drug X will make you feel better (when that is untrue) then this will be very obvious after starting the drug.
For example if the patient feels OK and is being treated for 'bad numbers' like a raised blood pressure or high cholesterol (with the implicit aim of reducing 'risk' and extending life span) - then it will immediately be obvious that (in most cases) the medication makes people feel somewhat worse, and therefore should be stopped swiftly because life is being diminished, not enhanced.
For instance, when hypertension (high blood pressure) is mild, there are usually no symptoms; but many or most blood pressure drugs will have side-effects that impair the quality of life to some degree: fatigue/ 'depression' being a common problem. And 'Statin' drugs may cause people to feel and function worse in numerous ways - due to their widespread cellular actions on the body and brain.
*
When you have reached the end of natural lifespan, then why make the end of your life worse than it need to be in taking Life Extending treatments with the hope of an unnatural life extension which - even if 'successfully' achieved - often leads to many dark years of dementia or severe debility?
*
We are now in a situation where, for many people, the exhausted and failing human body is artificially kept-going long after it 'wants to die' and would die if nature was simply allowed to take its course.
Humans have for many decades been trying to dispense with, even outlaw, the metaphysical concept of the 'natural' as a basis for the good life. But we cannot do without it.
The end of human life is just one of many situations where we need a concept of what is natural, and where the lack of such has allowed us unwittingly to stray far down a path of misery and wickedness.
*
Friday 14 October 2011
The disengagement strategy
*
As a society becomes increasingly corrupt (such that real motivations of officials are selfish and short-termist rather than truly operating in pursuit of the 'officially-designated' functions) the citizens tend to develop the default of 'disengagement'.
*
This means a disposition to avoid contact with institutions; because to ask for help is to draw attention to oneself, with potential to be drawn-into the pervasive corruption.
Disengagement is, of course, exacerbated when organizations are ineffective and unlikely to provide genuine help.
In a corrupt society, institutions are - on the one hand - dangerous and - on the other hand - useless: so it makes sense for the majority of people to have as little to do with them as possible.
*
So, ordinary, decent people tend to avoid, if possible, calling in the police or consulting lawyers; sick people would try to avoid medical contact or hospital admission; a private 'economy' grows detached from the sight and influence of the public administration; and the population increasingly ignores government and media information - as being merely propaganda - and instead relies on personal experience and trusted personal contacts.
*
In the past England stood at the extreme opposite of this kind of corruption and ineffectiveness - with a high level of trust and confidence in 'officials': police, national and local government; the 'serious' media (the BBC, the broadsheet newspaper); doctors, nurses and the National Health Service...
Yet I feel a culture of disengagement emerging ever-more-strongly in the past couple of decades and accelerating year on year.
*
As a society becomes increasingly corrupt (such that real motivations of officials are selfish and short-termist rather than truly operating in pursuit of the 'officially-designated' functions) the citizens tend to develop the default of 'disengagement'.
*
This means a disposition to avoid contact with institutions; because to ask for help is to draw attention to oneself, with potential to be drawn-into the pervasive corruption.
Disengagement is, of course, exacerbated when organizations are ineffective and unlikely to provide genuine help.
In a corrupt society, institutions are - on the one hand - dangerous and - on the other hand - useless: so it makes sense for the majority of people to have as little to do with them as possible.
*
So, ordinary, decent people tend to avoid, if possible, calling in the police or consulting lawyers; sick people would try to avoid medical contact or hospital admission; a private 'economy' grows detached from the sight and influence of the public administration; and the population increasingly ignores government and media information - as being merely propaganda - and instead relies on personal experience and trusted personal contacts.
*
In the past England stood at the extreme opposite of this kind of corruption and ineffectiveness - with a high level of trust and confidence in 'officials': police, national and local government; the 'serious' media (the BBC, the broadsheet newspaper); doctors, nurses and the National Health Service...
Yet I feel a culture of disengagement emerging ever-more-strongly in the past couple of decades and accelerating year on year.
*
The Crick/ Watson (& Charlton) way to do theoretical science
*
Work only from the evidence that you trust, evidence that you think is true: ignore the rest.
A good theory should never include all of the evidence, because some of the evidence is wrong.
Indeed, in some fields most of the evidence is wrong; but its wrongness cannot usually be demonstrated until after a good theory has become available.
*
Work only from the evidence that you trust, evidence that you think is true: ignore the rest.
A good theory should never include all of the evidence, because some of the evidence is wrong.
Indeed, in some fields most of the evidence is wrong; but its wrongness cannot usually be demonstrated until after a good theory has become available.
*
Thursday 13 October 2011
A definition of decadence
*
To be so addicted to novelty, comfort and prosperity that one cannot lift a finger to sustain them.
*
To be so addicted to novelty, comfort and prosperity that one cannot lift a finger to sustain them.
*
Wednesday 12 October 2011
It really *is* a matter of nihilism versus God
*
From the comments:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/psychology-of-atheist.html
*
Daniel said...
bgc said...
http://outofsleep.wordpress.com/
From the comments:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/psychology-of-atheist.html
*
Mr. Charlton,
Your dilemma, as you have described it here, very closely resembles my own. But I don't understand your conclusion (the one that leads you to accept transcendence).
You very expertly lay out a paradox, and then point out that a belief in transcendence is the only way out of the paradox. But I do not see how this is necessarily so. It is the only satisfying answer to the dilemma. But there is also another, entirely unsatisfying answer: that nothing makes any sense and the only answer is pure nihilism.
One sees the problem in judging science vs animism (your example) without an appeal to transcendent truth. But what about the ole shrug of the shoulders? The materialist/nihilist would say: yes, you are correct, moral instincts are evolved. Yes, you are correct, science can't be proven to be more true than animism except that it is much better at manipulating the physical environment, and therefore is at least pragmatically more true. And yes (you don't suggest this one, but it's an easy argument that's been made many times), what seems beautiful in art is also just a product of evolution. We don't find beautiful what slugs find beautiful. Neither are slugs interested in Caravaggio.
So, to repeat, while I find your story relevant and indeed compelling, I don't see how you really made the leap you did. Acknowledging that you don't necessarily intend this as some sort of proof (you have presented it merely as your own psychological journey), can I ask you what I have missed here in my response? Or were these questions simply never important to you?
One more rephrasing, if you will indulge me. You seem to have chosen theism because it was more comforting that pure nihilism. But I don't see how it's any more necessary that pure nihilism. One or the other, it would seem. But why, from a formal logic point of view, the one and not the other?
PS: I ask all these questions in earnest and sympathetically, and do not mean to be needlessly combative.
Your dilemma, as you have described it here, very closely resembles my own. But I don't understand your conclusion (the one that leads you to accept transcendence).
You very expertly lay out a paradox, and then point out that a belief in transcendence is the only way out of the paradox. But I do not see how this is necessarily so. It is the only satisfying answer to the dilemma. But there is also another, entirely unsatisfying answer: that nothing makes any sense and the only answer is pure nihilism.
One sees the problem in judging science vs animism (your example) without an appeal to transcendent truth. But what about the ole shrug of the shoulders? The materialist/nihilist would say: yes, you are correct, moral instincts are evolved. Yes, you are correct, science can't be proven to be more true than animism except that it is much better at manipulating the physical environment, and therefore is at least pragmatically more true. And yes (you don't suggest this one, but it's an easy argument that's been made many times), what seems beautiful in art is also just a product of evolution. We don't find beautiful what slugs find beautiful. Neither are slugs interested in Caravaggio.
So, to repeat, while I find your story relevant and indeed compelling, I don't see how you really made the leap you did. Acknowledging that you don't necessarily intend this as some sort of proof (you have presented it merely as your own psychological journey), can I ask you what I have missed here in my response? Or were these questions simply never important to you?
One more rephrasing, if you will indulge me. You seem to have chosen theism because it was more comforting that pure nihilism. But I don't see how it's any more necessary that pure nihilism. One or the other, it would seem. But why, from a formal logic point of view, the one and not the other?
PS: I ask all these questions in earnest and sympathetically, and do not mean to be needlessly combative.
@Daniel - "point out that a belief in transcendence is the only way out of the paradox. But I do not see how this is necessarily so. It is the only satisfying answer to the dilemma. But there is also another, entirely unsatisfying answer: that nothing makes any sense and the only answer is pure nihilism."
We are agreed that nihilism and God are the only answers - but when you say 'satisfying' you seem to imply emotionally satisfying, whereas I mean satisfying to reason.
A nihilist cannot use reason, since he has no grounds at all to assume that reason is valid. Indeed a nihilist has no reason to say anything, do anything nor even to stay alive.
A consistent nihilist presumably just *feels* that everything is meaningless, including the feeling that everything is meaningless.
But having decided that reason is valid, I was trying to satisfy *reason* - not my feelings.
"You seem to have chosen theism because it was more comforting that pure nihilism. But I don't see how it's any more necessary that pure nihilism. One or the other, it would seem. But why, from a formal logic point of view, the one and not the other?"
I hope that this is answered by the previous point. It is not a matter of 'comfort' but reason, truth, the nature of reality (belief in God may, or may not, be comforting, varying at different times and situations).
Eugene (later Seraphim) Rose sets this out in his (online) book Nihilism which I have referenced innumerable times on this blog. He makes clear there really is *no middle ground* between God and nihilism: and nihilism is denial of reality - so if there ever was a coherent nihilist we would know nothing of them.
What we actually observe in the West is a partial nihilism, where nihilism is selectively-applied - usually to those parts of Christianity which stand in the path of self-gratification, or applied only to enemies' beliefs.
However, once the process of nihilism/ secularization has begun it eats away more and more meaning, purpose and relatedness - until it ends up being a hell on earth (misery, purposelessness and alienation with no hope).
As we see.
We are agreed that nihilism and God are the only answers - but when you say 'satisfying' you seem to imply emotionally satisfying, whereas I mean satisfying to reason.
A nihilist cannot use reason, since he has no grounds at all to assume that reason is valid. Indeed a nihilist has no reason to say anything, do anything nor even to stay alive.
A consistent nihilist presumably just *feels* that everything is meaningless, including the feeling that everything is meaningless.
But having decided that reason is valid, I was trying to satisfy *reason* - not my feelings.
"You seem to have chosen theism because it was more comforting that pure nihilism. But I don't see how it's any more necessary that pure nihilism. One or the other, it would seem. But why, from a formal logic point of view, the one and not the other?"
I hope that this is answered by the previous point. It is not a matter of 'comfort' but reason, truth, the nature of reality (belief in God may, or may not, be comforting, varying at different times and situations).
Eugene (later Seraphim) Rose sets this out in his (online) book Nihilism which I have referenced innumerable times on this blog. He makes clear there really is *no middle ground* between God and nihilism: and nihilism is denial of reality - so if there ever was a coherent nihilist we would know nothing of them.
What we actually observe in the West is a partial nihilism, where nihilism is selectively-applied - usually to those parts of Christianity which stand in the path of self-gratification, or applied only to enemies' beliefs.
However, once the process of nihilism/ secularization has begun it eats away more and more meaning, purpose and relatedness - until it ends up being a hell on earth (misery, purposelessness and alienation with no hope).
As we see.
*
http://outofsleep.wordpress.com/
*
Tuesday 11 October 2011
Another point concerning Natural Selection as a Metaphysical System
*
Further to:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/natural-selection-as-metaphysical.html
*
I have said here that the theory of evolution by natural selection makes the simplifying assumption that the variation which underpins selection is un-directed.
I forgot to add that this assumption is very probably untrue - and at any rate unfounded.
*
And if the underlying assumption is arbitrary, then the theory as a whole cannot be the whole truth.
Does the untruth of the assumption invalidate the theory of natural selection?
I think not. Because this is precisely the kind of simplifying assumption which is made in every specialized branch of human knowledge.
Indeed, that is pretty much what science is: grossly simplified models of reality. Humans (being simple souls) can only use simple theories.
*
In being a simplified and ultimately untrue theory, natural selection is therefore merely conforming to the nature of all scientific theories.
The problem with natural selection, as with many other specialized forms of knowledge, is knowing when it is sufficiently true to be useful; and when using it is likely to be use-less, misleading or dangerous.
And for this there is no algorithm.
Which is why scientists must be honest, why they must be truth-seekers - because it is only this transcendental impulse which stands between natural selection and infinite error - and the same applies to any science - or philosophy, law, medicine etc.
*
Humans cannot decide when a theory is applicable and when it is not, experience and investigation cannot decide (because they are framed by theory) - only that bottom-line assumption which stands outside of theory for that person, that culture, can decide and will decide.
That natural selection theory is widely misunderstood and misapplied is true; but the fault does not lie in the specific theory nor in its specific limitations; the fault lies in the way our culture uses theories as such, in the basic assumptions about the nature of things - in the metaphysics of modernity.
Having an incoherent metaphysical basis (nihilism, relativism, secularism, materialism) modernity cannot help but misuse theories.
*
Further to:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/natural-selection-as-metaphysical.html
*
I have said here that the theory of evolution by natural selection makes the simplifying assumption that the variation which underpins selection is un-directed.
I forgot to add that this assumption is very probably untrue - and at any rate unfounded.
*
And if the underlying assumption is arbitrary, then the theory as a whole cannot be the whole truth.
Does the untruth of the assumption invalidate the theory of natural selection?
I think not. Because this is precisely the kind of simplifying assumption which is made in every specialized branch of human knowledge.
Indeed, that is pretty much what science is: grossly simplified models of reality. Humans (being simple souls) can only use simple theories.
*
In being a simplified and ultimately untrue theory, natural selection is therefore merely conforming to the nature of all scientific theories.
The problem with natural selection, as with many other specialized forms of knowledge, is knowing when it is sufficiently true to be useful; and when using it is likely to be use-less, misleading or dangerous.
And for this there is no algorithm.
Which is why scientists must be honest, why they must be truth-seekers - because it is only this transcendental impulse which stands between natural selection and infinite error - and the same applies to any science - or philosophy, law, medicine etc.
*
Humans cannot decide when a theory is applicable and when it is not, experience and investigation cannot decide (because they are framed by theory) - only that bottom-line assumption which stands outside of theory for that person, that culture, can decide and will decide.
That natural selection theory is widely misunderstood and misapplied is true; but the fault does not lie in the specific theory nor in its specific limitations; the fault lies in the way our culture uses theories as such, in the basic assumptions about the nature of things - in the metaphysics of modernity.
Having an incoherent metaphysical basis (nihilism, relativism, secularism, materialism) modernity cannot help but misuse theories.
*
Monday 10 October 2011
Does it matter what goes on in people's minds?
*
There are two answers:
1. Not at all.
2. More than anything.
*
The modern idea:
1. Most of modern life is predicated on the belief that what goes on in people's minds matters not at all. That is the perspective of bureaucracy.
*
2. But there is another modern line of thought, which is the idea that what matters is pleasure, or rather its reverse: suffering.
According to modern idea number 2., people's minds are the most important thing in the world insofar as they suffer, and the imperative is to alleviate this suffering.
*
Suffering is, however, conceptualized as confined to the mind of the sufferer (which for this view means confined to the brain of the sufferer).
So, for others to know about suffering, and act upon that knowledge, that suffering inside the brain must be either explicitly communicated ("I am suffering") or be inferred (from behaviour and knowledge).
*
2. The Christian idea:
What goes on in people's minds matters more than anything.
And, in order for this to be true, the Christian cannot (consistently) believe that thought is confined to the mind or the brain.
For the Christian; Love, or pride, must have general and direct effects on reality.
*
A Christian cannot believe that the Love of Jesus Christ is something which only has an effect on reality indirectly - e.g. by being communicated to other people, or by being inferred from a person's behaviour.
Love must operate directly. Therefore, and this is the big jump, I suggest that the Christian (as a Christian) cannot believe that the human mind is restricted to the human brain.
The Christian cannot, that is, believe that the operations and effects of the human mind are ultimately subjective and encapsulated, are radically confined to the human skull; cannot believe in a sealed-off mind operating only via the senses and actions.
*
Somehow (and there need not be an explicit hypotheses how this works) the Christian must believe that the human mind (what goes-on in the human mind) extends beyond the human brain and (somehow, and this need not be explicit) links-up with reality - with God, and with other human minds as in the mystical Church.
*
Therefore the Christian must 'believe' (by which I mean not that this specific and explicit belief be always or ever present in consciousness - but that this state of affairs must underpin, must be the implicit basis for, Christian life) that the human mind is able to interact with reality directly: must believe that the human mind can (in some way) be affected by reality and itself affect reality.
*
So, for the Christian, what goes on in peoples' minds (in each person's mind) matters more than anything; consistent with the fact that what goes on in peoples' minds (each person's mind) potentially affects everything.
*
There are two answers:
1. Not at all.
2. More than anything.
*
The modern idea:
1. Most of modern life is predicated on the belief that what goes on in people's minds matters not at all. That is the perspective of bureaucracy.
*
2. But there is another modern line of thought, which is the idea that what matters is pleasure, or rather its reverse: suffering.
According to modern idea number 2., people's minds are the most important thing in the world insofar as they suffer, and the imperative is to alleviate this suffering.
*
Suffering is, however, conceptualized as confined to the mind of the sufferer (which for this view means confined to the brain of the sufferer).
So, for others to know about suffering, and act upon that knowledge, that suffering inside the brain must be either explicitly communicated ("I am suffering") or be inferred (from behaviour and knowledge).
*
2. The Christian idea:
What goes on in people's minds matters more than anything.
And, in order for this to be true, the Christian cannot (consistently) believe that thought is confined to the mind or the brain.
For the Christian; Love, or pride, must have general and direct effects on reality.
*
A Christian cannot believe that the Love of Jesus Christ is something which only has an effect on reality indirectly - e.g. by being communicated to other people, or by being inferred from a person's behaviour.
Love must operate directly. Therefore, and this is the big jump, I suggest that the Christian (as a Christian) cannot believe that the human mind is restricted to the human brain.
The Christian cannot, that is, believe that the operations and effects of the human mind are ultimately subjective and encapsulated, are radically confined to the human skull; cannot believe in a sealed-off mind operating only via the senses and actions.
*
Somehow (and there need not be an explicit hypotheses how this works) the Christian must believe that the human mind (what goes-on in the human mind) extends beyond the human brain and (somehow, and this need not be explicit) links-up with reality - with God, and with other human minds as in the mystical Church.
*
Therefore the Christian must 'believe' (by which I mean not that this specific and explicit belief be always or ever present in consciousness - but that this state of affairs must underpin, must be the implicit basis for, Christian life) that the human mind is able to interact with reality directly: must believe that the human mind can (in some way) be affected by reality and itself affect reality.
*
So, for the Christian, what goes on in peoples' minds (in each person's mind) matters more than anything; consistent with the fact that what goes on in peoples' minds (each person's mind) potentially affects everything.
*
What is Rupert Sheldrake?
*
The two conventional views of Rupert Sheldrake are that he is either a scientist, or a pseudo-scientist.
He certainly is a credentialed scientist by profession, (oft-cited) publications and practice; but I suggest that he is most profoundly a philosopher: specifically a metaphysical philosopher.
*
Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of things: it is the framework within which other disciplines are conducted.
Darwin was, of course, a metaphysical philosopher, although remembered as the greatest-ever biologist (with the possible exception of Aristotle who was of course another metaphysical philosopher - one of the two greatest).
*
That is, Darwin proposed a 'framing' metaphysical theory - evolution by natural selection - then gathered a vast amount of observational data which he set forth as consistent-with this metaphysical theory.
This strategy served to obscure that for many decades Darwin's theory of natural selection was - as science - radically incomplete.
(i.e. Natural selection did not work and did not make sense until the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of NS with genetics was achieved in the mid-twentieth century.)
*
Sheldrake has done something precisely analogous to Darwin: i.e. set forth a metaphysical theory (concerning morphic fields and their properties) and accumulated a vast amount of observational and experimental data consistent with this theory.
*
The use of empirical data to support metaphysics is sometimes termed 'saving the appearances' on the basis that a useful metaphysical theory is compatible with the 'appearances' of things - the obvious, raw, in-your-face observations.
Empirical data does not test or prove the validity of metaphysical theory - all of Darwin's examples from animal breeding and the diversity of species did not test natural selection theory - rather they are set-forth to illustrate the theory and its operations.
I regard Sheldrake's voluminous body of empirical work as having a similar function.
*
Taken together, Sheldrake's books and papers on numerous topics, his surveys and experiments, demonstrate that Sheldrake's theories of morphic fields do indeed (to a significant extent) 'save the appearances' - that is to say the theory is compatible with observed reality.
However, taken one piece at a time, each specific item of empirical evidence that Sheldrake (or anyone else) can bring forwards can be (and is) (if not simply ignored) explained using numerous other conventional ad hoc explanations...
(Including - when all else fails - assumptions of dishonesty, incompetence and bias; because his critics 'know' that Sheldrake is not doing science in the way they are doing it - or ought to be doing it, and therefore cannot be right.)
*
However, there are other functions served by Sheldrake's empirical work (as was also the case for Darwin's work following the statement of his theory).
*
1. The numerous observations are each a demonstration, which 'teaches' how to use the theory in specific instances.
By repeatedly working-through examples (like doing problems in maths) the learner becomes adept at using the theory.
Thus the student learns to think within the theory and using the theory.
*
2. The use of examples and observations serves to interest many people who would not be interested by abstract formulations of metaphysics. In fact very few people are interested by metaphysics - even or especially not modern philosophers.
*
3. By describing examples from various sciences, not just observations from biology but also knowledge drawn (especially) from theoretical physics, Sheldrake has aimed to explain his theories using analogies.
The analogies from 'hard' sciences, such as physics, serve to make the new metaphysics less alien and strange.
For instance, they make more plausible the alien-ness and strangeness of morphic fields and morphic resonance by showing that equally strange and alien things are found and used effectively in advanced physics without anyone getting upset about them or regarding them as 'unscientific'.
*
4. The multiple examples of empirical science no doubt serve to extend and refine the metaphysical system, to explore and explicate its implications by going beyond immediate 'appearances' to what (is presumed to lie) behind the appearances.
Naturally, at some point, pushing backwards and outwards - exploring the theory's tentacles of implications as they ramify through reality - every metaphysical system runs into problems of some kind. Either clashing with superficial 'appearances' or becoming very complex and difficult to comprehend.
But all theories which are simple enough to be useful to lots of people are too simple to account comprehensively and with perfect internal consistency for everything which those people encounter in all circumstances.
*
At the end of the day, Sheldrake's metaphysics would probably do the job for most people in most situations.
His metaphysical framework is easily and obviously compatible with a wide range of human experiences - probably a wider range of human experiences than the normal mainstream metaphysics.
For example, the description of reality in terms of morphic fields and their interactions seems to be straightforwardly compatible with Christian theology, as well as science.
That Sheldrake's metaphysics is (explicitly) foreshadowed by earlier philosophers is a strength, not a failure of originality; since any useful general theory which approaches the truth is almost sure to have been converged-upon by honest and independent thinkers.
*
The two conventional views of Rupert Sheldrake are that he is either a scientist, or a pseudo-scientist.
He certainly is a credentialed scientist by profession, (oft-cited) publications and practice; but I suggest that he is most profoundly a philosopher: specifically a metaphysical philosopher.
*
Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of things: it is the framework within which other disciplines are conducted.
Darwin was, of course, a metaphysical philosopher, although remembered as the greatest-ever biologist (with the possible exception of Aristotle who was of course another metaphysical philosopher - one of the two greatest).
*
That is, Darwin proposed a 'framing' metaphysical theory - evolution by natural selection - then gathered a vast amount of observational data which he set forth as consistent-with this metaphysical theory.
This strategy served to obscure that for many decades Darwin's theory of natural selection was - as science - radically incomplete.
(i.e. Natural selection did not work and did not make sense until the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of NS with genetics was achieved in the mid-twentieth century.)
*
Sheldrake has done something precisely analogous to Darwin: i.e. set forth a metaphysical theory (concerning morphic fields and their properties) and accumulated a vast amount of observational and experimental data consistent with this theory.
*
The use of empirical data to support metaphysics is sometimes termed 'saving the appearances' on the basis that a useful metaphysical theory is compatible with the 'appearances' of things - the obvious, raw, in-your-face observations.
Empirical data does not test or prove the validity of metaphysical theory - all of Darwin's examples from animal breeding and the diversity of species did not test natural selection theory - rather they are set-forth to illustrate the theory and its operations.
I regard Sheldrake's voluminous body of empirical work as having a similar function.
*
Taken together, Sheldrake's books and papers on numerous topics, his surveys and experiments, demonstrate that Sheldrake's theories of morphic fields do indeed (to a significant extent) 'save the appearances' - that is to say the theory is compatible with observed reality.
However, taken one piece at a time, each specific item of empirical evidence that Sheldrake (or anyone else) can bring forwards can be (and is) (if not simply ignored) explained using numerous other conventional ad hoc explanations...
(Including - when all else fails - assumptions of dishonesty, incompetence and bias; because his critics 'know' that Sheldrake is not doing science in the way they are doing it - or ought to be doing it, and therefore cannot be right.)
*
However, there are other functions served by Sheldrake's empirical work (as was also the case for Darwin's work following the statement of his theory).
*
1. The numerous observations are each a demonstration, which 'teaches' how to use the theory in specific instances.
By repeatedly working-through examples (like doing problems in maths) the learner becomes adept at using the theory.
Thus the student learns to think within the theory and using the theory.
*
2. The use of examples and observations serves to interest many people who would not be interested by abstract formulations of metaphysics. In fact very few people are interested by metaphysics - even or especially not modern philosophers.
*
3. By describing examples from various sciences, not just observations from biology but also knowledge drawn (especially) from theoretical physics, Sheldrake has aimed to explain his theories using analogies.
The analogies from 'hard' sciences, such as physics, serve to make the new metaphysics less alien and strange.
For instance, they make more plausible the alien-ness and strangeness of morphic fields and morphic resonance by showing that equally strange and alien things are found and used effectively in advanced physics without anyone getting upset about them or regarding them as 'unscientific'.
*
4. The multiple examples of empirical science no doubt serve to extend and refine the metaphysical system, to explore and explicate its implications by going beyond immediate 'appearances' to what (is presumed to lie) behind the appearances.
Naturally, at some point, pushing backwards and outwards - exploring the theory's tentacles of implications as they ramify through reality - every metaphysical system runs into problems of some kind. Either clashing with superficial 'appearances' or becoming very complex and difficult to comprehend.
But all theories which are simple enough to be useful to lots of people are too simple to account comprehensively and with perfect internal consistency for everything which those people encounter in all circumstances.
*
At the end of the day, Sheldrake's metaphysics would probably do the job for most people in most situations.
His metaphysical framework is easily and obviously compatible with a wide range of human experiences - probably a wider range of human experiences than the normal mainstream metaphysics.
For example, the description of reality in terms of morphic fields and their interactions seems to be straightforwardly compatible with Christian theology, as well as science.
That Sheldrake's metaphysics is (explicitly) foreshadowed by earlier philosophers is a strength, not a failure of originality; since any useful general theory which approaches the truth is almost sure to have been converged-upon by honest and independent thinkers.
*
Sunday 9 October 2011
The main reason science has declined
*
The main reason that science has declined - that it has become absolutely, not just relatively immune from any form of evidence, including evidence of its own corruption and careerism - is that professional science no longer believes in reality.
Science (scientists) no longer believe that reality is real, no longer believe that there really is a reality underneath all of the peer review, bureaucracy, consensus, and competitions for status, security and salary; punditry and prizes...
*
Or, if some individual 'scientists' do believe that reality is real, then they do not see reality as important; they do not see themselves (qua scientist) as having a duty to reality - a non-negotiable and bounden duty to seek-for and speak only this reality - so far as they best understand it.
They simply don't feel this.
For modern 'scientists', reality is just one of the options.
*
So, the root of the problem is that science is nihilistic (nihilism means the belief that there is no reality).
*
It is the unbelief in reality which allows science to be, to any extent which is expedient, untruthful - non-truth-seeking.
*
Because science is only self-correcting when scientists believe in reality, want to know about it, and believe they must always be truthful about what they (think they) know.
*
When scientists believe in reality and are motivated to seek the truth about it, then science will work.
That is all that is needed.
Therefore real science is very, very simple.
Questions of scientific methods are irrelevant, questions of organization are irrelevant - such real scientists will find a way.
But, since the pre-requisites are rare (not many reality-based people are truly truth-seeking and truthful), and the pressures for corruption are so strong, that real science is both rare and fragile.
*
But.
When scientists do not believe in reality and are not bound by truth; then the fact that all methods are selective and biased approximations and there is always wriggle-room and loopholes; and when science is done in (scientist-choosing) organizations instead of (scientist-chosen) alliances - these mean that the door is opened to limitless deception (of the self, and of others).
So.... here we are!
*
The main reason that science has declined - that it has become absolutely, not just relatively immune from any form of evidence, including evidence of its own corruption and careerism - is that professional science no longer believes in reality.
Science (scientists) no longer believe that reality is real, no longer believe that there really is a reality underneath all of the peer review, bureaucracy, consensus, and competitions for status, security and salary; punditry and prizes...
*
Or, if some individual 'scientists' do believe that reality is real, then they do not see reality as important; they do not see themselves (qua scientist) as having a duty to reality - a non-negotiable and bounden duty to seek-for and speak only this reality - so far as they best understand it.
They simply don't feel this.
For modern 'scientists', reality is just one of the options.
*
So, the root of the problem is that science is nihilistic (nihilism means the belief that there is no reality).
*
It is the unbelief in reality which allows science to be, to any extent which is expedient, untruthful - non-truth-seeking.
*
Because science is only self-correcting when scientists believe in reality, want to know about it, and believe they must always be truthful about what they (think they) know.
*
When scientists believe in reality and are motivated to seek the truth about it, then science will work.
That is all that is needed.
Therefore real science is very, very simple.
Questions of scientific methods are irrelevant, questions of organization are irrelevant - such real scientists will find a way.
But, since the pre-requisites are rare (not many reality-based people are truly truth-seeking and truthful), and the pressures for corruption are so strong, that real science is both rare and fragile.
*
But.
When scientists do not believe in reality and are not bound by truth; then the fact that all methods are selective and biased approximations and there is always wriggle-room and loopholes; and when science is done in (scientist-choosing) organizations instead of (scientist-chosen) alliances - these mean that the door is opened to limitless deception (of the self, and of others).
So.... here we are!
*
Saturday 8 October 2011
The world economic crisis - in a nutshell
*
Modern man does not believe in God or in gods; he believes in happiness or reduction of suffering.
*
Because he does not believe in God/s, modern man does not believe in reality - or if he does then he is not interested by it: after all, without God/s who would choose reality over happiness?
And without God/s happiness is purely within life, within this world - so why should anyone ever want to do anything that which might sacrifice happiness in this life/ world - even if it did lead to reality?
And who would be interested in Truth, Beauty or Virtue unless they led to more happiness? Nobody - that's who.
*
What possible reason could there be for sacrificing happiness to TBV? None - that's what...
*
So - the world economic crisis... What should be done about it?
Is it real, or is it that people are unhappy?
Is there really an underlying economic reality?
And if so, is anybody interested in finding-out about the economic reality; or, having found-out in improving the economic reality (whatever we regard as improvement - whether that might be real economic growth, or something else).
*
Or, are we really interested not at all in economic reality (which we think probably doesn't exists aside from human beliefs and expectations) - but instead in in making people happy about (what they imagine to be) the world economy?
*
Yes that's it: of course that's it.
What we really want, here and now, is that people feel better about the world economy - feel happy about it!
Because, after all, who wants to know or really cares about economic 'reality'? Either it doesn't exist - or it is boring - or unimportant - or merely a side effect of feelings (which we do care about).
Insofar as there is any acknowledgment of 'economic' reality, it is that it is a product of feelings ('confidence', 'optimism', 'panic', 'greed'...).
And nothing to do with production of food, shelter and warmth and 'real' stuff like that...
*
Thus - the world economic crisis.
Our bottom line is feelings; we regard economic reality as illusion - all significant policy aims at manipulation of feelings.
Our punishment will be to get what we have asked for: we shall have to survive on feelings...
*
Modern man does not believe in God or in gods; he believes in happiness or reduction of suffering.
*
Because he does not believe in God/s, modern man does not believe in reality - or if he does then he is not interested by it: after all, without God/s who would choose reality over happiness?
And without God/s happiness is purely within life, within this world - so why should anyone ever want to do anything that which might sacrifice happiness in this life/ world - even if it did lead to reality?
And who would be interested in Truth, Beauty or Virtue unless they led to more happiness? Nobody - that's who.
*
What possible reason could there be for sacrificing happiness to TBV? None - that's what...
*
So - the world economic crisis... What should be done about it?
Is it real, or is it that people are unhappy?
Is there really an underlying economic reality?
And if so, is anybody interested in finding-out about the economic reality; or, having found-out in improving the economic reality (whatever we regard as improvement - whether that might be real economic growth, or something else).
*
Or, are we really interested not at all in economic reality (which we think probably doesn't exists aside from human beliefs and expectations) - but instead in in making people happy about (what they imagine to be) the world economy?
*
Yes that's it: of course that's it.
What we really want, here and now, is that people feel better about the world economy - feel happy about it!
Because, after all, who wants to know or really cares about economic 'reality'? Either it doesn't exist - or it is boring - or unimportant - or merely a side effect of feelings (which we do care about).
Insofar as there is any acknowledgment of 'economic' reality, it is that it is a product of feelings ('confidence', 'optimism', 'panic', 'greed'...).
And nothing to do with production of food, shelter and warmth and 'real' stuff like that...
*
Thus - the world economic crisis.
Our bottom line is feelings; we regard economic reality as illusion - all significant policy aims at manipulation of feelings.
Our punishment will be to get what we have asked for: we shall have to survive on feelings...
*
Friday 7 October 2011
Why science works like a 'theory of mind delusion'
*
The question is as follows:
How does science get from:
"Let's see how far we can go using just reason applied to observations, while excluding any reference to God or divine purposes and revelations."
to
"We have disproved the existence of God, divine purpose and revelations."
*
And, to take a specific example - how does the biology of natural selection get from:
"Let's assume that all the variations upon which selection operates are un-directed."
(By 'un-directed' I mean that, for example, genetic mutations are not directed towards any function - but that the functionality of a beneficial mutation is a product of selection among rival genetic variants.)
to
"Un-directed variation is the only possible type of variation."
*
In other words, how is it that we get from a chosen exclusion, an imposed constraint, to the belief that the exclusion does not exist, and that the constraint is intrinsic to the universe.
*
I think the answer is psychological - it is something that is not a consequence of the abstract nature of science, or natural selection - but a product of the minds of scientists and biologists.
And I think the psychological mechanism is a fundamental aspect of the way that humans reason, which an astute author (name of Bruce G Charlton) described in some work on what he termed 'theory of mind delusions':
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/delusions.html
*
What happens to the psychology of the scientist/ biologist is something along the following lines:
As the scientist becomes adept at reasoning within his subject, the exclusion or constraint is 'marked' with a negative emotional evaluation, so that whenever it comes to mind it will tend to be avoided.
If/ when the scientist finds himself 'tempted' to reach for a divine explanation, if a biologist finds himself tempted to ascribe teleology (purpose) to genetic mutations, then a kind of 'metal alarm' goes off and makes the scientist feel bad in some way (ashamed, afraid, disgusted etc).
I mean it literally makes him feel bad - using the taboo concept in reasoning triggers nerves and hormones and alters the body state to feel bad.
And this is a property of the expert scientist, it is a product of proper training.
Over time the scientist learns (becomes conditioned to avoid) these subjects - and becomes able to reason fluently within the zone of constraint and exclusion.
However, if anybody else mentions the taboo subjects, then the negative emotional alarm goes off, and there is an attempt again to steer clear of the subject - to avoid or suppress it. It is a sign of professional incompetence to raise the taboo, excluded subject - annoying or embarrassing.
*
In general terms, assumptions frame investigations, so that investigations can only confirm assumptions (or be irrelevant to them) - and as a rule experience cannot contradict or refute fundamental assumptions.
This applies within science just as much as in other areas of life.
*
But this is not a specific problem for specific groups of people with specific beliefs - it is the nature of human discourse, and we all operate within analogous psychological mechanisms.
No amount of anomalous experience can ever cause challenge of fundamental assumptions, because it is the fundamental assumptions which make specific discourses possible, and to reject the assumptions is merely to be incompetent at that specific discourse.
No amount of failed predictions, no lack of precision, no amount of incoherence can ever, therefore, lead to the compelling inference that an exclusion was invalid, nor can it force the adjustment of a constraint.
From within a field of discourse (within philosophy, science, within biology) any acknowledged problems in the accuracy and coherence - and there always are such problems - is merely grist to the mill: they are what provides the discourse with an endless number of 'things to do'.
All problems do is imply the need for further development and elaboration of the existing theory - problems can never of themselves imply the need for a new theory.
So, once a discourse has - like science - succeeded in establishing itself as necessary; then the endless problems it encounters serve to justify endless expansion of the activity, in the case of science endless expansion of funding.
*
So - if not from encountering problems - why might the status of science, of natural selection, ever possibly, potentially change?
Because (for whatever reason) it becomes desired to include the exclusions, relax the constraints.
This entails the scrapping of the whole previous system (based on those constraints and exclusions), and the re-building of a new system (having different exclusions and constraints).
*
Qua philosopher, philosophy potentially explains everything; qua scientist science explains everything: biologist biology - and it goes further: qua lawyer law; qua journalist journalism etc.
The exclusions and biases which structure the system are invisible to the system which functions within them.
But... nobody is entirely located within their specialist discourse; and therefore nobody is wholly convinced by the hegemony of their expertise. And in society most people are outwith any particular discourse, which impinges upon them in alien ways.
So the larger and more dominating any discourse, the greater pressure is built against it. The discipline itself cannot internally perceive the force of objections to its own constraints and exclusions, but everyone outside that system, and other systems, have a growing interest in attacking those exclusions and constraints.
If and when the system ceases to provide what people want from it, or provide it at too high a cost, or if those outside the system cease to value what the system provides - and if the system is unable coercively to confiscate the resources it needs against the will of those of who provide the resources - then the system will collapse.
*
The question is as follows:
How does science get from:
"Let's see how far we can go using just reason applied to observations, while excluding any reference to God or divine purposes and revelations."
to
"We have disproved the existence of God, divine purpose and revelations."
*
And, to take a specific example - how does the biology of natural selection get from:
"Let's assume that all the variations upon which selection operates are un-directed."
(By 'un-directed' I mean that, for example, genetic mutations are not directed towards any function - but that the functionality of a beneficial mutation is a product of selection among rival genetic variants.)
to
"Un-directed variation is the only possible type of variation."
*
In other words, how is it that we get from a chosen exclusion, an imposed constraint, to the belief that the exclusion does not exist, and that the constraint is intrinsic to the universe.
*
I think the answer is psychological - it is something that is not a consequence of the abstract nature of science, or natural selection - but a product of the minds of scientists and biologists.
And I think the psychological mechanism is a fundamental aspect of the way that humans reason, which an astute author (name of Bruce G Charlton) described in some work on what he termed 'theory of mind delusions':
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/delusions.html
*
What happens to the psychology of the scientist/ biologist is something along the following lines:
As the scientist becomes adept at reasoning within his subject, the exclusion or constraint is 'marked' with a negative emotional evaluation, so that whenever it comes to mind it will tend to be avoided.
If/ when the scientist finds himself 'tempted' to reach for a divine explanation, if a biologist finds himself tempted to ascribe teleology (purpose) to genetic mutations, then a kind of 'metal alarm' goes off and makes the scientist feel bad in some way (ashamed, afraid, disgusted etc).
I mean it literally makes him feel bad - using the taboo concept in reasoning triggers nerves and hormones and alters the body state to feel bad.
And this is a property of the expert scientist, it is a product of proper training.
Over time the scientist learns (becomes conditioned to avoid) these subjects - and becomes able to reason fluently within the zone of constraint and exclusion.
However, if anybody else mentions the taboo subjects, then the negative emotional alarm goes off, and there is an attempt again to steer clear of the subject - to avoid or suppress it. It is a sign of professional incompetence to raise the taboo, excluded subject - annoying or embarrassing.
*
In general terms, assumptions frame investigations, so that investigations can only confirm assumptions (or be irrelevant to them) - and as a rule experience cannot contradict or refute fundamental assumptions.
This applies within science just as much as in other areas of life.
*
But this is not a specific problem for specific groups of people with specific beliefs - it is the nature of human discourse, and we all operate within analogous psychological mechanisms.
No amount of anomalous experience can ever cause challenge of fundamental assumptions, because it is the fundamental assumptions which make specific discourses possible, and to reject the assumptions is merely to be incompetent at that specific discourse.
No amount of failed predictions, no lack of precision, no amount of incoherence can ever, therefore, lead to the compelling inference that an exclusion was invalid, nor can it force the adjustment of a constraint.
From within a field of discourse (within philosophy, science, within biology) any acknowledged problems in the accuracy and coherence - and there always are such problems - is merely grist to the mill: they are what provides the discourse with an endless number of 'things to do'.
All problems do is imply the need for further development and elaboration of the existing theory - problems can never of themselves imply the need for a new theory.
So, once a discourse has - like science - succeeded in establishing itself as necessary; then the endless problems it encounters serve to justify endless expansion of the activity, in the case of science endless expansion of funding.
*
So - if not from encountering problems - why might the status of science, of natural selection, ever possibly, potentially change?
Because (for whatever reason) it becomes desired to include the exclusions, relax the constraints.
This entails the scrapping of the whole previous system (based on those constraints and exclusions), and the re-building of a new system (having different exclusions and constraints).
*
Qua philosopher, philosophy potentially explains everything; qua scientist science explains everything: biologist biology - and it goes further: qua lawyer law; qua journalist journalism etc.
The exclusions and biases which structure the system are invisible to the system which functions within them.
But... nobody is entirely located within their specialist discourse; and therefore nobody is wholly convinced by the hegemony of their expertise. And in society most people are outwith any particular discourse, which impinges upon them in alien ways.
So the larger and more dominating any discourse, the greater pressure is built against it. The discipline itself cannot internally perceive the force of objections to its own constraints and exclusions, but everyone outside that system, and other systems, have a growing interest in attacking those exclusions and constraints.
If and when the system ceases to provide what people want from it, or provide it at too high a cost, or if those outside the system cease to value what the system provides - and if the system is unable coercively to confiscate the resources it needs against the will of those of who provide the resources - then the system will collapse.
*
Thursday 6 October 2011
Explaining some Charlton catch-phrases
*
1. Things need to get worse before they can get better
2. People are not-even-trying
3. Humans are simple, dichotomous creatures
4. Repentance must come first
These refer mainly to social and political matters - and especially to plans and schemes for reform.
*
1. Things need to get worse before they can get better, because otherwise they already would be better.
This means that things can get better only via getting worse - and that is the reason why it has not already been done.
What stops people doing what needs to be done, is that improvement can come only in the long run while problems arrive immediately.
What needs to be done causes problems for sure whereas its benefits are more remote and conjectural.
*
2. It certainly will not happen when people are not even trying to make it happen.
Good things don't happen by accident.
They don't necessarily happen when people are trying to make them happen - but they certainly don't happen unless people are trying to make them happen.
If the mass of people are mostly trying to do one thing, it is unlikely that they will consistently achieve another, quite different, thing.
If you want to achieve something, then that is what you should aim to achieve.
*
3. Humans are simple, dichotomous creatures. This means that in practice, policies can only be simple, dichotomous.
This means that complex solutions are always wrong.
And effective solutions are always crude.
(And until there is a simple and crude solution, there cannot be an effective solution.)
Therefore, there are always significant disadvantages to any effective solution.
Therefore you need to decide what is most important. You may get this; but only at a cost.
*
4. Repentance must come first.
Politics and management is only serious when it begins with repentance: with a confession of what they did wrong and a resolve to avoid this fault in future.
Our society is only serious about the things it openly repents (which is why we are in so much trouble, i.e. because of the choice of things we repent).
When things are going down, nothing effective will be done about it until there is a clear repentance and repudiation of that which led to the decline.
*
In public policy, therefore, You cannot do good by stealth.
You must shout from the rooftops, and repeatedly, what was done wrong, that the wrong has been repented, what are the new priorities. Then shout the crude and simple solution, including the inevitable and expected costs and nature of opposition. And then do it.
The inevitable costs must be borne, the inevitable opposition must be overcome.
The process is not sophisticated nor nuanced - it is crude and conflictual - and it will be vilified by the intellectual elite.
*
To which I would add:
5. Inertia means that things get worse slower than you fear; but also that adverse trends are harder to reverse than you hope.
*
1. Things need to get worse before they can get better
2. People are not-even-trying
3. Humans are simple, dichotomous creatures
4. Repentance must come first
These refer mainly to social and political matters - and especially to plans and schemes for reform.
*
1. Things need to get worse before they can get better, because otherwise they already would be better.
This means that things can get better only via getting worse - and that is the reason why it has not already been done.
What stops people doing what needs to be done, is that improvement can come only in the long run while problems arrive immediately.
What needs to be done causes problems for sure whereas its benefits are more remote and conjectural.
*
2. It certainly will not happen when people are not even trying to make it happen.
Good things don't happen by accident.
They don't necessarily happen when people are trying to make them happen - but they certainly don't happen unless people are trying to make them happen.
If the mass of people are mostly trying to do one thing, it is unlikely that they will consistently achieve another, quite different, thing.
If you want to achieve something, then that is what you should aim to achieve.
*
3. Humans are simple, dichotomous creatures. This means that in practice, policies can only be simple, dichotomous.
This means that complex solutions are always wrong.
And effective solutions are always crude.
(And until there is a simple and crude solution, there cannot be an effective solution.)
Therefore, there are always significant disadvantages to any effective solution.
Therefore you need to decide what is most important. You may get this; but only at a cost.
*
4. Repentance must come first.
Politics and management is only serious when it begins with repentance: with a confession of what they did wrong and a resolve to avoid this fault in future.
Our society is only serious about the things it openly repents (which is why we are in so much trouble, i.e. because of the choice of things we repent).
When things are going down, nothing effective will be done about it until there is a clear repentance and repudiation of that which led to the decline.
*
In public policy, therefore, You cannot do good by stealth.
You must shout from the rooftops, and repeatedly, what was done wrong, that the wrong has been repented, what are the new priorities. Then shout the crude and simple solution, including the inevitable and expected costs and nature of opposition. And then do it.
The inevitable costs must be borne, the inevitable opposition must be overcome.
The process is not sophisticated nor nuanced - it is crude and conflictual - and it will be vilified by the intellectual elite.
*
To which I would add:
5. Inertia means that things get worse slower than you fear; but also that adverse trends are harder to reverse than you hope.
*
Wednesday 5 October 2011
Natural selection as a metaphysical system
*
I may be missing something, but I have seldom (although not never) been troubled by the conflict of Christianity and evolution by natural selection - because when properly considered, natural selection is a set of metaphysical assumptions.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/08/natural-selection-and-me.html
*
By metaphysical I mean that these assumptions are (obviously) hierarchically above those of science; and therefore natural selection is not testable by science.
(At least not testable by the doing of science - since a meta-theory which constrains and guides scientific hypotheses and their testing cannot itself be subject to these tests).
This has almost always seemed very obvious to me.
*
Of course, when progress is being made within a metaphysical paradigm, and when one is an 'expert' in that paradigm, there is a very strong temptation to assume and to assert that the paradigm is universally true (and that therefore one is an expert in 'everything') - and I have fallen into this trap, from time to time.
*
As I see things, the theory of evolution by natural selection says something like the following:
"Let's see if we can devise explanations for adaptation (the specific functionality of living things) without assuming any purpose towards functionality - adaptiveness simply arising as a consequence of the un-directed variation in reproducing entities and the effects that such variation might plausibly have on reproduction."
That competitive selection processes acting on reproducing entities will tend to amplify those variations which reproduce the most effectively, is not really controversial - it is hard to imagine why this would not happen.
But the key metaphysical assumption is concerned with the raw material upon which selection operates - in other words the assumption that the variation is un-directed.
*
(It is worth mentioning that variation is not random for the simple reason that in biology nothing is random. Randomness is essentially a mathematical abstraction, although maybe it occurs is some bits of physics - at any rate there is no randomness in biology, although one can sometimes assume randomness as a simplifying approximation.)
*
It is the assumption of evolution by natural selection that the source of variation upon which selection operates is un-directed - or, at least, may be assumed to be un-directed in the specific instance under consideration - which is critical.
That the variation actually is un-directed is not subject to test - indeed it is often impossible to test the assumption.
Instead, the theory of natural selection simply says, in effect: "Let's assume that the variation (e.g. of genes, or of some other reproduction-affecting information such as epigenetic variation) is in this instance un-directed, and see if we can construct a scenario which results in the observed phenomena".
I cannot see anything intrinsically wrong with consciously making this assumption, and with proceeding to reason on the basis of this assumption; and this is what I do when wearing my cap as an evolutionary theorist.
*
But there surely cannot be any reason for assuming that un-directed variation is the only possible basis for that variation upon which selection works; and to make such an assumption of universality is wholly arbitrary.
*
(Indeed, one cannot even be sure that un-directed variation applies even in any one specific instance - the most that can be done is to point at the results of making this assumption: saying, in effect: "Look! when I make this assumption it all seems to fit together very neatly with this set of observations and experiments!" However, another and different assumption, might - whether now or in the future - prove to be equally or more impressive in its coherence and scope. And then what?...)
*
I do not feel a need to go further than this negative statement: that the assumption of un-directedness is a metaphysical assumption.
I think we can be absolutely clear and certain that there are no grounds whatsoever for assuming that un-directed variations (such as genetic mutations due to radiation or copying errors) are the only possible form of variation that can ever form the substrate of selection processes.
How on earth would one even go about proving such an assertion? Certainly Darwin didn't attempt it - he merely offered a new explanatory metaphysic, an alternative. And, at any rate, nobody ever has proved any such thing.
*
Yet attempts to put forward alternative possible directed sources of variation (such as divine creation, intelligent design, chaos and complexity theory, or morphogenetic fields) are not scientifically proveable as against natural selection - because they are alternative metaphysical assumptions.
No amount of observational or experimental evidence can count either for or against metaphysical theories - since metaphysics is hierarchically above science: metaphysical is a name given to the assumptions which constrain a particular science.
*
The problem is that modern culture has no idea what to do about evaluating metaphysical theories - and so keeps on trying to evaluate them scientifically...
But if not by science, then how should metaphysical theories be evaluated?
Ah - that is an almost lost art. The activity by which metaphysical systems are compared and evaluated is called philosophy, and it was invented by the ancient Greeks and perfected by Thomas Aquinas - but almost nobody practices it today...
*
I may be missing something, but I have seldom (although not never) been troubled by the conflict of Christianity and evolution by natural selection - because when properly considered, natural selection is a set of metaphysical assumptions.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/08/natural-selection-and-me.html
*
By metaphysical I mean that these assumptions are (obviously) hierarchically above those of science; and therefore natural selection is not testable by science.
(At least not testable by the doing of science - since a meta-theory which constrains and guides scientific hypotheses and their testing cannot itself be subject to these tests).
This has almost always seemed very obvious to me.
*
Of course, when progress is being made within a metaphysical paradigm, and when one is an 'expert' in that paradigm, there is a very strong temptation to assume and to assert that the paradigm is universally true (and that therefore one is an expert in 'everything') - and I have fallen into this trap, from time to time.
*
As I see things, the theory of evolution by natural selection says something like the following:
"Let's see if we can devise explanations for adaptation (the specific functionality of living things) without assuming any purpose towards functionality - adaptiveness simply arising as a consequence of the un-directed variation in reproducing entities and the effects that such variation might plausibly have on reproduction."
That competitive selection processes acting on reproducing entities will tend to amplify those variations which reproduce the most effectively, is not really controversial - it is hard to imagine why this would not happen.
But the key metaphysical assumption is concerned with the raw material upon which selection operates - in other words the assumption that the variation is un-directed.
*
(It is worth mentioning that variation is not random for the simple reason that in biology nothing is random. Randomness is essentially a mathematical abstraction, although maybe it occurs is some bits of physics - at any rate there is no randomness in biology, although one can sometimes assume randomness as a simplifying approximation.)
*
It is the assumption of evolution by natural selection that the source of variation upon which selection operates is un-directed - or, at least, may be assumed to be un-directed in the specific instance under consideration - which is critical.
That the variation actually is un-directed is not subject to test - indeed it is often impossible to test the assumption.
Instead, the theory of natural selection simply says, in effect: "Let's assume that the variation (e.g. of genes, or of some other reproduction-affecting information such as epigenetic variation) is in this instance un-directed, and see if we can construct a scenario which results in the observed phenomena".
I cannot see anything intrinsically wrong with consciously making this assumption, and with proceeding to reason on the basis of this assumption; and this is what I do when wearing my cap as an evolutionary theorist.
*
But there surely cannot be any reason for assuming that un-directed variation is the only possible basis for that variation upon which selection works; and to make such an assumption of universality is wholly arbitrary.
*
(Indeed, one cannot even be sure that un-directed variation applies even in any one specific instance - the most that can be done is to point at the results of making this assumption: saying, in effect: "Look! when I make this assumption it all seems to fit together very neatly with this set of observations and experiments!" However, another and different assumption, might - whether now or in the future - prove to be equally or more impressive in its coherence and scope. And then what?...)
*
I do not feel a need to go further than this negative statement: that the assumption of un-directedness is a metaphysical assumption.
I think we can be absolutely clear and certain that there are no grounds whatsoever for assuming that un-directed variations (such as genetic mutations due to radiation or copying errors) are the only possible form of variation that can ever form the substrate of selection processes.
How on earth would one even go about proving such an assertion? Certainly Darwin didn't attempt it - he merely offered a new explanatory metaphysic, an alternative. And, at any rate, nobody ever has proved any such thing.
*
Yet attempts to put forward alternative possible directed sources of variation (such as divine creation, intelligent design, chaos and complexity theory, or morphogenetic fields) are not scientifically proveable as against natural selection - because they are alternative metaphysical assumptions.
No amount of observational or experimental evidence can count either for or against metaphysical theories - since metaphysics is hierarchically above science: metaphysical is a name given to the assumptions which constrain a particular science.
*
The problem is that modern culture has no idea what to do about evaluating metaphysical theories - and so keeps on trying to evaluate them scientifically...
But if not by science, then how should metaphysical theories be evaluated?
Ah - that is an almost lost art. The activity by which metaphysical systems are compared and evaluated is called philosophy, and it was invented by the ancient Greeks and perfected by Thomas Aquinas - but almost nobody practices it today...
*
What has the Left actually conquered?
*
The Left - (Liberalism/ Socialism/ Political Correctness) has, of course, triumphed in the West - colonizing the elite intellectuals of government, public administration, law, the churches, education and so on.
But what is the essence of its triumph - what precisely has the Left actually conquered?
The answer is simple and single. The answer is the mass media.
The core triumph is the mass media - but a further element was necessary: the expansion of the mass media to fill the attention of most of the people, most of the time.
So, now, the mass media is reality.
(Reality itself has become merely a matter of opinion: individual anecdote. Worthless, indeed wicked, unless validated by the media.)
So that is the triumph of the West - to conquer the mass media in a situation where the mass media dominates the minds of the mass of people.
*
The Left - (Liberalism/ Socialism/ Political Correctness) has, of course, triumphed in the West - colonizing the elite intellectuals of government, public administration, law, the churches, education and so on.
But what is the essence of its triumph - what precisely has the Left actually conquered?
The answer is simple and single. The answer is the mass media.
The core triumph is the mass media - but a further element was necessary: the expansion of the mass media to fill the attention of most of the people, most of the time.
So, now, the mass media is reality.
(Reality itself has become merely a matter of opinion: individual anecdote. Worthless, indeed wicked, unless validated by the media.)
So that is the triumph of the West - to conquer the mass media in a situation where the mass media dominates the minds of the mass of people.
*
Tuesday 4 October 2011
Are Liberals and Leftists *truly* anti-slavery? Of course not!
*
The fact that slavery was all-but universal until a couple of hundred years ago is used as the standard, off-the-peg, number one knock-down argument to justify that because our ancestors were wrong about slavery, they are probably wrong about everything else; and therefore (so the argument goes) every specific aspect of traditional culture should be challenged, subverted then inverted.
*
This argument - used many thousands of times per hour in the West - assumes that modern, decent Liberals and Leftists are truly anti-slavery; which of course they are not.
*
Liberals and leftists always do say they are anti-slavery, just as they might assert that the moon is made of green cheese (people can say anything they like, cost free - so long as it is socially sanctioned, which naturally this is).
*
But if we assume that the people who actually abolished slavery - the abolitionist movement - are those who were really and truly anti-slavery, then it is clear that there are almost no such people in the world today; at least none with significant power.
*
To be an abolitionist in the old sense is to be anti-slavery full stop.
*
To be an abolitionist was not to be prudential about slavery, not to regard slavery as bad because it led to greater suffering, but to regard slavery as an intrinsic evil.
*
An abolitionist might admit that to be a slave with a good and kind master is a happier state than many others regimes under which humans live - but still insist on the abolition of slavery.
The abolitionists took no account of the cost in lives and treasure (including the lives of slaves) of abolishing slavery.
Even when the abolition of slavery left ex-slaves starving, diseased, degraded, and extremely violent (as in Haiti) this made no difference at all to the imperative that slavery be abolished.
Even though slavery was in fact abolished in many parts of the world only at gunpoint: this was a secondary consideration - for abolitionists slavery must be abolished: end of story.
*
In sum - an abolitionist would seek-out and and extirpate slavery by whatever means were effective.
This is how slavery actually was abolished. It did not matter where the slavery was - even in deepest Africa, or in the parched deserts of Arabia - slavery was never left alone, slave states were never allowed to opt-out.
For decade after decade, the full force of the British Empire was brought to bear against slavers and they were forced to yield until slavery was abolished everywhere except in some very poor places in the middle of Africa - which held-out through the war torn 20th century until the British Empire collapsed.
*
But slavery came back. Of course. Because slavery is a spontaneous occurrence in all sedentary societies, and if it is not being continually sought-out and extirpated it will be there.
Ignorant folks were surprised to 'discover' long term slavery in the UK in a recent news story - fools! There are at least many hundreds of slaves in the UK- maybe many thousands depending on how slavery is defined, where you draw the line. There must be - what is stopping it?
And if nothing effective is stopping slavery, there will be slavery.
*
Slavery was brought back into into England by multiculturalism, and is protected from awareness by multiculturalism. Indeed multiculturalism has created an environment in which all the enlightenment horrors have returned, have been sealed-off from inspection and made immune to effective action. Multiculturalism created a situation in which it is not merely pointless to detect and discuss such matters - but counter-productive, since the attempt to expose and eliminate slavery creates further legalistic evasions and protections for slavery within the system.
*
Full-blooded abolitionism was in fact an evil, which is why it was universally abandoned. It was an evil because it was single issue politics, fanatical and without prudence.
Abolitionism naturally led to massive suffering, since it was so devoted to its primary imperative that all other problems were accepted and excused.
This was a particular problem since, as we now see, abolition of slavery was unstable - it was not a matter of getting rid of slavery once for all. Slavery keeps coming back, and keeps needing to be suppressed all the time.
Therefore any society - any culture - which is not subject to this suppression will tend to reintroduce de facto slavery (although it may be disguised legalistically).
*
The proper attitude to slavery is prudential, not fanatical - slavery is an undesirable state, and slavery should be suppressed unless to do so makes matters worse, when it should be regulated (i.e. slaves must be treated well, or at least not cruelly and arbitrarily) - but prudence is not what we have now.
The attitude towards slavery we have under triumphant modern Leftism is mere expediency. If Leftist opposition to slavery were prudential then they would argue, explicitly, that slavery was permissible under certain conditions. For example, they would need to argue explicitly that slavery was permissible under multiculturalism, since Leftists are clearly prepared to tolerate slavery in non-Western cultures.
However, the Left do not so argue; instead they pretend to abolitionism: pretend to be always, absolutely and implacably opposed to slavery under all possible circumstances.
*
So, the Left spout pure abolitionist rhetoric 24/7 but (implicitly and dishonestly) recognize that actually to act to detect and extirpate slavery would be to weaken their own legitimacy as based in multiculturalism - so they make sure they do not detect it, if detected do not use coercion, do not publicize examples of slavery, and when there are examples the media very quickly forget it. Down the memory hole with it!
Yet, very obviously, in the modern surveillance society that is the UK, if the authorities wanted to detect and extirpate slavery then the task would be facile - it would take a few weeks merely. That this does not happen shows that the authorities place the abolition of slavery as a low priority, a much lower priority than - for instance - advocating, imposing and sustaining multiculturalism.
*
Think about it: by revealed preferences the Left - while pretending to absolute abolitionism - wants multiculturalism even at the cost of reintroducing slavery to the West.
That is what we are up against.
*
So the triumph of the Left is a peculiar thing indeed.
Abolitionism was the beginning of the modern Left (around the late 18th century), yet it has been tacitly dumped even while the rhetoric around slavery, its usage as a rationalization for subversion of tradition, is more heated than ever.
And nobody notices!
This is because our reality is now the mass media. Never mind what is happening in real life, never mind that (sex) slaves were discovered a few streets away from where I live. So long as slavery has been abolished from the mass media, that is enough, that is the really important thing for Leftism. That way the Left has all the rhetorical benefits of fanatical abolitionism, but none of the destructive implications that effective anti-slavery action would have on the truly sacred imperative of multiculturalism.
Job done...
*
The fact that slavery was all-but universal until a couple of hundred years ago is used as the standard, off-the-peg, number one knock-down argument to justify that because our ancestors were wrong about slavery, they are probably wrong about everything else; and therefore (so the argument goes) every specific aspect of traditional culture should be challenged, subverted then inverted.
*
This argument - used many thousands of times per hour in the West - assumes that modern, decent Liberals and Leftists are truly anti-slavery; which of course they are not.
*
Liberals and leftists always do say they are anti-slavery, just as they might assert that the moon is made of green cheese (people can say anything they like, cost free - so long as it is socially sanctioned, which naturally this is).
*
But if we assume that the people who actually abolished slavery - the abolitionist movement - are those who were really and truly anti-slavery, then it is clear that there are almost no such people in the world today; at least none with significant power.
*
To be an abolitionist in the old sense is to be anti-slavery full stop.
*
To be an abolitionist was not to be prudential about slavery, not to regard slavery as bad because it led to greater suffering, but to regard slavery as an intrinsic evil.
*
An abolitionist might admit that to be a slave with a good and kind master is a happier state than many others regimes under which humans live - but still insist on the abolition of slavery.
The abolitionists took no account of the cost in lives and treasure (including the lives of slaves) of abolishing slavery.
Even when the abolition of slavery left ex-slaves starving, diseased, degraded, and extremely violent (as in Haiti) this made no difference at all to the imperative that slavery be abolished.
Even though slavery was in fact abolished in many parts of the world only at gunpoint: this was a secondary consideration - for abolitionists slavery must be abolished: end of story.
*
In sum - an abolitionist would seek-out and and extirpate slavery by whatever means were effective.
This is how slavery actually was abolished. It did not matter where the slavery was - even in deepest Africa, or in the parched deserts of Arabia - slavery was never left alone, slave states were never allowed to opt-out.
For decade after decade, the full force of the British Empire was brought to bear against slavers and they were forced to yield until slavery was abolished everywhere except in some very poor places in the middle of Africa - which held-out through the war torn 20th century until the British Empire collapsed.
*
But slavery came back. Of course. Because slavery is a spontaneous occurrence in all sedentary societies, and if it is not being continually sought-out and extirpated it will be there.
Ignorant folks were surprised to 'discover' long term slavery in the UK in a recent news story - fools! There are at least many hundreds of slaves in the UK- maybe many thousands depending on how slavery is defined, where you draw the line. There must be - what is stopping it?
And if nothing effective is stopping slavery, there will be slavery.
*
Slavery was brought back into into England by multiculturalism, and is protected from awareness by multiculturalism. Indeed multiculturalism has created an environment in which all the enlightenment horrors have returned, have been sealed-off from inspection and made immune to effective action. Multiculturalism created a situation in which it is not merely pointless to detect and discuss such matters - but counter-productive, since the attempt to expose and eliminate slavery creates further legalistic evasions and protections for slavery within the system.
*
Full-blooded abolitionism was in fact an evil, which is why it was universally abandoned. It was an evil because it was single issue politics, fanatical and without prudence.
Abolitionism naturally led to massive suffering, since it was so devoted to its primary imperative that all other problems were accepted and excused.
This was a particular problem since, as we now see, abolition of slavery was unstable - it was not a matter of getting rid of slavery once for all. Slavery keeps coming back, and keeps needing to be suppressed all the time.
Therefore any society - any culture - which is not subject to this suppression will tend to reintroduce de facto slavery (although it may be disguised legalistically).
*
The proper attitude to slavery is prudential, not fanatical - slavery is an undesirable state, and slavery should be suppressed unless to do so makes matters worse, when it should be regulated (i.e. slaves must be treated well, or at least not cruelly and arbitrarily) - but prudence is not what we have now.
The attitude towards slavery we have under triumphant modern Leftism is mere expediency. If Leftist opposition to slavery were prudential then they would argue, explicitly, that slavery was permissible under certain conditions. For example, they would need to argue explicitly that slavery was permissible under multiculturalism, since Leftists are clearly prepared to tolerate slavery in non-Western cultures.
However, the Left do not so argue; instead they pretend to abolitionism: pretend to be always, absolutely and implacably opposed to slavery under all possible circumstances.
*
So, the Left spout pure abolitionist rhetoric 24/7 but (implicitly and dishonestly) recognize that actually to act to detect and extirpate slavery would be to weaken their own legitimacy as based in multiculturalism - so they make sure they do not detect it, if detected do not use coercion, do not publicize examples of slavery, and when there are examples the media very quickly forget it. Down the memory hole with it!
Yet, very obviously, in the modern surveillance society that is the UK, if the authorities wanted to detect and extirpate slavery then the task would be facile - it would take a few weeks merely. That this does not happen shows that the authorities place the abolition of slavery as a low priority, a much lower priority than - for instance - advocating, imposing and sustaining multiculturalism.
*
Think about it: by revealed preferences the Left - while pretending to absolute abolitionism - wants multiculturalism even at the cost of reintroducing slavery to the West.
That is what we are up against.
*
So the triumph of the Left is a peculiar thing indeed.
Abolitionism was the beginning of the modern Left (around the late 18th century), yet it has been tacitly dumped even while the rhetoric around slavery, its usage as a rationalization for subversion of tradition, is more heated than ever.
And nobody notices!
This is because our reality is now the mass media. Never mind what is happening in real life, never mind that (sex) slaves were discovered a few streets away from where I live. So long as slavery has been abolished from the mass media, that is enough, that is the really important thing for Leftism. That way the Left has all the rhetorical benefits of fanatical abolitionism, but none of the destructive implications that effective anti-slavery action would have on the truly sacred imperative of multiculturalism.
Job done...
*
Monday 3 October 2011
Blogger 'Benedict Seraphim': "neutrality is not only impossible, it's damning"
*
From: http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2003/08/19/that-hideous-strength-chs-10-13/
*
“I mean this,” said Dimble in answer to the question she had not asked. “If you dip into any college, or schoool, or parish, or family–anything you like–at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous.
Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing.
The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder. . ..”
(That Hideous Strength - by C.S. Lewis - p. 283)
*
One might well argue with Lewis whether Dark Age Britain was a place where one could be both Christian and develop knowledge about the elemental powers of the world. Lewis, is, after all, writing a fairy tale, and borrowing from Tolkien.
But what is most certainly true, since the coming of Christ and the bringing forth by the Spirit of the Church, the Truth of the narrowing of choices, the Truth of the two paths and the two masters, has been becoming ever more real.
If there is a narrow and squeezing path, the one of life, there is only one other path, the broad and level one leading to death. This is no melodrama. It is the stark reality of the Gospel. It is why we must repent.
Which does not mean adding a bit here, a bit there, some of this, some of that, and icing it over with some “Christian” words. Christ is the stone on which we are broken, or underneath which we will be crushed. We either know his love as mercy or as judgment. We cannot know it as indifference.
*
While some Christian teachers would focus on various world events to foretell the scheduled events of the Apocaplyse, it seems to me that a look at the Christian world of thousands of denominations is perhaps a better barometer.
*
Take for example, the Great Schism. In the sixth century, when the council of Toledo introduced the filioque, one could perhaps afford to be somewhat tolerant of the innovation.
But when combined with the Roman bishops’ quest for political supremacy, with the ever-growing distance in language and culture, by Christmas Day 1054, such neutral choices were no longer available.
*
Or the Protestant Reformation. At the time, it was intended as, indeed, a reform.
But with social and political retrenchments growing on both sides, excommunication surely came. By the time of Trent, it was no longer possible to be neutral.
*
One could bring up lesser, if not the less important, matters of our own recent days. In the Episcopal Church, one might have found it possible to be neutral on the sexuality issue.
But this is no longer a possibility. For good or for ill, one must now choose one’s allegiance across the divide of a non-celibate gay bishop.
*
In the evangelical world, the choices are more numerous because the divisions are so rife, and the consistencies of constituencies so inconsistent.
But with the proliferation of choice, one’s actual choices narrow.
Simply because one can choose from dozens of Bible translations, worship styles, ecclesial polities, and ministries, one is finally faced with only one choice: the serving of self or God. (...).
*
This, I think, is what C. S. Lewis means through his Dr. Dimble. And I agree with the thought: we live in an age where neutrality is not only impossible, it’s damning.
If we cannot answer “Yes” that some decision will more clearly reveal the Lordship of Christ in our lives, then to make that decision will be to unmake ourselves.
For the reality is that we are servants. It is given to us, in the multiple thousands of choices each day, to decide whom we will serve.
*
From: http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2003/08/19/that-hideous-strength-chs-10-13/
*
From: http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2003/08/19/that-hideous-strength-chs-10-13/
*
“I mean this,” said Dimble in answer to the question she had not asked. “If you dip into any college, or schoool, or parish, or family–anything you like–at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous.
Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing.
The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder. . ..”
(That Hideous Strength - by C.S. Lewis - p. 283)
*
One might well argue with Lewis whether Dark Age Britain was a place where one could be both Christian and develop knowledge about the elemental powers of the world. Lewis, is, after all, writing a fairy tale, and borrowing from Tolkien.
But what is most certainly true, since the coming of Christ and the bringing forth by the Spirit of the Church, the Truth of the narrowing of choices, the Truth of the two paths and the two masters, has been becoming ever more real.
If there is a narrow and squeezing path, the one of life, there is only one other path, the broad and level one leading to death. This is no melodrama. It is the stark reality of the Gospel. It is why we must repent.
Which does not mean adding a bit here, a bit there, some of this, some of that, and icing it over with some “Christian” words. Christ is the stone on which we are broken, or underneath which we will be crushed. We either know his love as mercy or as judgment. We cannot know it as indifference.
*
While some Christian teachers would focus on various world events to foretell the scheduled events of the Apocaplyse, it seems to me that a look at the Christian world of thousands of denominations is perhaps a better barometer.
*
Take for example, the Great Schism. In the sixth century, when the council of Toledo introduced the filioque, one could perhaps afford to be somewhat tolerant of the innovation.
But when combined with the Roman bishops’ quest for political supremacy, with the ever-growing distance in language and culture, by Christmas Day 1054, such neutral choices were no longer available.
*
Or the Protestant Reformation. At the time, it was intended as, indeed, a reform.
But with social and political retrenchments growing on both sides, excommunication surely came. By the time of Trent, it was no longer possible to be neutral.
*
One could bring up lesser, if not the less important, matters of our own recent days. In the Episcopal Church, one might have found it possible to be neutral on the sexuality issue.
But this is no longer a possibility. For good or for ill, one must now choose one’s allegiance across the divide of a non-celibate gay bishop.
*
In the evangelical world, the choices are more numerous because the divisions are so rife, and the consistencies of constituencies so inconsistent.
But with the proliferation of choice, one’s actual choices narrow.
Simply because one can choose from dozens of Bible translations, worship styles, ecclesial polities, and ministries, one is finally faced with only one choice: the serving of self or God. (...).
*
This, I think, is what C. S. Lewis means through his Dr. Dimble. And I agree with the thought: we live in an age where neutrality is not only impossible, it’s damning.
If we cannot answer “Yes” that some decision will more clearly reveal the Lordship of Christ in our lives, then to make that decision will be to unmake ourselves.
For the reality is that we are servants. It is given to us, in the multiple thousands of choices each day, to decide whom we will serve.
*
From: http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2003/08/19/that-hideous-strength-chs-10-13/
*
Do good outcomes eventuate from bad motivations?
*
Modernity is predicated on the conviction (derived from Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' argument) that with the right system (e.g. markets, democratic voting, competition and selection, conjecture and refutation, trial and error, peer review, or in general management), bad motivations in individuals can lead to good outcomes - therefore (ultimately) we should ignore motivations and focus on systems.
*
We can (and should) rely on the butcher's desire to make a profit in a competitive market in order to ensure that he supplies good meat at a reasonable price; and we can and should ignore whether the butcher personally wants to supply good meat at a reasonable price or whether instead he wants to provide bad meat, and trick people out of their money - or maybe wants to poison them for the fun of it. Don't worry - says modernity - the market will sort it out...
The idea is that the market prevents the butcher from being bad (by punishing bad butchers) and thus the system has an intrinsic tendency to channel humans to do good (even when those individuals are inclined to be bad).
*
Similarly in science, the peer review system is supposed to ensure that incompetent and dishonest scientists are prevented from succeeding while those (of whatever motivation) who do 'good work' will thrive.
And in politics, the system of democracy is supposed to take whatever human raw material is fed-into the voting, and create from it good government - good government is that which the electoral system vomits-forth. The old notion that a good system is that which leads to and facilitates good government is now obsolete and deemed 'fascist'.
*
Indeed, the implicit assumption of modernity is that only systems (systems of the right sort) can lead to good outcomes.
Furthermore that requiring good motivations is tantamount to relying entirely on good intentions to yield good outcomes.
*
Humans are simple dichotomous souls - and if they infer that creating the best systems is more important than the individual motivations of the humans beings who work in the systems - pretty soon they start ignoring human motivations altogether.
And, motivations are predictions: understood by those 1. 'gut instincts' ('theory of mind') with which normal humans are born ; or 2. the assumption that what people have done, they will probably continue to do; or 3. group knowledge (from experience) that people of a certain type have a tendency to behave in certain ways.
Yet under politically correctness; to infer human motivations - that is, to predict human behaviour on the basis of group membership, past behavior or because of gut feelings - is to be prejudiced.
And prejudice is of course the most evil thing in the world, ever.
Because while predictions of human behavior are right more often than wrong, and are therefore useful - indeed essential; all such inferences may be wrong.
*
Yes indeedy - individual decisions may be wrong - but (I ask) compared with what?
If individual decisions may be wrong then this is only relevant if we know what is never wrong, what is always right?
The unstated inference is that while individuals may be wrong, systems may always be right.
*
So, as a matter of principle we are compelled to ignore inferences concerning the motivations of others.
We are not allowed to listen to gut feelings, learn from experience or use group level knowledge.
We must rely on systems, must rely completely on systems.
*
So what happens?
In the first place and immediately, the quality of systems declines sharply because those who choose the human being in the systems are not even trying to appoint the best motivated, and people who are known to be badly motivated nonetheless get appointed and continue to work.
Then there is an increasing degradation of human motivations due to the continuous societal pressure to suppress consideration of motivations - more and more attention goes into creating the perfect fool-proof system which is (supposedly) utterly immune to the motivations of the humans who implement it.
Indeed, humans are perceived and evaluated in terms of their ability to implement what the system requires: to deliver goods, education, health services.
Systems routinely chew-up and spit-out the best people - it happens all the time; the people who are well-motivated and do a good job are eliminated, because the system ultimately recognizes as 'good' only obedience to perceived and defined system requirements.
*
Humans are simple, dichotomous souls: either they will try to choose the best people, with the system shaped in terms of what helps the best people; or to construct the best system, with the people shaped in terms of what helps the system.
Yet systems cannot and do not pursue The Good, because they do not know The Good, therefore do not even try to pursue the Good. The more priority we give to systems the worse things become.
Bad people will always subvert good systems; ultimately because there are an unlimited number of ways of doing evil and wrong, and pursuing ugliness and lies, to do nothing or be selfish when people are thus motivated - yet the system is finite.
And good people will always tend to be rejected by systems, because it is possible for people to be good but systems cannot be good; therefore the pursuit of actual good by individual humans must bring them into conflict with any actual system.
And if the system is intrinsically favored over the individual, then effective good will incrementally be extirpated from social systems...
*
(Looks around... Oh my goodness! - it has already happened!)
*
Modernity is predicated on the conviction (derived from Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' argument) that with the right system (e.g. markets, democratic voting, competition and selection, conjecture and refutation, trial and error, peer review, or in general management), bad motivations in individuals can lead to good outcomes - therefore (ultimately) we should ignore motivations and focus on systems.
*
We can (and should) rely on the butcher's desire to make a profit in a competitive market in order to ensure that he supplies good meat at a reasonable price; and we can and should ignore whether the butcher personally wants to supply good meat at a reasonable price or whether instead he wants to provide bad meat, and trick people out of their money - or maybe wants to poison them for the fun of it. Don't worry - says modernity - the market will sort it out...
The idea is that the market prevents the butcher from being bad (by punishing bad butchers) and thus the system has an intrinsic tendency to channel humans to do good (even when those individuals are inclined to be bad).
*
Similarly in science, the peer review system is supposed to ensure that incompetent and dishonest scientists are prevented from succeeding while those (of whatever motivation) who do 'good work' will thrive.
And in politics, the system of democracy is supposed to take whatever human raw material is fed-into the voting, and create from it good government - good government is that which the electoral system vomits-forth. The old notion that a good system is that which leads to and facilitates good government is now obsolete and deemed 'fascist'.
*
Indeed, the implicit assumption of modernity is that only systems (systems of the right sort) can lead to good outcomes.
Furthermore that requiring good motivations is tantamount to relying entirely on good intentions to yield good outcomes.
*
Humans are simple dichotomous souls - and if they infer that creating the best systems is more important than the individual motivations of the humans beings who work in the systems - pretty soon they start ignoring human motivations altogether.
And, motivations are predictions: understood by those 1. 'gut instincts' ('theory of mind') with which normal humans are born ; or 2. the assumption that what people have done, they will probably continue to do; or 3. group knowledge (from experience) that people of a certain type have a tendency to behave in certain ways.
Yet under politically correctness; to infer human motivations - that is, to predict human behaviour on the basis of group membership, past behavior or because of gut feelings - is to be prejudiced.
And prejudice is of course the most evil thing in the world, ever.
Because while predictions of human behavior are right more often than wrong, and are therefore useful - indeed essential; all such inferences may be wrong.
*
Yes indeedy - individual decisions may be wrong - but (I ask) compared with what?
If individual decisions may be wrong then this is only relevant if we know what is never wrong, what is always right?
The unstated inference is that while individuals may be wrong, systems may always be right.
*
So, as a matter of principle we are compelled to ignore inferences concerning the motivations of others.
We are not allowed to listen to gut feelings, learn from experience or use group level knowledge.
We must rely on systems, must rely completely on systems.
*
So what happens?
In the first place and immediately, the quality of systems declines sharply because those who choose the human being in the systems are not even trying to appoint the best motivated, and people who are known to be badly motivated nonetheless get appointed and continue to work.
Then there is an increasing degradation of human motivations due to the continuous societal pressure to suppress consideration of motivations - more and more attention goes into creating the perfect fool-proof system which is (supposedly) utterly immune to the motivations of the humans who implement it.
Indeed, humans are perceived and evaluated in terms of their ability to implement what the system requires: to deliver goods, education, health services.
Systems routinely chew-up and spit-out the best people - it happens all the time; the people who are well-motivated and do a good job are eliminated, because the system ultimately recognizes as 'good' only obedience to perceived and defined system requirements.
*
Humans are simple, dichotomous souls: either they will try to choose the best people, with the system shaped in terms of what helps the best people; or to construct the best system, with the people shaped in terms of what helps the system.
Yet systems cannot and do not pursue The Good, because they do not know The Good, therefore do not even try to pursue the Good. The more priority we give to systems the worse things become.
Bad people will always subvert good systems; ultimately because there are an unlimited number of ways of doing evil and wrong, and pursuing ugliness and lies, to do nothing or be selfish when people are thus motivated - yet the system is finite.
And good people will always tend to be rejected by systems, because it is possible for people to be good but systems cannot be good; therefore the pursuit of actual good by individual humans must bring them into conflict with any actual system.
And if the system is intrinsically favored over the individual, then effective good will incrementally be extirpated from social systems...
*
(Looks around... Oh my goodness! - it has already happened!)
*
Sunday 2 October 2011
Modern man: the ethical giant...
*
CS Lewis often pointed out the Christianity was added to and a completion of natural law and good paganism.
Therefore much of The Good, most, was taken for granted as being obvious, spontaneous, inborn.
The anciently conceived Good was a unity of virtue, truth a beauty.
*
So modern 'thinkers' arrive on the scene having rejected the vast submerged iceberg of the natural and the spontaneous, and having isolated virtue (ethics) from the true and the beautiful; and they tackle an issue like the death penalty, or war, or marriage by considering it on the assumption that all previous generations were evil fools and a few minutes of sensible consideration by people such as themselves should easily be able to supersede them...
*
And so we discover that the death penalty is evil, and pacifism is imperative, and marriage is just a convenient contract... and all of humanity before a few decades ago, and ninety something percent of humanity now, was and is wicked or stupid or both; and we ourselves, our generation, are in fact and in deed the most virtuous ever - modern enlightened humans are nothing less than ethical giants who colossally bestride human kind: evaluating, judging, laying down the law...
Wow!
*
And yet.
I look around at the world of careerists, expedience merchants and intellectual pygmies who make these amazing moral discoveries such as the intrinsic and universal evilness of the death penalty; these sold-out academics, media pundits and pub debaters who claim to have superseded the justice of the ages (the great philosophers, the Saints and martyrs) - and am simply stunned at the mismatch.
It really is bizarre that the most self-indulgent and hedonistic generations to inhabit the planet should regard themselves as moral experts and exemplars - of all things!
Untrammeled pleasure-seeking, unbridled self-expression and changing the rules to facilitate these are one thing - but to preen oneself as an ethical giant?
Did Caligula and Nero regard themselves as moral authorities?
*
CS Lewis often pointed out the Christianity was added to and a completion of natural law and good paganism.
Therefore much of The Good, most, was taken for granted as being obvious, spontaneous, inborn.
The anciently conceived Good was a unity of virtue, truth a beauty.
*
So modern 'thinkers' arrive on the scene having rejected the vast submerged iceberg of the natural and the spontaneous, and having isolated virtue (ethics) from the true and the beautiful; and they tackle an issue like the death penalty, or war, or marriage by considering it on the assumption that all previous generations were evil fools and a few minutes of sensible consideration by people such as themselves should easily be able to supersede them...
*
And so we discover that the death penalty is evil, and pacifism is imperative, and marriage is just a convenient contract... and all of humanity before a few decades ago, and ninety something percent of humanity now, was and is wicked or stupid or both; and we ourselves, our generation, are in fact and in deed the most virtuous ever - modern enlightened humans are nothing less than ethical giants who colossally bestride human kind: evaluating, judging, laying down the law...
Wow!
*
And yet.
I look around at the world of careerists, expedience merchants and intellectual pygmies who make these amazing moral discoveries such as the intrinsic and universal evilness of the death penalty; these sold-out academics, media pundits and pub debaters who claim to have superseded the justice of the ages (the great philosophers, the Saints and martyrs) - and am simply stunned at the mismatch.
It really is bizarre that the most self-indulgent and hedonistic generations to inhabit the planet should regard themselves as moral experts and exemplars - of all things!
Untrammeled pleasure-seeking, unbridled self-expression and changing the rules to facilitate these are one thing - but to preen oneself as an ethical giant?
Did Caligula and Nero regard themselves as moral authorities?
*
Saturday 1 October 2011
The in-toeing epidemic (pigeon-toed gait) - estrogen?
*
The mystery of the in-toeing (pigeon-toed) epidemic among young women continues:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/09/pigeon-toed-gait-endemic-among.html
(I am convinced that this gait is not an affectation - I am sure it is involuntary in most instances.)
The best suggested explanation came from Paul Jaminet - vitamin D deficiency; with its bone-softening effects.
This suggests that in-toeing may be a result of softening of the feet, in some way, shape or form; if not bones them perhaps joints?...
Which then leads on to the idea that it might be due to some increase in estrogen - whether natural, in contraceptives, or as an environmental pollutant (which may explain why surprising numbers of men walk this way too).
The only 'evidence' I can present for this is that estrogen softens and loosens joints (i.e. softening the ligaments that join bones to bones - this is well known in pregnancy) - perhaps making the ankles or internal joints of the foot more 'floppy', and hyper-flexible feet may cause the observed change in gait?
Well, I'm not very convinced by this - but the phenomenon is real and new, and there must be some explanation!
*
NOTE added - on further reflection I think the problem is likely to be neural - neuromuscular - rather than musculoskeletal - and subtly neuromuscular - hence perhaps related to basal ganglia dysfunction.
What ever causes basal ganglion dysfunction might be environmental toxins of some sort; but could also be infective - as many new diseases eventually turn-out to be.
The mystery of the in-toeing (pigeon-toed) epidemic among young women continues:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/09/pigeon-toed-gait-endemic-among.html
(I am convinced that this gait is not an affectation - I am sure it is involuntary in most instances.)
The best suggested explanation came from Paul Jaminet - vitamin D deficiency; with its bone-softening effects.
This suggests that in-toeing may be a result of softening of the feet, in some way, shape or form; if not bones them perhaps joints?...
Which then leads on to the idea that it might be due to some increase in estrogen - whether natural, in contraceptives, or as an environmental pollutant (which may explain why surprising numbers of men walk this way too).
The only 'evidence' I can present for this is that estrogen softens and loosens joints (i.e. softening the ligaments that join bones to bones - this is well known in pregnancy) - perhaps making the ankles or internal joints of the foot more 'floppy', and hyper-flexible feet may cause the observed change in gait?
Well, I'm not very convinced by this - but the phenomenon is real and new, and there must be some explanation!
*
NOTE added - on further reflection I think the problem is likely to be neural - neuromuscular - rather than musculoskeletal - and subtly neuromuscular - hence perhaps related to basal ganglia dysfunction.
What ever causes basal ganglion dysfunction might be environmental toxins of some sort; but could also be infective - as many new diseases eventually turn-out to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)