*
I have been, very belatedly, hooked by the Harry Potter series; which initially I was indifferent-to, or mildly hostile about.
It required that I read the end of the series (to 'get' what the books were doing) and then went back and read the earlier books (albeit in some peculiar order, which I cannot now recall).
Now I am very taken with them, and regard them as genuinely inspired (whereas, previously, I saw them as merely ingeniously contrived - the product of a magpie bricolateur, rather than of a wise and farseeing owl - as I now think).
*
The most stunning, and heartening, thing about the series is their moral seriousness underpinned by a transcendental perspective: which is pretty much exactly what the modern world requires.
The Harry Potter books provide a rich Christian perspective - but not too rich nor too obvious (indeed, not-at-all obvious - there is their strength); they provide about as much as our deeply corrupt and barren modern world can reasonably digest.
Much more, and the books would have been merely a cult. As it is, there is a great deal in HP, and it has gone out to tens (or, more likely, hundreds) of millions of people - and the books have not merely been read-through, but devoured, multi-read, and assimilated.
Remarkable.
*
The first and most vital thing is that the Harry Potter series is predicated on the reality of the immortal soul.
The reality of the soul is not argued; it is accepted: as indeed it must be.
It is there; indispensable and woven through the whole story: Death is real, necessary and irreversible; yet the soul is eternal.
And the soul is regarded as being a person's primary concern; susceptible of change as a result of choices.
(And free will is foundational, assumed, intrinsic to the series as well, as it must be.)
The soul can be maimed and diminished, irreversibly, by choices during life - as we discover from Harry's sight of Voldemort's maimed and diminished soul in the King's Cross chapter of Deathly Hallows.
Such damage cannot be undone after death.
That is what I mean by moral seriousness.
How many other works of late twentieth century mainstream literature can compare with this? I can't think of any at all.
*
The second aspect is prophecy.
We moderns have a big, big problem with the reality of prophecy - which I take it is a self-made and artificial problem, because earlier generations did not share it.
That there were real prophecies was a given: the problems related to discerning the real prophets and prophecies from the fake; and understanding the real prophecies, and recognizing when they were being, or had been, fulfilled.
But the reality of the phenomenon of prophecy was not in question.
*
In relation to Harry Potter the explicit explanation of prophecy (both from Dumbledore, and by JKR) is psychological - prophecies are real because (and only because) people believe them, and make them come true.
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/19/new-interview-with-j-k-rowling-for-release-of-dutch-edition-of-deathly-hallows
But as pointed out in this insightful blog posting...
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2008/08/prophecy-potter.html
...this is not quite right, since Dumbledore clearly recognizes when Professor Trelawney is making a real prophecy (only twice, when she goes into an altered state of consciousness and is apparently unaware of what she is saying and does not recall it), and when she is just consciously making-up stuff.
*
My feeling is that these are moments when JKR is pointing off-stage, beyond the world of HP, since true prophecy is supernaturally inspired (and is beyond the capability of 'magic'); ultimately true prophecy would imply God.
(Prophecy implies God even when a specific prophecy might well be 'demonic' - indeed it might well be that most true prophecies were indeed demonic - because the existence of demons is predicated on the existence of God)
Rowling must have known, or been inspired to act on the basis, that she could not bring God explicitly into Harry Potter, or else her book would have been restricted to a Christian genre and a Christian sub-culture.
The Harry Potter novels are therefore compatible with a Christian perspective, subtly point to that perspective, but in an entirely optional and 'deniable' fashion.
You don't need to acknowledge the presence of Christian underpinnings; but they are there if you notice them, want them, or need them.
*
As CS Lewis recognized after publishing That Hideous Strength and Perelandra, it is one advantage for the Christian apologist in our secular public discourse that almost any amount of theology can be 'smuggled' into fantasy novels without being detected, but still having an effect - so long as it is not explicitly labelled as such.
*
Given the sheer scale of their sales, and the obvious devotion of their readership (and no book can have much real influence on people unless it inspires multiple re-readings - which the series clearly does) - I would have to regard the Harry Potter books as one of the most hopeful and potentially fruitful recent phenomena of the Western world.
*
Monday 7 February 2011
Why does one-step reasoning dominate in modern discourse?
*
Short answer, because there is nothing to underpin modern discourse.
One-step reasoning is scaffolding cantilevered over an abyss of nihilism: so there is no incentive to point out this fact.
*
By one-step reasoning I mean that a question posed in modern discourse carries the expectation that it be answered in its own terms, briefly (preferably in a single sentence), conclusively, and without reference to any other mode of discourse.
To question the discourse is to demolish it. Therefore:
It is not permitted to re-frame the question as ill-formed or prejudiced;
It is not permitted to refer to transcendental values ('the good' or evil; truth, beauty or virtue).
Hence the shallowness, rhetorical trickery, emotional manipulation of all modern public discourse.
*
Hence we simply get several or many incommensurable answers to any particular question from the discourses of politics, law, economics, the media, education, science, 'ethics', religion...
Which discourse prevails in a specific instance is simply a matter of which one is successfully imposed.
And there is no possibility of principled compromise, because there is no underpinning value (whether general or specific) which might be optimized by a compromise.
So, instead of compromise, we get horse-trading, deal-cutting, carve-ups and trade-offs.
*
But nothing can be done about it. Everyone is as bad as everyone else: and purportedly 'in-depth' analysis is merely distally incoherent at the third-step of reasoning, instead of at the proximate second-step.
*
We have now arrived at Ralph Waldo Emerson's desired state when he asks: "Let us having nothing now which is not its own evidence"
- that is to say, self-evident within an already-established mode of discourse.
No more to be said: nothing to say.
*
Short answer, because there is nothing to underpin modern discourse.
One-step reasoning is scaffolding cantilevered over an abyss of nihilism: so there is no incentive to point out this fact.
*
By one-step reasoning I mean that a question posed in modern discourse carries the expectation that it be answered in its own terms, briefly (preferably in a single sentence), conclusively, and without reference to any other mode of discourse.
To question the discourse is to demolish it. Therefore:
It is not permitted to re-frame the question as ill-formed or prejudiced;
It is not permitted to refer to transcendental values ('the good' or evil; truth, beauty or virtue).
Hence the shallowness, rhetorical trickery, emotional manipulation of all modern public discourse.
*
Hence we simply get several or many incommensurable answers to any particular question from the discourses of politics, law, economics, the media, education, science, 'ethics', religion...
Which discourse prevails in a specific instance is simply a matter of which one is successfully imposed.
And there is no possibility of principled compromise, because there is no underpinning value (whether general or specific) which might be optimized by a compromise.
So, instead of compromise, we get horse-trading, deal-cutting, carve-ups and trade-offs.
*
But nothing can be done about it. Everyone is as bad as everyone else: and purportedly 'in-depth' analysis is merely distally incoherent at the third-step of reasoning, instead of at the proximate second-step.
*
We have now arrived at Ralph Waldo Emerson's desired state when he asks: "Let us having nothing now which is not its own evidence"
- that is to say, self-evident within an already-established mode of discourse.
No more to be said: nothing to say.
*
The modern nihilist cult of the rebel - Seraphim (Eugene) Rose
*
Excerpted from Nihilism by Seraphim (Eugene) Rose, circa 1962. (Emphasis added by me)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
*
Nihilism is animated by a faith as strong, in its own way, and as spiritual in its root, as the Christian faith it attempts to destroy and supplant; its success, and its exaggerations, are explicable in no other way.(...)
Nihilist faith is similarly a context, a distinctive spirit which underlies and gives meaning and power to Nihilist doctrine. (...)
*
What, then, is the nature of the Nihilist faith?
It is the precise opposite of Christian faith, and so not properly called "faith" at all. Where Christian faith is joyous, certain, serene, loving, humble, patient, submitting in all things to the Will of God, its Nihilist counterpart is full of doubt, suspicion, disgust, envy, jealousy, pride, impatience, rebelliousness, blasphemy - one or more of these qualities predominating in any given personality.
It is an attitude of dissatisfaction with self, with the world, with society, with God; it knows but one thing: that it will not accept things as they are, but must devote its energies either to changing them or fleeing from them. (...)
*
Nihilist rebellion, like Christian faith, is an ultimate and irreducible spiritual attitude, having its source and its strength in itself - and, of course, in the supernatural author of rebellion. (...)
The Nihilist rejection of Christian faith and institutions, then, is the result, not so much of a loss of faith in them and in their divine origin (though, no Nihilism being pure, this skepticism is present also), as of rebellion against the authority they represent and the obedience they command.
The literature of 19th-century Humanism, Socialism, and Anarchism has as its constant theme the non serviam: God the Father, together with all His institutions and ministers, is to be over thrown and crushed, and triumphant Man is to ascend His throne to rule in his own right.
*
The Nihilist "revelation" thus declares, most immediately, the annihilation of authority. Some apologists are fond of citing "corruptions," "abuses," and "injustices" in the Old Order as justification for rebellion against it; but such things--the existence of which no one will deny--have been often the pretext, but never the cause, of Nihilist outbursts. It is authority itself that the Nihilist attacks.
In the political and social order, Nihilism manifests itself as a Revolution that intends, not a mere change of government or a more or less widespread reform of the existing order, but the establishment of an entirely new conception of the end and means of government.
In the religious order Nihilism seeks, not a mere reform of the Church and not even the foundation of a new "church" or "religion," but a complete refashioning of the idea of religion and of spiritual experience.
In art and literature the Nihilist is not concerned with the modification of old aesthetic canons regarding subject-matter or style, nor with the development of new genres or traditions, but with a whole new approach to the question of artistic "creation" and a new definition of "art."
*
It is the very first principles of these disciplines, and no mere remote or faulty applications of them, that Nihilism attacks. The disorder so apparent in contemporary politics, religion, art, and other realms as well, is a result of the deliberate and systematic annihilation of the foundations of authority in them.
Unprincipled politics and morality, undisciplined artistic expression, indiscriminate "religious experience"--all are the direct consequence of the application to once stable sciences and disciplines of the attitude of rebellion.
*
Nihilist rebellion has entered so deeply into the fibre of our age that resistance to it is feeble and ineffective; popular philosophy and most "serious thought" devote their energies to apology for it. (...)
*
But if "rebellion" is all the "natural man" may know today, why is it that the "natural man" of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment seemed to know much more, and thought himself to be a much nobler being?
"They took too much for granted," is the usual answer, and lived on Christian capital without knowing it; today we are bankrupt, and know it." Contemporary man, in a word, is "disillusioned."
But, strictly speaking, one must be "disillusioned" of an illusion: if men have fallen way, not from illusion, but from truth - and this is indeed the case - then profounder reasoning is required to explain their present "plight." That Camus can accept the "rebel" as the "natural man," that he can find everything "absurd" except "rebellion," means only one thing: he has been well-trained in the school of Nihilism, he has learned to accept the fight against God as the "natural" state of man.
*
To such a state has Nihilism reduced men.
Before the modern age the life of man was largely conditioned by the virtues of obedience, submission, and respect: to God, to the Church, to the lawful earthly authorities.
To the modern man whom Nihilism has "enlightened," this Old Order is but a horrible memory of some dark past from which man has been "liberated"; modern history has been the chronicle of the fall of every authority. The Old Order has been overthrown, and if a precarious stability is maintained in what is unmistakably an age of "transition, a "new order" is clearly in the making; the age of the "rebel" is at hand.
*
Of this age the Nihilist regimes of this century have given a foretaste, and the widespread rebelliousness of the present day is a further portent; where there is no truth, the rebellious will reigns.
But "the will," said Dostoyevsky, with his customary insight into the Nihilist mentality, "is closest to nothing; the most assertive are closest to the most nihilistic."
He who has abandoned truth and every authority founded upon that truth has only blind will between himself and the Abyss; and this will, whatever its spectacular achievements in its brief moment of power (those of Hitler and of Bolshevism have so far been the most spectacular), is irresistibly drawn to that Abyss as to some immense magnet that has searched out the answering abyss within itself.
***
My comment:
The problems of modernity - in its dominant form, the suicidal, self-hating, anti-human and almost all-pervasive ideology of political correctness - is mostly the product of generation upon generation of rebellious intellectuals - their pride, their self-assertion, their lust for power.
(Sins not at all distinctive to intellectuals - but lethal when combined with the abstracting tendency of intellectuals, and doubly lethal when these same intellectuals have assumed rulership.)
At last these rebels have liberated themselves from all constraint of absolute reality - mainstream modern intellectual life is now underpinned by 'culture' which is underpinned by nothing - they are free to reject all previous generations and to reject all the rest of the world.
Yet in rejecting all reality they embrace purposeless, meaningless, totalitarian bureaucracy.
*
Power to affect the world, to manipulate man, has become (merely) power to frame public reality.
Power to grow the economy has become power to control economic statistics.
*
Power to affect the world, to manipulate man, has become (merely) power to frame public reality.
Power to grow the economy has become power to control economic statistics.
Power to alleviate misery and cure disease has become peer review and consensus.
Power to predict has become the power to suppress dissent.
In sum, power over nature has been replaced by power over discourse.
*
In sum, power over nature has been replaced by power over discourse.
*
Thus nihilism destroys itself (of course!); thus the principle of universal and perpetual revolution leads to universal tyranny over not just bodies but souls (of course!).
Thus success (in any endeavor) becomes simply the ability to impose the assertion of success.
Thus the 19th century's romantic anarchist rebel against God and conventions has become the 21st century's charismatic, emotion-manipulating figurehead of a crushing PC bureaucratic machine for macerating all human souls within reach - including, pretty soon, his own.
Thus success (in any endeavor) becomes simply the ability to impose the assertion of success.
Thus the 19th century's romantic anarchist rebel against God and conventions has become the 21st century's charismatic, emotion-manipulating figurehead of a crushing PC bureaucratic machine for macerating all human souls within reach - including, pretty soon, his own.
*
Sunday 6 February 2011
JRR Tolkien's theology of The Fall and Resurrection
*
From The History of Middle Earth Volume 10 - edited by Christopher Tolkien - excerpted from pages 330-333.
*
With regard to King Finrod, it must be understood that he starts with certain basic beliefs, which he would have said were derived from one or more of these sources: his created nature; angelic instruction; thought; and experience.
1. There exists Eru (The One); that is, the One God Creator, who made (or more strictly designed) the World, but is not Himself the World. This world, or Universe, he calls Eä, an Elvish word that means 'It is', or 'Let It Be'.
2. There are on Earth 'incarnate' creatures, Elves and Men: these are made of a union of hröa and fëa (roughly but not exactly equivalent to 'body' and 'soul'). This, he would say, was a known fact concerning Elvish nature, and could therefore be deduced for human nature from the close kinship of Elves and Men.
3. Hröa and fëa he would say are wholly distinct in kind, and not on the 'same plane of derivation from Eru', but were designed each for the other, to abide in perpetual harmony. The fëa is indestructible, a unique identity which cannot be disintegrated or absorbed into any other identity. The hröa, however, can be destroyed and dissolved: that is a fact of experience. (In such a case he would describe the fëa as 'exiled' or 'houseless'.)
4. The separation of fëa and hröa is 'unnatural', and proceeds not from the original design, but from the 'Marring of Arda', which is due to the operations of Melkor.
5. Elvish 'immortality' is bounded within a part of Time (which he would call the History of Arda [Arda is roughly the earth and solar system]), and is therefore strictly to be called rather 'serial longevity', the utmost limit of which is the length of the existence of Arda. A corollary of this is that the Elvish fëa is also limited to the Time of Arda, or at least held within it and unable to leave it, while it lasts.
6. From this it would follow in thought, if it were not a fact of Elvish experience, that a 'houseless' Elvish fëa must have the power or opportunity to return to incarnate life, if it has the desire or will to do so. (...)
7. Since Men die, without accident, and whether they will to do so or not, their fëar must have a different relation to Time. The Elves believed, though they had no certain information, that the fëar of Men, if disembodied, left Time (sooner or later), and never returned.
* (…)
[Finrod] uncovers a concomitant tradition that the change in the condition of Men from their original design was due to a primeval disaster, about which human lore is unclear, or Andreth is at least unwilling to say much. He remains, nonetheless, in the opinion that the condition of Men before the disaster (or as we might say, of unfallen Man) cannot have been the same as that of the Elves.
That is, their 'immortality' cannot have been the longevity within Arda of the Elves; otherwise they would have been simply Elves, and their separate introduction later into the Drama by Eru would have no function.
He thinks that the notion of Men that, unchanged, they would not have died (in the sense of leaving Arda) is due to human misrepresentation of their own tradition, and possibly to envious comparison of themselves to the Elves.
For one thing, he does not think this fits, as we might say, 'the observable peculiarities of human psychology', as compared with Elvish feelings towards the visible world.
[Tolkien refers here to Finrod's observations that (in these respects, being different from elves) Men seem to feel they are visitors to the earth (Arda), not 'at home', in exile, perpetually dissatisfied, rapidly wearying of things, seeking of novelty, seeking of a satisfaction on earth which they never can achieve... From this he infers that men were not made for this world only.]
* (…)
[Finrod] therefore guesses that it is the fear of death that is the result of the disaster. It is feared because it now is combined with severance of hroa and fea.
But the fear of Men must have been designed to leave Arda willingly or indeed by desire - maybe after a longer time than the present average human life, but still in a time very short compared with Elvish lives.
Then basing his argument on the axiom that severance of hroa and fea is unnatural and contrary to design, he comes (or if you like jumps) to the conclusion that the fea of unfallen Man would have taken with it its hroa into the new mode of existence (free from Time).
In other words, that 'assumption' was the natural end of each human life, though as far as we know it has been the end of the only 'unfallen' member of Mankind.
[Tolkien refers here to Mary, the Mother of Jesus; and the ancient Catholic tradition that she died willingly and was bodily assumed directly to Heaven. However, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic tradition would not agree with Tolkien's Roman Catholic belief that Mary was 'unfallen'.]
My comments:
I regard JRR Tolkien as one of the wisest and most profound of men, and further I take the above discussion seriously as an attempt - within the subcreation of his Legendarium - to grapple with ultimate matters.
Furthermore, I find his reasoning compelling.
*
Note what he says about the necessary assumptions. In the case of the Elven King Finrod, these assumptions were based on his created nature; angelic instruction; thought; and experience.
In the case of Men (who have not lived among the 'angels' (Valar) as had elven King Finrod; the assumptions would be based on created nature, thought, experience - and any traditions concerning divine 'revelation'.
His conclusion is that the Fall (conceived as a turning away from God, and a worship of the Satanic figure of Melkor/ Morgoth - which is a turning away from love to power) led to fear of death, as a severance of (immortal) soul and (mortal) body which is unnatural and horrible.
Eru's original plan was that this would not have happened, but that Men on willingly accepting death at the end of their time on earth would go (body and soul) to another world (i.e. Heaven) which was out of Time.
Following the fall, and a time of fallen-ness where Men's souls were indeed severed from bodies at death, an alternative plan was devised by Eru whereby he himself would become a Man, and thereby (mystically) enable souls which had left the world without their bodies to be reunited with their proper bodies, using (roughly speaking) the 'memory' of the body which was retained by the soul.
*
This was (Tolkien explains elsewhere) the mechanism for elven reincarnation - a new body was 'regenerated' from the memory of the soul.
But the souls of Men were not like this (the special elven gift was memory), nor was reincarnation the destiny of Men.
After all, the souls of dead Men had left Arda (whereas elven souls remained in Arda), and were in a domain out of Time.
*
Only intervention by Eru could heal this situation, and any healing must allow for the free will of Men (which was part of the essence of Men and the 'reason' or purpose of their creation).
Against this was not just the free will of Men to reject any or all of the assumptions or to prefer power to love; but there was also the fact of the presence of evil in the fabric of the world (the tainting of the created world by Morgoth); the purposive evil of Morgoth himself, his allies (Sauron) and his corrupted servants - Balrogs, Dragons, Orcs; and the opposition of free Men who (each, by choice or assent) took Morgoth as their God.
This is Tolkien's indirect description of the Fall and Resurrection; and his explanation of the need for Resurrection.
*
Inter alia, Tolkien's description of Finrod's assumptions is also a description of Faith (belief in the reality of Erus and his nature), Hope (called Estel - by which knowledge of Eru implies goodness of divine purpose) - and the distinctive Christian virtue of Charity (Love, Agape) is implied by the contrast with Pride and Power-seeking which are distinctive sins of the two Falls of Men - the primary fall of the worship of Morgoth in the unrecorded history, and the secondary historical fall of Numenor into pride and power - finally capped by the Numenorean King again reinstating the worship of Morgoth - supervised by Morgoth's priest Sauron.
*
Friday 4 February 2011
Could 'the Fuhrerprinzip' save the West from death by red tape?
*
"The philosophy of [the Fuhrerprinzip - leader-principle] is that each organisation is seen as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader... has absolute responsibility in his/her own area, and complete subordination.
"This idea was based on the function of military organisations where it is still used today.
"The notion behind the civil use of the Führerprinzip was that unquestioning obedience to superiors produces order and prosperity which would be shared by those deemed 'worthy'. Given the chaotic state of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1933, this philosophy of 'cutting through red tape' was regarded by many Germans as a welcome change to what they had endured earlier.
"This principle was the law of the Nazi party and later transferred onto the whole German society.
"Most notable changes include the replacement of elected local governments by appointed mayors and the cancellation of associations and unions, whose leaders were elected, and their replacement by mandatory associations whose leaders were appointed."
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Fuhrerprinzip.html
*
Leaving aside the absurd and pejorative claim that 'unquestionaing obedience' has been or could ever be a principle of organization, the Fuhrerprincip [FP] has an different name: which is simply human leadership or leadership by humans: that is by individual persons.
And leadership by individual persons is the only form of leadership - anything else being control by non-humans processes.
The opposite of the FP, which we see around us everywhere in the modern world, is 'leadership' by committee vote - that is, 'leadership' not by humans but by whatever-happens-to-emerge-from an abstract process.
Which is not leadership at all.
And which involves the absolute subordination of humanity to bureaucracy.
*
Let's rewrite the former definition:
The philosophy of committee voting is that each organisation is seen as an hierarchy of committees, where every committee has absolute responsibility in its own area, and with complete subordination of lower committee decisions to the authority of higher committees.
This idea was based on the function of totalitarian state bureaucracies where it is still used today.
The notion behind the civil use of the committee vote principle was that unquestioning obedience to committee decisions produces order and prosperity which would be shared by those deemed 'worthy'.
Given its intrinsic tendency to generate and sustain work for themselves, this philosophy of 'creating ever more red tape' is regarded by many Leftists as a welcome change to what they had endured earlier.
This principle was the law of all mainstream democratic Leftist parties and later transferred onto the whole of Western society.
Most notable changes include the replacement of effective leaders (at every level and for every function) by committees.
*
What is interesting about the FP is that it was necessary to make it a principle, and to 'market' it (the Nazis being, initially, a mass populist party depending on mass popular support).
But of course what makes it necessary is the decades, now amounting to centuries, of propaganda for 'democracy' - that is, for choosing government by vote of a very large committee (of voters).
So in the modern world a committee of voters chooses a committee to govern it, and their policies are implemented by committees in public administration and - now - every aspect of life is regulated by committee vote which is (always and in every situation) regarded as morally superior to the individual.
*
How ironic that the only rational and efficient method of leadership is regarded as a creation of the Nazis! When it is actually, merely, the only rational and efficient method of leadership!
Of course, the trick is done by rhetoric, by the creation of straw men which automatically negate the rationality of common sense; such as 'absolute' responsibility and 'unquestioning' obedience.
This really means just responsibility and obedience; and naturally all complex human organizations are supposed to be organized on principle of responsibility and obedience - it is just that when decisions are made by committee vote the actuality is zero responsibility and obedience.
In a committee system, at most, there is only a patently unfair and arbitrary process of rewarding or scape-goating individuals for decisions which they did not make and which they could not control.
*
Might the Fuhrerprinzip make a comeback? To save the West from death by bureaucracy?
Indeed it might, because it is obviously superior as a principle of organization to committee voting; and obscuring this obviousness requires a vast and pervasive apparatus of propaganda which could, at any time, lose its effect and be usurped by spontaneous common sense.
And any Western society that did re-introduce 'the FP' (and replaced committees with individuals) would very rapidly be rewarded by a huge increase in power, efficiency and capability - as was Germany.
*
Why this almost certainly will not happen, does not happen, indeed why it has not already happened; provides an insight into what deeply wrong with the West at the level of functionality, and ultimately of spirituality.
*
"The philosophy of [the Fuhrerprinzip - leader-principle] is that each organisation is seen as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader... has absolute responsibility in his/her own area, and complete subordination.
"This idea was based on the function of military organisations where it is still used today.
"The notion behind the civil use of the Führerprinzip was that unquestioning obedience to superiors produces order and prosperity which would be shared by those deemed 'worthy'. Given the chaotic state of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1933, this philosophy of 'cutting through red tape' was regarded by many Germans as a welcome change to what they had endured earlier.
"This principle was the law of the Nazi party and later transferred onto the whole German society.
"Most notable changes include the replacement of elected local governments by appointed mayors and the cancellation of associations and unions, whose leaders were elected, and their replacement by mandatory associations whose leaders were appointed."
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Fuhrerprinzip.html
*
Leaving aside the absurd and pejorative claim that 'unquestionaing obedience' has been or could ever be a principle of organization, the Fuhrerprincip [FP] has an different name: which is simply human leadership or leadership by humans: that is by individual persons.
And leadership by individual persons is the only form of leadership - anything else being control by non-humans processes.
The opposite of the FP, which we see around us everywhere in the modern world, is 'leadership' by committee vote - that is, 'leadership' not by humans but by whatever-happens-to-emerge-from an abstract process.
Which is not leadership at all.
And which involves the absolute subordination of humanity to bureaucracy.
*
Let's rewrite the former definition:
The philosophy of committee voting is that each organisation is seen as an hierarchy of committees, where every committee has absolute responsibility in its own area, and with complete subordination of lower committee decisions to the authority of higher committees.
This idea was based on the function of totalitarian state bureaucracies where it is still used today.
The notion behind the civil use of the committee vote principle was that unquestioning obedience to committee decisions produces order and prosperity which would be shared by those deemed 'worthy'.
Given its intrinsic tendency to generate and sustain work for themselves, this philosophy of 'creating ever more red tape' is regarded by many Leftists as a welcome change to what they had endured earlier.
This principle was the law of all mainstream democratic Leftist parties and later transferred onto the whole of Western society.
Most notable changes include the replacement of effective leaders (at every level and for every function) by committees.
*
What is interesting about the FP is that it was necessary to make it a principle, and to 'market' it (the Nazis being, initially, a mass populist party depending on mass popular support).
But of course what makes it necessary is the decades, now amounting to centuries, of propaganda for 'democracy' - that is, for choosing government by vote of a very large committee (of voters).
So in the modern world a committee of voters chooses a committee to govern it, and their policies are implemented by committees in public administration and - now - every aspect of life is regulated by committee vote which is (always and in every situation) regarded as morally superior to the individual.
*
How ironic that the only rational and efficient method of leadership is regarded as a creation of the Nazis! When it is actually, merely, the only rational and efficient method of leadership!
Of course, the trick is done by rhetoric, by the creation of straw men which automatically negate the rationality of common sense; such as 'absolute' responsibility and 'unquestioning' obedience.
This really means just responsibility and obedience; and naturally all complex human organizations are supposed to be organized on principle of responsibility and obedience - it is just that when decisions are made by committee vote the actuality is zero responsibility and obedience.
In a committee system, at most, there is only a patently unfair and arbitrary process of rewarding or scape-goating individuals for decisions which they did not make and which they could not control.
*
Might the Fuhrerprinzip make a comeback? To save the West from death by bureaucracy?
Indeed it might, because it is obviously superior as a principle of organization to committee voting; and obscuring this obviousness requires a vast and pervasive apparatus of propaganda which could, at any time, lose its effect and be usurped by spontaneous common sense.
And any Western society that did re-introduce 'the FP' (and replaced committees with individuals) would very rapidly be rewarded by a huge increase in power, efficiency and capability - as was Germany.
*
Why this almost certainly will not happen, does not happen, indeed why it has not already happened; provides an insight into what deeply wrong with the West at the level of functionality, and ultimately of spirituality.
*
Thursday 3 February 2011
Explaining versus explaining-away: the example of group IQ differences
*
When I used to write about IQ (general intelligence) differences between groups, I found that there were two basic assumptions towards the topic.
Either someone accepts the spontaneous impression - supported by what-appears-to-be vast amounts of consistent evidence - that general intelligence differs between groups;
or else they assume that all groups are of equal intelligence.
*
If someone accepts that groups differ in intelligence then this can be used as a basis to explore the concept of intelligence, measure it, discover what influences it - and so on.
*
But if someone assume that all groups are of equal intelligence then they need to explain-away what they regard as misleading data - what indeed (given their assumption that in reality all groups are of equal intelligence) must be misleading evidence.
And the explaining-away process operates by suggesting one after another alternative explanation, until attention is exhausted or time runs-out.
*
So... IQ differences between groups are explained-away by attacking the concept of intelligence. Or suggesting that it is not completely free from problems.
But if the concept is convincingly defended, and no superior alternative hypothesis can be devised, then often the alternative explanation of personality differences is proposed.
So IQ differences are explained-away as being really down to personality differences.
*
But when it tuns out that personality differences are much the same as IQ differences (being similarly stable throughout life, and heritable) then personality differences must be explained-away - for instance in terms of childhood upbringing.
But how to explain differences in childhood upbringing?
Well differences in upbringing turn-out to have rather similar distributions and (from the point of view of defending an assumption of equality) the same kind of problems as both IQ and personality - so differences in childhood upbringing must be explained-away - say, in terms of, say, economic differences.
*
But how to account for economic differences, if you are not allowed to explain them in terms of intelligence, personality or prior upbringing?
Well... perhaps in terms of evil.
Economic inequality is a product of selfishness, let's say.
*
But how to account for the unequal distribution of selfishness - why are the economic-haves so much more selfish than the economic have-nots?
(Recalling that differences in selfishness cannot be explained in terms of IQ, personality, upbringing or economics? - all of which have been explained-away.)
*
Well, perhaps selfishness differences (and/ or economic factors) can be explained-away in terms of culture - some cultures, once established, have specific socio-political or ethical systems in relation to selfishness, or specific types of economies, which lead to everything else...
Yes, okay, but what about the differences between cultures?
*
The terminus of this debate can only come when the ultimate explanation is found to be random, sheer luck.
In explaining-away and explaining-away any departures from an observable state of equality between groups, the only stopping point is luck.
(Luck of climate, geography, the random acts of natural disasters, random differences in the effects of disease... whatever).
*
And furthermore it must be assumed that random chance is self-perpetuating - because repeated acts of pure chance would tend to equalize, not polarize - so there must be first luck and then some kind of intrinsic tendency for the unequal operations of chance to be sustained and amplified.
*
So, everything is down to randomness, and the tendency that random differences are self-perpetuating. What of it?
If the assumption of equality is to be sustained then luck must be regarded as an unacceptable reason for group differences, at best non-moral - but in practice luck must be regarded as immoral.
It must be regarded as morally wrong that some cultures have more luck than others.
Indeed this is the bottom line for assumptions of equality - luck is immoral.
*
According to this line of argument, since luck is immoral, therefore people must be equalized, to compensate them for the unfairness of bad luck.
(And the process of equalization must be impersonal, machine-like, algorithmic - in practice bureaucratic.)
*
But why?
I don't know - because (please try to follow this!) if it is (merely) our our culture that tells us that it is not right for luck to generate inequality, and culture is (merely) a matter of chance, then this moral principle (that random chance is evil) has zero traction.
That same morality which tells us that luck is unfair is itself (merely) a matter of chance.
In explaining-away apparent inequality of intelligence, you have explained-away any morality which might regard inequality of intelligence as undesirable.
*
So, by logical steps we reach a bottom line of nihilism in which nothing matters because nothing is real.
*
Sorry, I have momentarily forgotten; what was it we were trying to explain-away?
Oh yes, the apparent differences in intelligence between groups...
*
On the other hand, what if the spontaneously apparent differences in IQ between groups is real?
Just assume this, for a moment, for the sake of argument.
Errr... no problem with that.
No infinite regress opening-up with that assumption.
End of discussion.
*
When I used to write about IQ (general intelligence) differences between groups, I found that there were two basic assumptions towards the topic.
Either someone accepts the spontaneous impression - supported by what-appears-to-be vast amounts of consistent evidence - that general intelligence differs between groups;
or else they assume that all groups are of equal intelligence.
*
If someone accepts that groups differ in intelligence then this can be used as a basis to explore the concept of intelligence, measure it, discover what influences it - and so on.
*
But if someone assume that all groups are of equal intelligence then they need to explain-away what they regard as misleading data - what indeed (given their assumption that in reality all groups are of equal intelligence) must be misleading evidence.
And the explaining-away process operates by suggesting one after another alternative explanation, until attention is exhausted or time runs-out.
*
So... IQ differences between groups are explained-away by attacking the concept of intelligence. Or suggesting that it is not completely free from problems.
But if the concept is convincingly defended, and no superior alternative hypothesis can be devised, then often the alternative explanation of personality differences is proposed.
So IQ differences are explained-away as being really down to personality differences.
*
But when it tuns out that personality differences are much the same as IQ differences (being similarly stable throughout life, and heritable) then personality differences must be explained-away - for instance in terms of childhood upbringing.
But how to explain differences in childhood upbringing?
Well differences in upbringing turn-out to have rather similar distributions and (from the point of view of defending an assumption of equality) the same kind of problems as both IQ and personality - so differences in childhood upbringing must be explained-away - say, in terms of, say, economic differences.
*
But how to account for economic differences, if you are not allowed to explain them in terms of intelligence, personality or prior upbringing?
Well... perhaps in terms of evil.
Economic inequality is a product of selfishness, let's say.
*
But how to account for the unequal distribution of selfishness - why are the economic-haves so much more selfish than the economic have-nots?
(Recalling that differences in selfishness cannot be explained in terms of IQ, personality, upbringing or economics? - all of which have been explained-away.)
*
Well, perhaps selfishness differences (and/ or economic factors) can be explained-away in terms of culture - some cultures, once established, have specific socio-political or ethical systems in relation to selfishness, or specific types of economies, which lead to everything else...
Yes, okay, but what about the differences between cultures?
*
The terminus of this debate can only come when the ultimate explanation is found to be random, sheer luck.
In explaining-away and explaining-away any departures from an observable state of equality between groups, the only stopping point is luck.
(Luck of climate, geography, the random acts of natural disasters, random differences in the effects of disease... whatever).
*
And furthermore it must be assumed that random chance is self-perpetuating - because repeated acts of pure chance would tend to equalize, not polarize - so there must be first luck and then some kind of intrinsic tendency for the unequal operations of chance to be sustained and amplified.
*
So, everything is down to randomness, and the tendency that random differences are self-perpetuating. What of it?
If the assumption of equality is to be sustained then luck must be regarded as an unacceptable reason for group differences, at best non-moral - but in practice luck must be regarded as immoral.
It must be regarded as morally wrong that some cultures have more luck than others.
Indeed this is the bottom line for assumptions of equality - luck is immoral.
*
According to this line of argument, since luck is immoral, therefore people must be equalized, to compensate them for the unfairness of bad luck.
(And the process of equalization must be impersonal, machine-like, algorithmic - in practice bureaucratic.)
*
But why?
I don't know - because (please try to follow this!) if it is (merely) our our culture that tells us that it is not right for luck to generate inequality, and culture is (merely) a matter of chance, then this moral principle (that random chance is evil) has zero traction.
That same morality which tells us that luck is unfair is itself (merely) a matter of chance.
In explaining-away apparent inequality of intelligence, you have explained-away any morality which might regard inequality of intelligence as undesirable.
*
So, by logical steps we reach a bottom line of nihilism in which nothing matters because nothing is real.
*
Sorry, I have momentarily forgotten; what was it we were trying to explain-away?
Oh yes, the apparent differences in intelligence between groups...
*
On the other hand, what if the spontaneously apparent differences in IQ between groups is real?
Just assume this, for a moment, for the sake of argument.
Errr... no problem with that.
No infinite regress opening-up with that assumption.
End of discussion.
*
Wednesday 2 February 2011
Creative genius in Tolkien - the pride of Feanor
*
Being himself a creative genius of a high order, Tolkien felt a temptation of pride which was perhaps greater than for most.
In his depiction of the elf Feanor - he showed how pride can destroy everything which the greatest creative genius can achieve, and more.
*
Feanor was by far the most gifted among the gifted race of elves: as a scholar he invented the written script, as a craftsman he created many wonders but especially the Silmarils: three indestructible jewels of beauty unequalled by any products of human art, in which the light of the Two Trees was captured.
Gandalf said that, above all else in the world, he would wish to see the incomparable hand and mind of Feanor at work at the height of his powers.
Even the greatest of 'the gods' (except for 'the One' creator God - Eru) - the premier Archangel Melkor (later re-named Morgoth, by Feanor) could not match Feanor's creative genius, and coveted the Silmarils above all.
*
Yet Feanor's pride, his possessiveness concerning his own creations, was such that it led to many disasters for the elves: failure to restore the light of the Two Trees (after Morgoth had them destroyed), mass disloyalty, dishonesty and disobedience among the Noldor elves for generations, slaughter of the Teleri and destruction of their wonderful ships, betrayal and death of Noldor kindred, fruitless wars in Middle Earth with huge suffering and death for many centuries, exile from the care of the Valar - most of the major tragedies of the Silmarillion stories.
And all stemming back to the pride of Feanor.
*
Tolkien depicted the same process at many levels, from Melkor himself, to the first and primary Fall of Man into the worship of Morgoth (unpublished in his life but described in the History of Middle Earth Volume X), to the second Fall of the men of Numenor (who developed the most powerful technological civilization ever in Middle Earth), to individual examples such as Sauron and Saruman (minor gods or angelic figures), to Boromir and Denethor.
In Tolkien's world, as in ours, prideful creative genius often leads first to astonishing achievements of power - else there would be no temptation - then to ruin and loss.
For Tolkien, there is no creative achievement so great that it cannot be undone and reversed by pride.
*
And yet - we live, now, in a society which esteems and promotes pride - indeed depends upon pride for its very sustenance.
Of all the many moral inversions of political correctness - this is the most serious, the most damaging, the most damning.
*
Being himself a creative genius of a high order, Tolkien felt a temptation of pride which was perhaps greater than for most.
In his depiction of the elf Feanor - he showed how pride can destroy everything which the greatest creative genius can achieve, and more.
*
Feanor was by far the most gifted among the gifted race of elves: as a scholar he invented the written script, as a craftsman he created many wonders but especially the Silmarils: three indestructible jewels of beauty unequalled by any products of human art, in which the light of the Two Trees was captured.
Gandalf said that, above all else in the world, he would wish to see the incomparable hand and mind of Feanor at work at the height of his powers.
Even the greatest of 'the gods' (except for 'the One' creator God - Eru) - the premier Archangel Melkor (later re-named Morgoth, by Feanor) could not match Feanor's creative genius, and coveted the Silmarils above all.
*
Yet Feanor's pride, his possessiveness concerning his own creations, was such that it led to many disasters for the elves: failure to restore the light of the Two Trees (after Morgoth had them destroyed), mass disloyalty, dishonesty and disobedience among the Noldor elves for generations, slaughter of the Teleri and destruction of their wonderful ships, betrayal and death of Noldor kindred, fruitless wars in Middle Earth with huge suffering and death for many centuries, exile from the care of the Valar - most of the major tragedies of the Silmarillion stories.
And all stemming back to the pride of Feanor.
*
Tolkien depicted the same process at many levels, from Melkor himself, to the first and primary Fall of Man into the worship of Morgoth (unpublished in his life but described in the History of Middle Earth Volume X), to the second Fall of the men of Numenor (who developed the most powerful technological civilization ever in Middle Earth), to individual examples such as Sauron and Saruman (minor gods or angelic figures), to Boromir and Denethor.
In Tolkien's world, as in ours, prideful creative genius often leads first to astonishing achievements of power - else there would be no temptation - then to ruin and loss.
For Tolkien, there is no creative achievement so great that it cannot be undone and reversed by pride.
*
And yet - we live, now, in a society which esteems and promotes pride - indeed depends upon pride for its very sustenance.
Of all the many moral inversions of political correctness - this is the most serious, the most damaging, the most damning.
*
Intellectual pride is responsible for modernity, and also its destruction
*
The pride of intellectuals is a powerful thing. Indeed, after a certain point, it becomes the only thing: since pride is what holds them together, gets them out of bed in the morning, and keeps them striving.
(A world fueled and sustained by the worst of all sins...)
*
Intellectual pride led to the demand for intellectual independence - to throw off constraints, to follow though wherever it led, to make a mark, to gain status, to change the world - to use knowledge for power in this world, to use power to alleviate misery and to make happy.
(The voice of conscience stilled by the assurance that power would be used not selfishly, but for the general good... ultimately.)
*
The first steps were rewarded with power undreamed of: philosophy, science, technology, the arts...
Creative genius everywhere...
The industrial revolution - continual economic expansion, power in war, increasing capability to act on the world and on other humans.
All 'thanks' to the pride of intellectuals, in particular to creative genius unleashed.
*
But then the same process led to dismantling and destroying the whole thing (while consuming the products and living of the processes of the previous stage).
And people didn't really seem to care...
*
Well, pride is the worst of sins, and self-disgust could not forever be held in check, nor distracted-from.
But neither the intellectuals not the people repented - not at all, not one whit; they continued to want power - but, somehow, they just couldn't do it any more.
They became passively sinful - mistaking passivity for virtue.
*
They worshipped pride in others even when they did not feel it in themselves; they had turned away from the light and now it hurt their eyes, so they doused the light, and made way for the pride of darkness to triumph.
They became secret allies of darkness: at all times, and everywhere - even in the solitude of their thoughts.
In sum: they hated the light more than they feared the dark.
*
How could they be so foolish?
Well, pride is like that.
*
The pride of intellectuals is a powerful thing. Indeed, after a certain point, it becomes the only thing: since pride is what holds them together, gets them out of bed in the morning, and keeps them striving.
(A world fueled and sustained by the worst of all sins...)
*
Intellectual pride led to the demand for intellectual independence - to throw off constraints, to follow though wherever it led, to make a mark, to gain status, to change the world - to use knowledge for power in this world, to use power to alleviate misery and to make happy.
(The voice of conscience stilled by the assurance that power would be used not selfishly, but for the general good... ultimately.)
*
The first steps were rewarded with power undreamed of: philosophy, science, technology, the arts...
Creative genius everywhere...
The industrial revolution - continual economic expansion, power in war, increasing capability to act on the world and on other humans.
All 'thanks' to the pride of intellectuals, in particular to creative genius unleashed.
*
But then the same process led to dismantling and destroying the whole thing (while consuming the products and living of the processes of the previous stage).
And people didn't really seem to care...
*
Well, pride is the worst of sins, and self-disgust could not forever be held in check, nor distracted-from.
But neither the intellectuals not the people repented - not at all, not one whit; they continued to want power - but, somehow, they just couldn't do it any more.
They became passively sinful - mistaking passivity for virtue.
*
They worshipped pride in others even when they did not feel it in themselves; they had turned away from the light and now it hurt their eyes, so they doused the light, and made way for the pride of darkness to triumph.
They became secret allies of darkness: at all times, and everywhere - even in the solitude of their thoughts.
In sum: they hated the light more than they feared the dark.
*
How could they be so foolish?
Well, pride is like that.
*
Tuesday 1 February 2011
The elven belief that 'desire of the soul' indicates the true nature of humans
*
From JRR Tolkien "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" in Morgoth's Ring: History of Middle Earth volume 10 (edited by Christopher Tolkien) page 343:
*
Desire
"The Elves insisted that 'desires', especially such fundamental desires as are here dealt with, were to be taken as indications of the true natures of the Incarnates, and of the direction in which their unmarred fulfilment must lie.
"They distinguished between desire of the [soul] (perception that something right or necessary is not present, leading to desire or hope for it); wish, or personal wish (the feeling of the lack of something, the force of which primarily concerns oneself, and which may have little or no reference to the general fitness of things);
illusion, the refusal to recognize that things are not as they should be, leading to the delusion that they are as one would desire them to be, when they are not so.
illusion, the refusal to recognize that things are not as they should be, leading to the delusion that they are as one would desire them to be, when they are not so.
"The last might now be called 'wishful thinking', legitimately; but this term, the Elves would say, is quite illegitimate when applied to the first.
"The last can be disproved by reference to facts. The first not so.
"Unless desirability is held to be always delusory, and the sole basis for the hope of amendment.
"But desires of the [soul] may often be shown to be reasonable by arguments quite unconnected with personal wish. The fact that they accord with 'desire', or even with personal wish, does not invalidate them.
"Actually the Elves believed that the 'lightening of the heart' or the 'stirring of joy' (to which they often refer), which may accompany the hearing of a proposition or an argument, is not an indication of its falsity but of the recognition by the [soul] that it is on the path of truth.)"
*
Comment: Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth may by Tolkien's most explicit statement (or, at least, discussion) of his deepest beliefs, albeit stated in terms of his legendarium. Here, yet again, is the argument from desire, which he shared with C.S Lewis - that when humans desire something deeply that is not of this world, then this may be taken as 'evidence' that something which fully gratifies this desire is to be found in another world, the world that humans are 'made-for', where humans would be 'at home' (which is not this world).
*
Bureaucratic Altruism versus Selfish Subjectivism
*
Modern secular politics polarizes into two ultimate ideologies, which (each being intolerable) typically alternate:
Bureaucratic Altruism versus Selfish Subjectivism.
Political Correctness versus Nietzschian self-will.
Scientistic nihilism versus Vitalist nihilism.
Left versus Right.
Abstract principles versus gut feelings.
Culture versus biology.
Anti-human versus anti-the-rest-of-humanity.
Abstract human rights versus my concrete self as right.
The anti-spontaneous as good versus my personal gratification as good.
Sublime suicide versus earthly appetites.
In their mainstream, socially-acceptable compromises: Mushy Liberalism versus Mushy Libertarianism.
*
Modern secular politics polarizes into two ultimate ideologies, which (each being intolerable) typically alternate:
Bureaucratic Altruism versus Selfish Subjectivism.
Political Correctness versus Nietzschian self-will.
Scientistic nihilism versus Vitalist nihilism.
Left versus Right.
Abstract principles versus gut feelings.
Culture versus biology.
Anti-human versus anti-the-rest-of-humanity.
Abstract human rights versus my concrete self as right.
The anti-spontaneous as good versus my personal gratification as good.
Sublime suicide versus earthly appetites.
In their mainstream, socially-acceptable compromises: Mushy Liberalism versus Mushy Libertarianism.
*
Sunday 30 January 2011
The essence of my concept of political correctness...
*
...and of how it differs from most other people's ideas, is that I see PC as underpinned by psychology: specifically by hereditary psychology, specifically by the abstracting ability and tendency to abstract.
*
In other words, I regard purely cultural theories of PC (i.e. everyone else's ideas of PC!) as fundamentally deficient since they neglect that most people in the history of the world have been biologically incapable of political correctness.
In yet other words, I see PC as a by-product of high general intelligence (roughly, high IQ).
*
It is high IQ which sustains the thought processes which characterize political correctness and its related forms of nihilism (such as Liberalism, scientism, vitalism, socialism and communism, anarchism and so on).
These types of thought are not possible to the majority of people in the world due to relatively low IQ - or at least they are so alien and unspontaneous as to be merely temporary or a pretence.
Almost anyone will go-along with PC when it is expedient; but PC could not be established and dominant in a society unless
1. there were a lot of people of high IQ/ abstracting tendency and
2. the ruling class is (more or less) composed of such people.
*
This required, in the first place, societies in which IQ was selectively advantaged across an evolutionary timescale. Then the evolution of these societies such that the most intelligent, by and large, became the rulers of society.
So, PC has become dominant as the ruling classes became more-and-more IQ meritocracies (instead of military meritocracies, or religious meritocracies).
And this domination happened as a by-product of modernity (increasing productivity per capita, due to the technological breakthroughs mostly created by the high IQ elite; continual increase in functional specialization etc.).
*
Therefore (like Greg Clark in Farewell to Alms, or Cochran and Harpending in the 10000 year revolution) I see the rise of modernity as depending on the prior rise in intelligence (and the taming of personality) resulting from certain types of selection pressure in extreme latitude and then agricultural societies where spontaneous violence is suppressed for many generations.
And I see this same increased intelligence and tamed-personality as being the underlying (permissive) cause of political correctness.
*
High (abstracting) IQ and a tamed personality have set in process a series of evolutionary societal changes which first led to modernity, but are now leading to the destruction of modernity.
At first this process was constrained by religion - specifically by Christianity in the context of a divinely ordained monarchy. Under such a system intelligence is constrained by religion, held in check, must work within that context.
But the abstracting tendency of the high IQ elite has progressively dismantled these constraints (in order to 'liberate' the intellect - a process first unambiguously seen in the prideful genius of Peter Abelard - 1079-1142).
*
The autonomy of abstracting intelligence is not, in principle, irreversible - since there is always a possibility of repentance and restoration of divinely-ordained monarchy. But, in the West, the process has not in fact been reversed - except locally or temporarily, once the process had begun.
The evolution of intellectuals, then Western domination by intellectuals; and the pride of intellectuals (their assertion of freedom from the constraints of religion, their resulting sense of their own omniscience and omnipotence) was therefore the root of the rise of modernity; and it is now the root of its rapidly accelerating destruction by political correctness (among other related factors).
*
...and of how it differs from most other people's ideas, is that I see PC as underpinned by psychology: specifically by hereditary psychology, specifically by the abstracting ability and tendency to abstract.
*
In other words, I regard purely cultural theories of PC (i.e. everyone else's ideas of PC!) as fundamentally deficient since they neglect that most people in the history of the world have been biologically incapable of political correctness.
In yet other words, I see PC as a by-product of high general intelligence (roughly, high IQ).
*
It is high IQ which sustains the thought processes which characterize political correctness and its related forms of nihilism (such as Liberalism, scientism, vitalism, socialism and communism, anarchism and so on).
These types of thought are not possible to the majority of people in the world due to relatively low IQ - or at least they are so alien and unspontaneous as to be merely temporary or a pretence.
Almost anyone will go-along with PC when it is expedient; but PC could not be established and dominant in a society unless
1. there were a lot of people of high IQ/ abstracting tendency and
2. the ruling class is (more or less) composed of such people.
*
This required, in the first place, societies in which IQ was selectively advantaged across an evolutionary timescale. Then the evolution of these societies such that the most intelligent, by and large, became the rulers of society.
So, PC has become dominant as the ruling classes became more-and-more IQ meritocracies (instead of military meritocracies, or religious meritocracies).
And this domination happened as a by-product of modernity (increasing productivity per capita, due to the technological breakthroughs mostly created by the high IQ elite; continual increase in functional specialization etc.).
*
Therefore (like Greg Clark in Farewell to Alms, or Cochran and Harpending in the 10000 year revolution) I see the rise of modernity as depending on the prior rise in intelligence (and the taming of personality) resulting from certain types of selection pressure in extreme latitude and then agricultural societies where spontaneous violence is suppressed for many generations.
And I see this same increased intelligence and tamed-personality as being the underlying (permissive) cause of political correctness.
*
High (abstracting) IQ and a tamed personality have set in process a series of evolutionary societal changes which first led to modernity, but are now leading to the destruction of modernity.
At first this process was constrained by religion - specifically by Christianity in the context of a divinely ordained monarchy. Under such a system intelligence is constrained by religion, held in check, must work within that context.
But the abstracting tendency of the high IQ elite has progressively dismantled these constraints (in order to 'liberate' the intellect - a process first unambiguously seen in the prideful genius of Peter Abelard - 1079-1142).
*
The autonomy of abstracting intelligence is not, in principle, irreversible - since there is always a possibility of repentance and restoration of divinely-ordained monarchy. But, in the West, the process has not in fact been reversed - except locally or temporarily, once the process had begun.
The evolution of intellectuals, then Western domination by intellectuals; and the pride of intellectuals (their assertion of freedom from the constraints of religion, their resulting sense of their own omniscience and omnipotence) was therefore the root of the rise of modernity; and it is now the root of its rapidly accelerating destruction by political correctness (among other related factors).
*
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Why Liberalism/ PC is immune to reason and evidence - Seraphim Rose
*
From Nihilism by Eugene (Seraphim) Rose c 1962
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html#2
Italics were added.
*
"In the Liberal world-view, therefore - in its theology, its ethics, its politics, and in other areas we have not examined as well - truth has been weakened, softened, compromised; in all realms truth that was once absolute has become less certain, if not entirely "relative."
*
"Now it is possible - and this in fact amounts to a definition of the Liberal enterprise - to preserve for a time the fruits of a system and a truth of which one is uncertain or skeptical; but one can build nothing positive upon such uncertainty, nor upon the attempt to make it intellectually respectable in the various relativistic doctrines we have already examined.
*
"There is and can be no philosophical apology for Liberalism; its apologies, when not simply rhetorical, are emotional and pragmatic.
*
"But the most striking fact about the Liberal, to any relatively unbiased observer, is not so much the inadequacy of his doctrine as his own seeming oblivion to this inadequacy.
"This fact, which is understandably irritating to well-meaning critics of Liberalism, has only one plausible explanation. The Liberal is undisturbed even by fundamental deficiencies and contradictions in his own philosophy because his primary interest is elsewhere.
"If he is not concerned to found the political and social order upon Divine Truth, if he is indifferent to the reality of Heaven and Hell, if he conceives of God as a mere idea of a vague impersonal power, it is because he is more immediately interested in worldly ends, and because everything else is vague or abstract to him.
*
"The Liberal may be interested in culture, in learning, in business, or merely in comfort; but in every one of his pursuits the dimension of the absolute is simply absent.
"He is unable, or unwilling, to think in terms of ends, of ultimate things.
"He is unable, or unwilling, to think in terms of ends, of ultimate things.
"The thirst for absolute truth has vanished; it has been swallowed up in worldliness. "
*
[Note: 'worldliness' means the hedonic perspective: the primary focus on human happiness and suffering in this world. It can be seen that almost-all modern Western people and institutions, including almost-all Christian denominations, are primarily (most-often exclusively) concerned with worldliness. Almost-all modern Western people and institutions are therefore Liberal - including almost-all of those who consider themselves to be Libertarian or Conservative.]
[Note: 'worldliness' means the hedonic perspective: the primary focus on human happiness and suffering in this world. It can be seen that almost-all modern Western people and institutions, including almost-all Christian denominations, are primarily (most-often exclusively) concerned with worldliness. Almost-all modern Western people and institutions are therefore Liberal - including almost-all of those who consider themselves to be Libertarian or Conservative.]
Tuesday 25 January 2011
Burns nicht and Kenneth McKellar
*
Today is when the Scotch celebrate the birthday of their national poet Robert Burns, and via this Scotch culture in general.
One of the finest exponents of Scottish culture, and perhaps the perfect person to attend a Burns supper during the mid-20th century, was the tenor Kenneth McKellar (1927–2010).
McKellar was, from the late 1950s and for a whole generation, the most widely known singer of traditional (and modern) songs, mostly from Scotland.
He was also one of the best singers ever to have been produced in the British Isles (musically - although not technically - superior to the more-frequently-praised Irishman John McCormack, from the generation before).
So, here is a lovely Burns song from him, My love is like a red red rose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXX2AJkKJNI
But McKellar was at his best when the voice was most exposed: in Sally Gardens accompanied only by piano, or - even better - unaccompanied in She moved through the fair - which I regard as simply one of the best bits of singing, ever.
McKellar was rated as perhaps the best light tenor in Britain for Handel, Mozart and the like when he left the world of high art to become rich and famous in popular culture (including the Eurovision song contest!).
He was not immune to kitsch.
But the voice and musicality remained unsurpassed.
Truly, one of the greats.
*
Today is when the Scotch celebrate the birthday of their national poet Robert Burns, and via this Scotch culture in general.
One of the finest exponents of Scottish culture, and perhaps the perfect person to attend a Burns supper during the mid-20th century, was the tenor Kenneth McKellar (1927–2010).
McKellar was, from the late 1950s and for a whole generation, the most widely known singer of traditional (and modern) songs, mostly from Scotland.
He was also one of the best singers ever to have been produced in the British Isles (musically - although not technically - superior to the more-frequently-praised Irishman John McCormack, from the generation before).
So, here is a lovely Burns song from him, My love is like a red red rose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXX2AJkKJNI
But McKellar was at his best when the voice was most exposed: in Sally Gardens accompanied only by piano, or - even better - unaccompanied in She moved through the fair - which I regard as simply one of the best bits of singing, ever.
McKellar was rated as perhaps the best light tenor in Britain for Handel, Mozart and the like when he left the world of high art to become rich and famous in popular culture (including the Eurovision song contest!).
He was not immune to kitsch.
But the voice and musicality remained unsurpassed.
Truly, one of the greats.
*
Corruption of education and academia by 'liberal' regimes - Seraphim Rose
*
From Nihilism by Eugene (Seraphim) Rose, written circa 1962 -
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html#2
*
The totalitarian Nihilist regimes of this century [- both Communist and Fascist -] have undertaken, as an integral part of their programs, the ruthless "reeducation" of their peoples.
Few subjected to this process for any length of time have entirely escaped its influence; in a landscape where all is nightmare, one's sense of reality and truth inevitably suffers.
*
A subtler "reeducation," quite humane in its means but nonetheless Nihilist in its consequences, has been practiced for some time in the free world, and nowhere more persistently or effectively than in its intellectual center, the academic world.
Here external coercion is replaced by internal persuasion; a deadly skepticism reigns, hidden behind the remains of a "Christian heritage" in which few believe, and even fewer with deep conviction.
The profound responsibility the scholar once possessed, the communication of truth, has been reneged; and all the pretended "humility" that seeks to conceal this fact behind sophisticated chatter on "the limits of human knowledge," is but another mask of the Nihilism the Liberal academician shares with the extremists of our day.
Youth that--until it is "reeducated" in the academic environment - still thirsts for truth, is taught instead of truth the "history of ideas," or its interest is diverted into "comparative" studies, and the all-pervading relativism and skepticism inculcated in these studies is sufficient to kill in almost all the natural thirst for truth.
*
The academic world--and these words are neither lightly nor easily spoken--has become today, in large part, a source of corruption.
It is corrupting to hear or read the words of men who do not believe in truth.
It is yet more corrupting to receive, in place of truth, more learning and scholarship which, if they are presented as ends in themselves, are no more than parodies of the truth they were meant to serve, no more than a facade behind which there is no substance.
It is, tragically, corrupting even to be, exposed to the primary virtue still left to the academic world, the integrity of the best of its representatives--if this integrity serves, not the truth, but skeptical scholarship, and so seduces men all the more effectively to the gospel of subjectivism and unbelief this scholarship conceals.
It is corrupting, finally, simply to live and work in an atmosphere totally permeated by a false conception of truth, wherein Christian Truth is seen as irrelevant to the central academic concerns, wherein even those who still believe this Truth can only sporadically make their voices heard above the skepticism promoted by the academic system.
*
The evil, of course, lies primarily in the system itself, which is founded upon untruth, and only incidentally in the many professors whom this system permits and encourages to preach it.
*
From Nihilism by Eugene (Seraphim) Rose, written circa 1962 -
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html#2
*
The totalitarian Nihilist regimes of this century [- both Communist and Fascist -] have undertaken, as an integral part of their programs, the ruthless "reeducation" of their peoples.
Few subjected to this process for any length of time have entirely escaped its influence; in a landscape where all is nightmare, one's sense of reality and truth inevitably suffers.
*
A subtler "reeducation," quite humane in its means but nonetheless Nihilist in its consequences, has been practiced for some time in the free world, and nowhere more persistently or effectively than in its intellectual center, the academic world.
Here external coercion is replaced by internal persuasion; a deadly skepticism reigns, hidden behind the remains of a "Christian heritage" in which few believe, and even fewer with deep conviction.
The profound responsibility the scholar once possessed, the communication of truth, has been reneged; and all the pretended "humility" that seeks to conceal this fact behind sophisticated chatter on "the limits of human knowledge," is but another mask of the Nihilism the Liberal academician shares with the extremists of our day.
Youth that--until it is "reeducated" in the academic environment - still thirsts for truth, is taught instead of truth the "history of ideas," or its interest is diverted into "comparative" studies, and the all-pervading relativism and skepticism inculcated in these studies is sufficient to kill in almost all the natural thirst for truth.
*
The academic world--and these words are neither lightly nor easily spoken--has become today, in large part, a source of corruption.
It is corrupting to hear or read the words of men who do not believe in truth.
It is yet more corrupting to receive, in place of truth, more learning and scholarship which, if they are presented as ends in themselves, are no more than parodies of the truth they were meant to serve, no more than a facade behind which there is no substance.
It is, tragically, corrupting even to be, exposed to the primary virtue still left to the academic world, the integrity of the best of its representatives--if this integrity serves, not the truth, but skeptical scholarship, and so seduces men all the more effectively to the gospel of subjectivism and unbelief this scholarship conceals.
It is corrupting, finally, simply to live and work in an atmosphere totally permeated by a false conception of truth, wherein Christian Truth is seen as irrelevant to the central academic concerns, wherein even those who still believe this Truth can only sporadically make their voices heard above the skepticism promoted by the academic system.
*
The evil, of course, lies primarily in the system itself, which is founded upon untruth, and only incidentally in the many professors whom this system permits and encourages to preach it.
*
Why not just go with the flow: embrace political correctness?
*
Since you can't do anything about it, why not just make the best of it?
Why not exploit the situation instead of moaning about it?
Do what is expedient - why not?
*
Why not make a successful career out of PC - like so many others?
Why not surrender your private mind to PC, in the same way as you have already surrendered your public behaviour?
By having any reservations at all, you are making yourself miserable - why not simply cast-aside those reservations?
Just say an inner yes to what you will, anyway, be forced to do...
*
In a world of pervasive and powerful PC, there is really only one positive reason for holding back and resisting in any way, shape or form - which is that embracing political correctness will shrink your soul.
*
If you do not believe in the soul, this reason will carry no force at all: so by your own calculations you are stupid to resist PC.
Or, if you believe the soul is inviolable, and that nothing you think or do can affect the soul: then also, by your own calculations, you are stupid to resist PC.
If you do not believe in natural law, and that breaking natural law harms the soul: then logically you should learn to love PC.
*
If you do not believe in the reality of transcendental good - then you might as well go with the flow, allow yourself to be re-programmed: to learn, by regular practice, to re-label lies as truth, ugliness as beauty, evil as virtue; until PC has entered into your heart and soul, as well as pouring into your ears and out-from your mouth.
*
Political correctness is nihilism; therefore it is not merely political: it is existential.
To fight against political correctness is an existential act: a battle to preserve the eternal soul.
But if you do not believe that political correctness will harm your eternal soul: then you would be well-advised to suck it up.
Why not?...
*
Since you can't do anything about it, why not just make the best of it?
Why not exploit the situation instead of moaning about it?
Do what is expedient - why not?
*
Why not make a successful career out of PC - like so many others?
Why not surrender your private mind to PC, in the same way as you have already surrendered your public behaviour?
By having any reservations at all, you are making yourself miserable - why not simply cast-aside those reservations?
Just say an inner yes to what you will, anyway, be forced to do...
*
In a world of pervasive and powerful PC, there is really only one positive reason for holding back and resisting in any way, shape or form - which is that embracing political correctness will shrink your soul.
*
If you do not believe in the soul, this reason will carry no force at all: so by your own calculations you are stupid to resist PC.
Or, if you believe the soul is inviolable, and that nothing you think or do can affect the soul: then also, by your own calculations, you are stupid to resist PC.
If you do not believe in natural law, and that breaking natural law harms the soul: then logically you should learn to love PC.
*
If you do not believe in the reality of transcendental good - then you might as well go with the flow, allow yourself to be re-programmed: to learn, by regular practice, to re-label lies as truth, ugliness as beauty, evil as virtue; until PC has entered into your heart and soul, as well as pouring into your ears and out-from your mouth.
*
Political correctness is nihilism; therefore it is not merely political: it is existential.
To fight against political correctness is an existential act: a battle to preserve the eternal soul.
But if you do not believe that political correctness will harm your eternal soul: then you would be well-advised to suck it up.
Why not?...
*
Monday 24 January 2011
Bryan Magee - the noble nihilist
*
My main introduction to philosophy as a teenager was via the Bryan Magee television series Men of Ideas, then his book on Karl Popper - I have since read several other books by him including Confessions of a Philosopher, which I recommend highly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Magee
Magee is worth noting as someone for whom I have very high regard and whom I regard as being wrong about almost everything on which I have read his opinion.
*
In Confessions of a Philosopher, Magee confirms that he is not merely extremely intelligent, well-read and a lucid explainer - but that he is scrupulously honest and humble.
At the end of his personal odyssey through philosophy, he candidly admits that it has not really led anywhere; and he is clearly dissatisfied with his own tentative conclusions (Magee's favourite philosopher is Schopenhauer, yet he does not regard S. as having succeeded in his aims, and clearly Magee is not satisfied with the position that S. reached).
Magee is remarkable in not having been corrupted by a successful life in academia, in politics (he was even a member of parliament), then the highbrow media.
To work - and to achieve success - in academia, politics and the mass media and retain integrity is remarkable!
*
And today I have just seen an article in the journal Philosophy in which Magee discusses the reality of the soul and the possibility of immortality from the perspective of old age. And stating that he recognizes that the soul could be real and immortality could be true, acknowledging that he wishes they were real and true, but concluding that he cannot bring himself to believe either.
*
Bryan Magee. Intimations of mortality. Philosophy (2011), 86: 31-39. Abstract: The nearness of death can lead me to see the empirical world as separate from myself since, only too soon, it will exist without me. This raises the question whether I might partake of some other mode of existence without the empirical world. Logically, such existence may be possible; but our inability to validate any conception of what is actually the case without ultimate reference to experience, or to the possibility of experience, renders us permanently unable to have grounds for believing in the reality of it. This inability does not eliminate the logical possibility, but a logical possibility is all we are left with. And we do know that only the very tiniest proportion of logical possibilities is actualized.
*
Magee represents for me the tragedy of a decent man, indeed potentially a great man, in our nihilistic culture.
As well as this, Magee had to contend with extreme intelligence, a natural philosophical perspective amplified by advanced professional training and experience, and a pervasive leftism in politics - so he really had very little chance of attaining to wisdom.
*
In his twilight years Magee resembles a sad (although certainly not self-pitying) Stoic of the Roman Republic living-on under the Empire.
Still striving, still seeking, still acknowledging and holding fast to the transcendental verities (even though he finds it impossible to regard them as being really real).
In another age, Magee might by now have been a wise soul of immense stature; he might have risen to the stature of a Blaise Pascal - as it is, Magee is a tragic figure.
(Albeit, in an era when very few have the dignity to attain tragic status, this is in itself a rare achievement.)
*
I hope there is still time for Magee to transcend philosophy, to go-behind his assumptions (which he would need to do), and to recover the spontaneous humanity from which he could swiftly think through to a satisfactory conclusion.
Indeed, I believe there is time for this to happen, for there to be a 'happy ending' for Bryan Magee.
And furthermore I believe it will happen - although we may never get to hear about it.
*
My main introduction to philosophy as a teenager was via the Bryan Magee television series Men of Ideas, then his book on Karl Popper - I have since read several other books by him including Confessions of a Philosopher, which I recommend highly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Magee
Magee is worth noting as someone for whom I have very high regard and whom I regard as being wrong about almost everything on which I have read his opinion.
*
In Confessions of a Philosopher, Magee confirms that he is not merely extremely intelligent, well-read and a lucid explainer - but that he is scrupulously honest and humble.
At the end of his personal odyssey through philosophy, he candidly admits that it has not really led anywhere; and he is clearly dissatisfied with his own tentative conclusions (Magee's favourite philosopher is Schopenhauer, yet he does not regard S. as having succeeded in his aims, and clearly Magee is not satisfied with the position that S. reached).
Magee is remarkable in not having been corrupted by a successful life in academia, in politics (he was even a member of parliament), then the highbrow media.
To work - and to achieve success - in academia, politics and the mass media and retain integrity is remarkable!
*
And today I have just seen an article in the journal Philosophy in which Magee discusses the reality of the soul and the possibility of immortality from the perspective of old age. And stating that he recognizes that the soul could be real and immortality could be true, acknowledging that he wishes they were real and true, but concluding that he cannot bring himself to believe either.
*
Bryan Magee. Intimations of mortality. Philosophy (2011), 86: 31-39. Abstract: The nearness of death can lead me to see the empirical world as separate from myself since, only too soon, it will exist without me. This raises the question whether I might partake of some other mode of existence without the empirical world. Logically, such existence may be possible; but our inability to validate any conception of what is actually the case without ultimate reference to experience, or to the possibility of experience, renders us permanently unable to have grounds for believing in the reality of it. This inability does not eliminate the logical possibility, but a logical possibility is all we are left with. And we do know that only the very tiniest proportion of logical possibilities is actualized.
*
Magee represents for me the tragedy of a decent man, indeed potentially a great man, in our nihilistic culture.
As well as this, Magee had to contend with extreme intelligence, a natural philosophical perspective amplified by advanced professional training and experience, and a pervasive leftism in politics - so he really had very little chance of attaining to wisdom.
*
In his twilight years Magee resembles a sad (although certainly not self-pitying) Stoic of the Roman Republic living-on under the Empire.
Still striving, still seeking, still acknowledging and holding fast to the transcendental verities (even though he finds it impossible to regard them as being really real).
In another age, Magee might by now have been a wise soul of immense stature; he might have risen to the stature of a Blaise Pascal - as it is, Magee is a tragic figure.
(Albeit, in an era when very few have the dignity to attain tragic status, this is in itself a rare achievement.)
*
I hope there is still time for Magee to transcend philosophy, to go-behind his assumptions (which he would need to do), and to recover the spontaneous humanity from which he could swiftly think through to a satisfactory conclusion.
Indeed, I believe there is time for this to happen, for there to be a 'happy ending' for Bryan Magee.
And furthermore I believe it will happen - although we may never get to hear about it.
*
Sunday 23 January 2011
Free-will, purpose, prophecy and providence in Tolkien
*
At the Notion Club Papers blog:
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2011/01/free-will-purpose-prophecy-and.html
*
At the Notion Club Papers blog:
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2011/01/free-will-purpose-prophecy-and.html
*
Who will guard the guardians?
*
How can rulership be both wise (just) yet avoid corruption (for short term benefit, and/or the benefit only of the ruler or ruling group).
*
It is an old problem, going back to Plato and Aristotle and their reflections of the possible types of rulership.
Nobody has improved on Aristotle's division into rule by the one (monarchy, dictatorship), the few (aristocracy, oligarchy) or the many (democracy).
But Aristotle can do no more than describe the advantages and disadvantages of each 'system' and state a preference.
Monarchy is potentially the best and highest form of government, but also potentially the worst; democracy vice versa, and oligarchy somewhat in the middle.
In secular terms, in worldly terms, there is no other answer.
*
Modernity thinks it has another answer, which is to make rulership impersonal - in other words to rule by an abstract system.
In practice this means rulership by a system of rationally-interlocking laws and regulations; created and implemented by bureaucracies that depend on committee voting.
Yet rational bureacracy is not a solution to the dilemma, because it is not rulership at all.
*
'Rational bureacracy' is impersonal rulership only because it is inhuman rulership.
Rational bureaucracy is not impartial with respect to humans, it is indifferent to humans.
Rational bureaucracy is also, as we now observe, utterly corrupt (short-termist, fractured and fragmented by covert self-interest and unresolvable in-fighting between the rulers).
*
So we now have not an Aristotelian compromise between the potential and the actual, but the worst of both worlds: corruption without limit (short-termism to an extent unimagined in the past), and a rulership under which nobody ultimately benefits: not even the rulers themselves (not even the bureaucrats).
*
Since there is no answer to 'who guards the guardians' in worldly terms, the only potential answer is in otherworldly or transcendental terms.
Rulership can (at least for a while) be both wise (just and long-termist, for all the polity) and relatively uncorrupt (i.e. neither short-termist nor pursued for the exclusive benefit of the rulers) in a situation when rulers and ruled are devout: united in worship and guided by transcendental revelation.
(An example, King Alfred the Great of England.)
But the necessity for devoutness rules out (in practice) large scale democracy.
*
For large societies there is only (theoretically) a choice between divine oligarchy and divine monarchy - and the conditions for a wise and uncorrupt divine oligarchy are extraordinarily unlikely.
The only example of divine oligarchy (wise and uncorrupt leadership by small groups) that I can think of are situations such as prevailed in the early Christian Ecumenical councils and the translation of the Authorized Version of the Bible under King James I of England.
A small devout group united in prayer and with a sincere common aim.
*
At any rate, there is no secular solution to the problem of 'who guards the guardians' and it is a waste of time and misplaced effort to refuse to accept the fact.
*
How can rulership be both wise (just) yet avoid corruption (for short term benefit, and/or the benefit only of the ruler or ruling group).
*
It is an old problem, going back to Plato and Aristotle and their reflections of the possible types of rulership.
Nobody has improved on Aristotle's division into rule by the one (monarchy, dictatorship), the few (aristocracy, oligarchy) or the many (democracy).
But Aristotle can do no more than describe the advantages and disadvantages of each 'system' and state a preference.
Monarchy is potentially the best and highest form of government, but also potentially the worst; democracy vice versa, and oligarchy somewhat in the middle.
In secular terms, in worldly terms, there is no other answer.
*
Modernity thinks it has another answer, which is to make rulership impersonal - in other words to rule by an abstract system.
In practice this means rulership by a system of rationally-interlocking laws and regulations; created and implemented by bureaucracies that depend on committee voting.
Yet rational bureacracy is not a solution to the dilemma, because it is not rulership at all.
*
'Rational bureacracy' is impersonal rulership only because it is inhuman rulership.
Rational bureaucracy is not impartial with respect to humans, it is indifferent to humans.
Rational bureaucracy is also, as we now observe, utterly corrupt (short-termist, fractured and fragmented by covert self-interest and unresolvable in-fighting between the rulers).
*
So we now have not an Aristotelian compromise between the potential and the actual, but the worst of both worlds: corruption without limit (short-termism to an extent unimagined in the past), and a rulership under which nobody ultimately benefits: not even the rulers themselves (not even the bureaucrats).
*
Since there is no answer to 'who guards the guardians' in worldly terms, the only potential answer is in otherworldly or transcendental terms.
Rulership can (at least for a while) be both wise (just and long-termist, for all the polity) and relatively uncorrupt (i.e. neither short-termist nor pursued for the exclusive benefit of the rulers) in a situation when rulers and ruled are devout: united in worship and guided by transcendental revelation.
(An example, King Alfred the Great of England.)
But the necessity for devoutness rules out (in practice) large scale democracy.
*
For large societies there is only (theoretically) a choice between divine oligarchy and divine monarchy - and the conditions for a wise and uncorrupt divine oligarchy are extraordinarily unlikely.
The only example of divine oligarchy (wise and uncorrupt leadership by small groups) that I can think of are situations such as prevailed in the early Christian Ecumenical councils and the translation of the Authorized Version of the Bible under King James I of England.
A small devout group united in prayer and with a sincere common aim.
*
At any rate, there is no secular solution to the problem of 'who guards the guardians' and it is a waste of time and misplaced effort to refuse to accept the fact.
*
The nonsense of 'enlightenment values'
*
How sick I am of hearing people say that they adhere to 'Enlightenment values'!
What nonsense!
*
What was the Enlightenment but a bunch of intellectuals (albeit, some being creative geniuses - for what that is worth) abstractly theorizing along the lines of: wouldn't it be pleasant and useful if...?
*
What was the Enlightenment but an extremely brief and unsustainable cultural transition between much more lasting cultural types?
*
How sick I am of hearing people say that they adhere to 'Enlightenment values'!
What nonsense!
*
What was the Enlightenment but a bunch of intellectuals (albeit, some being creative geniuses - for what that is worth) abstractly theorizing along the lines of: wouldn't it be pleasant and useful if...?
*
What was the Enlightenment but an extremely brief and unsustainable cultural transition between much more lasting cultural types?
*
Friday 21 January 2011
Thursday 20 January 2011
The PC rationale for unlimited mass human migration
*
To allow, indeed encourage, unlimited mass human migration is such a foolish, indeed clearly suicidal, notion that it is surprising to find the idea politically dominant (indeed unchallengeable) throughout the West.
*
(The fact that some powerful special interest groups benefit materially from mass migration in the short term is insufficient to account for the phenomenon - ruling elites have seldom acted to destroy their cultures for their children; indeed the ruling elites have traditionally had by far the longest time horizons of any group. Planting trees for your great grandchildren to enjoy was not unusual behavior among the English aristocracy.)
*
Mass migration of humans fits well with political correctness's underlying ethic of unselfishness and the underlying hedonic evaluation: by-and-large PC policy is justified in terms of increasing the happiness/ reducing the suffering of the greatest number of people.
This is operationalized in policy terms as taking goods (material goods such as money; and social goods such as status) from the haves to give to the have-nots.
A swift way to achieve this is to allow or facilitate the migration of have-nots into the nations of the haves, where they will be entitled to an equal share of goods; or indeed an extra share of goods since they have suffered so much in the past, and to set-them-up for the future.
Logically this redistribution of people ought to continue until differentials in goods are removed and peoples' hedonic levels are (thereby) equalized - indeed potentially reversed, as a punishment inflicted on those who formerly had more than their 'fair share'.
*
The obvious rejoinder that the situation is unsustainable is given short shrift - since we don't really know for sure exactly what makes for sustainability of a society - and the suffering is immediate and present whereas possible futures are disputed and uncertain. Maybe things will turn-out fine?
The short-term-and-certain trumps the long-term-and-contingent.
Therefore, we should not refrain from doing certain good (i.e. redistributing goods) now merely for fear of what might, or might not, happen in the future.
And anyway, things are different nowadays, and the process of mass migration can be 'managed' so that everyone (or, at least, everyone who matters; everyone who deserves consideration) can benefit from it.
*
The role of the PC elite is therefore not to stand in the way of mass population migration from have-not nations to have nations... except perhaps when it involves the have-not elites leaving their nations.
The usual politically correct line is that the most skilled and expert segment of have-not populations ought to stay where they are, should indeed be forced to stay where they are if necessary and prevented from migrating to have countries - since that is the unselfish thing for them to do.
More people will (probably) be made happier and helped to suffer less if have-not nations force their doctors, engineers and computer scientists to stay-put.
But the poorest and most helpless mass of have-nots clearly benefit hugely and immediately (in terms of goods) from migrating to a wealthy place where they will be given preferential treatment over natives, and therefore they ought to be allowed to do this - as long as the process is 'properly managed' (by the PC elites of the have nations).
*
But there is a problem: the selfishness of the haves.
Specifically, the (non-PC) native population in the have countries will tend to resist the confiscation and redistribution of their surplus of goods - this presumed 'surplus' being (roughly) the difference in average per capita wealth between the have and have-not nations.
But this resistance is selfish - and selfishness is the ultimate PC sin.
(Indeed, the non-PC haves are the only real villains of the piece, the flies in the ointment - since everyone else is merely trying to do what is right and proper and moral.)
However, the trouble is that humans are intrinsically selfish; so the problem of the selfish non-PC haves resisting redistribution is not likely to be one that is going to go away...
Obviously, people should not be free to be selfish... obviously people need to be made-to-be unselfish... and yet who will guard the guardians?...
*
The politically correct answer is to take matters out of individual human control and hand-over the whole process to an impersonal bureaucracy with committee decision-making by vote.
The bureaucracy will then frighten, force, or defraud the (evil) non-PC haves into behaving unselfishly, as they ought to do.
(This will actually be good for them - although they may not recognize the fact.)
And thus the process may continue to completion, and much benefit may be conferred upon the world - and all by the PC elite acting altruistically on-behalf-of the have-nots, and managing the whole thing.
*
To allow, indeed encourage, unlimited mass human migration is such a foolish, indeed clearly suicidal, notion that it is surprising to find the idea politically dominant (indeed unchallengeable) throughout the West.
*
(The fact that some powerful special interest groups benefit materially from mass migration in the short term is insufficient to account for the phenomenon - ruling elites have seldom acted to destroy their cultures for their children; indeed the ruling elites have traditionally had by far the longest time horizons of any group. Planting trees for your great grandchildren to enjoy was not unusual behavior among the English aristocracy.)
*
Mass migration of humans fits well with political correctness's underlying ethic of unselfishness and the underlying hedonic evaluation: by-and-large PC policy is justified in terms of increasing the happiness/ reducing the suffering of the greatest number of people.
This is operationalized in policy terms as taking goods (material goods such as money; and social goods such as status) from the haves to give to the have-nots.
A swift way to achieve this is to allow or facilitate the migration of have-nots into the nations of the haves, where they will be entitled to an equal share of goods; or indeed an extra share of goods since they have suffered so much in the past, and to set-them-up for the future.
Logically this redistribution of people ought to continue until differentials in goods are removed and peoples' hedonic levels are (thereby) equalized - indeed potentially reversed, as a punishment inflicted on those who formerly had more than their 'fair share'.
*
The obvious rejoinder that the situation is unsustainable is given short shrift - since we don't really know for sure exactly what makes for sustainability of a society - and the suffering is immediate and present whereas possible futures are disputed and uncertain. Maybe things will turn-out fine?
The short-term-and-certain trumps the long-term-and-contingent.
Therefore, we should not refrain from doing certain good (i.e. redistributing goods) now merely for fear of what might, or might not, happen in the future.
And anyway, things are different nowadays, and the process of mass migration can be 'managed' so that everyone (or, at least, everyone who matters; everyone who deserves consideration) can benefit from it.
*
The role of the PC elite is therefore not to stand in the way of mass population migration from have-not nations to have nations... except perhaps when it involves the have-not elites leaving their nations.
The usual politically correct line is that the most skilled and expert segment of have-not populations ought to stay where they are, should indeed be forced to stay where they are if necessary and prevented from migrating to have countries - since that is the unselfish thing for them to do.
More people will (probably) be made happier and helped to suffer less if have-not nations force their doctors, engineers and computer scientists to stay-put.
But the poorest and most helpless mass of have-nots clearly benefit hugely and immediately (in terms of goods) from migrating to a wealthy place where they will be given preferential treatment over natives, and therefore they ought to be allowed to do this - as long as the process is 'properly managed' (by the PC elites of the have nations).
*
But there is a problem: the selfishness of the haves.
Specifically, the (non-PC) native population in the have countries will tend to resist the confiscation and redistribution of their surplus of goods - this presumed 'surplus' being (roughly) the difference in average per capita wealth between the have and have-not nations.
But this resistance is selfish - and selfishness is the ultimate PC sin.
(Indeed, the non-PC haves are the only real villains of the piece, the flies in the ointment - since everyone else is merely trying to do what is right and proper and moral.)
However, the trouble is that humans are intrinsically selfish; so the problem of the selfish non-PC haves resisting redistribution is not likely to be one that is going to go away...
Obviously, people should not be free to be selfish... obviously people need to be made-to-be unselfish... and yet who will guard the guardians?...
*
The politically correct answer is to take matters out of individual human control and hand-over the whole process to an impersonal bureaucracy with committee decision-making by vote.
The bureaucracy will then frighten, force, or defraud the (evil) non-PC haves into behaving unselfishly, as they ought to do.
(This will actually be good for them - although they may not recognize the fact.)
And thus the process may continue to completion, and much benefit may be conferred upon the world - and all by the PC elite acting altruistically on-behalf-of the have-nots, and managing the whole thing.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)