"Such is the pathway to the stars."

Newish Bovver Boots

  The written symbol 'career' means something like this : "A long term, rosy cheeked, professional journey through a succession of employment opportunities within a particular industry or field."

  Good luck with that Nancy because the symbol 'career' sounds like : "Make me safe, give me purpose, light my life and I'll role over play dead and do anything for you." As a result, over the generations, we people have tried to create a symbol for 'Help' which as a written form looks something like this : "Chapter One - Morality."

  These vague utterances are not blessed by the precision Russell yearned for in language, but close enough to the game theory our Patron Saint Wittgenstein proffered as his rule of thumb when examining how meaning is exchanged between hominid minds. I've always felt sorry for the innocent, open heartedness of Wittgenstein's lesson planning following his decision, after the second world war, to return to teaching the Cambridge elite. Not only was Wittgenstein a Jew in England with a thick Austrian accent, he'd long ago surrendered his wealth to his search for truth and he'd once tried to explain to his super brilliant, fantastically intelligent, upper crusty next generation of leaders and oligarchs that if the lion could speak English they'd understand no better what the lion was saying.

 Our issue of course has far less to do with a purity of thought that dreams beautiful in its reach for a per ardua ad astra - sic itur ad astra, if you're Canadian - and much more to do with the ten to twenty five years of training a splendidly flexible hominid mind endures as it fits itself into this or that power structure that lies within a set of cultural beliefs that will always work best when totally unsupported by facts.

  Yes indeed - "Give me a red Corvette!"

  The "in the beginning" of faith has the charm of myth, only recently has it included the old testament certainties of "in the beginning was the Chicago School of Economics," what Paul Krugman has referred to as a product of the Dark Ages.

  So why not "Give me a Data Center" and let's open a new chapter in Hell.

The pigmentless Hummingbird doesn't see through blue eyes

Albino Hummingbird is on the left

  We've enjoyed David Hume's more happy-go-lucky attitude, his skeptic at the billiard table, rational grasp of what Individualism might be. The Calvinist, the individual answering to the gates of heaven, definition was in his view a religious nuttery which over the years has caused a damage to our intellect by attempting to create an unwarranted concreteness which Hume, who died in August of 1776, disparaged as humorless, or perhaps humourless, form of sloppiness of confidence which in Hume's view was remedied by a solid breakfast along with a good Tawny Port and lots of it.

  When you look across the savannah - and I don't mean the tourist trap in the North American US State of Georgia where the State Bird is a Brown Thrasher, I mean the notion of freedom as a wilderness floating endless toward the horizons, the occasional thorny tree, a giraffe, lions chasing hartebeast while cheetah laugh as they wonder what you or I might taste like and so on - what you'll see of us people is a head with a big brain on stilts that takes ten to twenty five years to grow into a tool making clever clever with a certificate of achievement that entitles it to a career, it has a union if it's lucky or professional body to preserve its set of living standards, a stability, a zoo for giraffe, lions, hartebeast and cheetah that's sometimes mistaken for an entitlement.

  Entitlement, whether earned or unearned, is, to use the Scottish word as a tribute to Hume, the ball peen beating thinner and thinner with hammer of personal possibilities in the increasingly odious ranges, hills and vales of "I am Blessed" by the deceits that keep me from even trying to be honest. 

  

  

Garden Paths and Battle Plans

Garden Path

  So long as the drowning of government remains fashionable in the higher echelons of western society, individualism's current self defeating personality disorder will never be an officially recognized social ailment. And as a result the standard model of society as a whole remains increasingly welded to the daytime television game show theory of social development. 

   I wanted to mention a World War One battle that began in and around the 4th July of 1918 between Central Power German forces and the Australian Army with help from recently arrived United States Infantry, the Royal Air Force - to the stars and beyond - and Royal Tank Corps. The allied commander was an Australian called John Monash.

  If there is a point about this relatively small battle, it was  the allied commanding officer's use of what's called combined arms, a battle tactic that after almost four years of Trench Warfare was finally adopted by the commanders at the Third Battle of Picardy. And here the thing about Combined Arms, for it to work effectively, commanders have to trust individual soldiers to make decisions, which means soldiers have to be trusted with battle plans.

 As I sit here waiting for the first frosts to relieve me of the burdens of garden chores, I wonder what the battle plans are.

What happened to the slave of reason

Turkey

   If we think about Hume as a happy go lucky person who loved port and cheese, we can pull two strands of his thinking that nicely reflect his world view. The first strand, was his understanding that commerce was a humanizing force. His point was that the desire to improve one's material condition gives a person something useful to do, stops them being "indolent" and it drives the interactions that result in "industry, art and knowledge."

  Hume's second strand was his understanding of 'habit' which he read as a scaffolding of both 'custom and habit' which allowed for the individual who gets useful things done. Hume's list of good things for such an individual, included stable laws and property rights, not because they were divine rights, but because they provided a predictable framework in which human beings could cooperate, and flourish without butchering each other.

  "What happened?"

  The likes of Descartes and that man from Somerset John Locke were of the opinion that we people had a rigid soul. Our core essence was rational and fixed, they argued, we were isolated, autonomous moral actors, we were "absolute" which means our self, the thing that is you or I, doesn't change.

  Hume, on the other hand, with his ever changing bundle of emotions and passions, his constantly fleeting thoughts did not believe that reason alone could even begin to prove the existence of an unchanging self, the existence of God or morality or half the things reason was credited with.

  It was like this : reason and passion are not enemies. But as Hume put it himself : "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions."

  For Hume, commercial activity was something individuals could do that was only valuable because it refined human sociability and made life pleasant without us butchering each other. The moment commercial individualism starts laying down endless no's, destroys social harmony, conversation, and sympathy, Hume would have agreed, commercial individualism begins to defeat its own purpose. 

The Hyper-Individualists

 

Ironweed

  Baxter and I have an issue with what's loosely referred to as Individualism. What's happened over the past 250 years is that Market Logic has replaced Social Ethics, then the political class determined that stupidity did indeed trickle down and more recently Neo-Christians rearranged the Beatitudes to allow jumbo jets, corporations, the billionaire and aircraft carriers to pass through the eye of the needle because of King Cyrus the Great of Persia, formerly Iran.

 A basic genesis of modern Individualism would start with the Protestant Reformation. An assertion by the Godly that no longer were we people joined by a collective church, that whole collective stuff which allowed the greedy to thrive and pay priests to grant them amnesty, that soup of vice and avarice had warped the understanding of why Jesus died on a cross. The truth was, when you died you stood alone before God, who'd bring out the big book, you'd be asked to explain your actions and your attitudes, and sometimes, depending on your legal team, especially if you were a suspicious looking character, God himself, apparently, would ask to see your papers rather than just assuming you'd been baptized.

 You can wonder, if you like, why people got excited by the prospect of this face to face with the ultimate headmaster. There are a number of theories the simplest is that a worthy percentage, it's usually 20%, relish the prospect of purification by large numbers of the poorly adjusted going to an eternity in hell without prospect of forgiveness, this was certainly Dante's position.

 More recently the poorly adjusted are seen as an opportunity for gathering redemption points within a community, they have been lumped in with the heathen, the Jews and the Catholics and are regularly subjected to degrees of evangelical fervor from our 20%. 

 When the Enlightenment gathered steam, one of the areas it chose to apply reason to was this rather icky personal relationship with God, his enthusiastic Son and a somewhat sinister, poorly understood Ghost. Not everyone was convinced that Calvin and Luther had logically solved the problem. One of the founders of Individualism as a modern practical philosophy David Hume, and you can blame the English for a lot but Hume was a Scotsman. His Book was Treatise of Human Nature, it was published in 1740. Hume, along with a bunch of others, argued that people were a bundle of sensations subject to the give and take of cause and effect, we had free will, he didn't think miracles were real and we probably hadn't been perfectly designed.

 Some might say "What about what's his name, the chap from Somerset England, who died in 1704, he pretty much wrote the bill of rights."

 The thing about John Locke, he was all very Enlightenment, and gung-ho on property rights, personal rights, slave ownership, supply and demand, money as a means of exchange and it's a very long list of often sensible, old fashioned capitalistic claims about stoic behaviors being profitable and so on, but he was a Puritan who was 10 years old during the English Civil War. This made Locke a Calvinist, Lutheran true blue Protestant with an aggressively healthy attitude toward Judgement Day, he wasn't a liberal in the same "for god's sake don't take yourself so bloody seriously" sense that Hume was a liberal. Nor was Hume anything much more that an agnostic, and by the 1740's you could begin to use the 'A' word without being automatically branded a dangerous blasphemer who should be shipped off somewhere.  

  So how did a tool meant to establish moral agency turn into a "dying fish on the beach"?

 In the late 20th century, championed by figures like Margaret Thatcher. "There is no such thing as society, only individual men and women."  Ayn Rand's individualism was stripped of its relational context. Reagan became a Right Wing Saint. And on it went into deeper and deeper pits of tripe.

  Hyper-individualists now continue to guiltlessly reduce human freedom to frictionless consumer choice and white faced autonomy from obligation. Public health measures are "tyranny." Taxes are  "theft." Collective sacrifice is viewed as "sucker behavior." Just visit the White House if you want to listen to the new sermons

 The issue for Baxter and I is this : Homo sapiens is an obligate social species, which means we cannot survive, grow or reproduce alone. We survived the two million plus years of the Pleistocene precisely because our ancestors did not act as hyper-individualists. Our neurobiology, our oxytocin pathways, and our default somatic states are hardwired for cooperation, shared responsibility, and belonging.

 This current iteration of hyper-individualism, dominated by an unlettered, small class of psychotically un-woke, newly hyper-wealthy, demand that because an increasingly tinier few want to fly around in rocket ships and government is an evil, the rest of us human organisms must learn to live in direct contradiction to our evolutionary biology and to do that we've got between eighteen months and three years to learn to share our existence with cake. 

 

We Fear Death Because we Fear Freedom

Old Fashioned Buddleia

   I think we can go for the meanings in freedom that share the sense that something is free if it can change without constraint so long as we include the sense of aloneness in free found in the meanings chemists have given to Free Radicals.

  A free radical is an unpaired electron which is short lived, highly reactive and unstable as it bobs around looking for stability by stealing or sharing an electron from other molecules. When two Free Radicals meet they clash into each other and combine to form a stable pair. When the union happens a Free Radical is no longer a free radical.

  Of course, in chemistry, free radical is not quite that straightforward, there's a further complexity that requires a basic grasp of the word valence. Electrons prefer pairs, they bond as positive and negatives, An unattached electron is within the orbit of an atom, an ion or a molecule. Within this context of a disgruntled, lonely unbonded electron that's already a part of something, a free radical presents the entire atom, ion or molecule with the destabilizing insecurity which when free radicals find each other results in new chemical bonds between atoms and molecules.

  I don't know about ions, possibly they just doff the hat as they pass in the night but for the atoms and molecules in something like a barrel of crude oil the insecurities of free radicals when correctly encourage by devious chemists can be persuaded to become a billion plastic shopping bags.

 The uncertainties of the Free Radical hint at an idea amongst psychiatrists, sociologists and sometimes philosophers that we people, without our chains, would probably define freedom in terms of disappearing into nowhere as a blinding light. Instead we fear death because we fear freedom and have a penchant for inventing a rule based paradise. 

Woke, Freedom, Habitus and Simone de Beauvoir

Mason Bee

  An acceptance of Pierre Bourdieu's structural scaffolding, the Habitus in which we confront the unwritten of our absorbed existence is rightfully useful. There within Bourdieu's scaffolding you'll find the 'situation' through which de Beauvoir's 'nothingness' becomes. In these shadows, you can if you're desperate enough, mandate or inspire new structural rules, but you can't force a human organism to thrive, and note the symbol thrive, under a scaffolding a human organism no longer regards as legitimate.

 De Beauvoir herself, despite her antipathy toward elements of the Habitus - she had some very cruel and self centered things to say about La Belle France into which she was born - was able to thrive because the scaffolding of her Habitus and her capacity to navigate her situation allowed her to thrive.

 Sartre's 'freedom' went this way : As a nothingness I am free regardless of the world I am born into. My consciousness is always radically unbound.

 De Beauvoir's 'freedom' went this way : As a nothingness I am born into a structured situation, a 'habitus.' To will myself free in the situation I have found myself born into is to will others free because my freedom needs a world of free others "to act upon and disclose" which is a way of saying I need something like a permission structure in a Habitus that allows me to decide what I want to become. Hence "You aren't born a woman, you become one."

 In her Ethics of Ambiguity de Beauvoir put it this way: "Man can find a justification of his own existence only in the existence of other men." She went on to write: "To will oneself free is also to will others free...."

 And of course it had occurred to her that since the Bronze Age, female humans had been turned into objects by male humans.

 "Where are we? I'm lost!"

 De Beauvoir: Freedom needs an open future of choices, just having free will inside your head, like Sartre, is useless if your 'situation' offers no real possibilities. If a person is trapped in poverty, tyranny, or rigid social roles, their future is closed off. We need free others to give our actions meaning.

 "Really?"

 If everyone around you is reduced to a passive, subjugated instrument, your own freedom operates in a vacuum and it becomes meaningless.

 "Really."

  Oppression, de Beauvoir argued, is a mutual mutilation. To turn a free, conscious "subject" into an "object," the oppressor destroys the very thing that makes human society dynamic. By closing off the future of others, you shrink the richness of the world you yourself inhabit.

 "You sound very woke! Or are you ant-woke?"

 If the scaffolding isn't legitimated by the free choices of the people living inside it, it becomes an enforced cage - one that degrades the freedom of those running the cage, too.

Gendlin's Going Forward

Woodland Liriope 

   "The Body Holds the Meaning First." Instead of blinking we'll think of the body holding the meaning first as a pre-verbal moment, it's an implicit understanding of a complexity, which might last seconds, hours, or years. If this implicit understanding is associated with a physical discomfort, a knot in the chest or belly, however it manifests, the physical discomfort isn't random physiology. It is what Pierre Bourdieu called habitus, your sense of place, your memories, the panoply that defines the scaffolding or your being experiencing a pre-verbal situational friction that's combined into a single, uncomfortable complex somatic state that's not happy.

 Usually, what I am wary of calling the intellectual mind, doesn't know what precise meaning this sometimes delicate, complex somatic state is attempting to express. Is it hungry, does it need water, does it need a beer and a carton of cigarettes. Is it just tired?

  Believe it or not, and you might have to climb into your "woke" pajama suit, but the Phenomenological observations of our man Eugene Gendlin, inspired by Husserl perhaps, suggest that by a process called "focusing" you might be able to discover what ails an agitated somatic state by shaving away at the possible causes of discomfort your somatic state is experiencing by asking it questions. 

  Gendlin made the observation that with us people there was a going forward, which in my view can be understood as a consciousness moving through time. For Gendlin a living organism isn't a static object, life is an on-going process which is subject to a Trinity of Stoppage, Social Conformity and Carrying Forward.

  Go ahead, cuddle a Teddy Bear, life is a journey that sometimes stops. Conformity tells you to suppress the stoppage, take no notice of the pre-verbal meanings in the discomfort expressed by a complex somatic state, suck it in, join a gym, see a plastic surgeon, bandage it up, pay someone to listen, call the manager, get lost in first world luxury, don't even think about going anywhere new.

 Worth remembering agriculture changed us physically, we people developed genes that enable us to digest lactose into adulthood.  Hell! blame agriculture for real ice cream.

Where of one cannot speak, Gendlin's Felt Sense and Others

Almost an Inch

   The Oracle has spoken, Eugene Gendlin, who died in 2017 at the age of 90, was not a preacher. He was a Phenomenologist in the tradition of Husserl, Heidegger and particularly John Dewey, who like Gendlin was a New World Enthusiast devoted to the uncomfortableness and dangers of democracy, an advocate of reflective thinking and the value of an education system that taught the youth how to think for themselves.

  Here we have to remember that one of the reasons Socrates was tried for suborning the youth is that Athens was in the process of recovering from losing the war with Sparta. Athenians had been subject to a  brutal eight months rule by a pro-Sparta Oligarchy governing body history refers to as The Thirty Tyrants. The last thing Athenian property owners needed, as they pulled their lifestyle back out of the ashes, was a disruptive old man who kept asking negative non-trirelative, irony laden, petty questions when sensible Athenian patriots were busy straightening the line.

  Men like Plato, and to a certain degree Socrates, were searching for the Metaphysical Truth of the world, which once known would have solved so many problems of the "What Next." Men like Dewey, who called themselves pragmatic new-worlders and saw themselves as being in the world where they were engaged in solving the everyday practical problem of "What To Do Next" and "What Works" rather than "What's Real."

  There is a sense in which "What Works" is "What's Real." And there is a sense, particularly on this side of the Atlantic, in which "whether something makes money or not" is a demonstration of "What Works and What's Real."

  But here, August 12, we're talking the somatic of sense feeling, we're not talking right or wrong, we're not talking economic theory, we're talking Gendlin's Implicit Philosophy which places a burden on the unspoken, the "whereof one cannot speak," a burden he called 'felt sense.' This 'felt sense' is the somatic discomfort of the moments of "whereof one cannot speak" described as an unspoken 'felt sense' which when subjected to the niceties of Neuroscientists is a visibly neurological response to the moments before Wittgenstein's command when the "thereof one must be silent" is ignored and some form of speech emerges from the subject producing neurological and body, heart, pulse, breathing etc signals that suggest relief.

 A hot-dog dude moment of realness perhaps, but let's give that somatic moment of 'felt sense' a wider social context by raising the specter of Dewey's 'habits' around 'forks in the road' and giving it a moment to clash with Bourdieu’s, infinitely stricter and harder to change, 'habitus.'

  Both thinkers had this sense of a mental scaffolding erected by social circumstances, think of de Beauvoir being born as an ego-less being  into a situation, and realize that this framework or socializing process has parameters which do offer the stability of a cohesive group or place to belong.  Call it class, socio-economic status, Republican, Democrat, socialist, fascist, dickweeds  or whatever you want, that mental scaffolding has great influence on how individual minds react to "whereof one cannot speak."

 Dewey, the New-Worlder, produced his understanding of 'habit' in a functioning democracy where Reflective Thinking was encouraged and taught in schools by enlightened and passionate teachers. For Dewey the tool for active living could be reshaped. For Bourdieu, the Old-Worlder unaccustomed to the notion of a working meritocracy, understood a mind/body interdependence as he produced the hard lines of his 'habitus' which explored a deeply ingrained social fate that feels natural precisely because society builds it into your body. 'Habitus,' for Bourdieu, operated below the level of conscious intent, it wasn't something easily changed, you couldn't will it away, pretend it wasn't there. Once a twit, always a twit. 

 Closer to Plato, Bourdieu, who died in  2002, had more questions along the lines of "what works" and "what's real," than the pragmatic, and dare I say it 'transactional,' Dewey.  

 Of course you can just bypass all this earthy mind and body "what next" nonsense by giving up and declaring "Bite me! I am a Soul!"

Pierce's Semiotics, the triad and putting curves into Straight Lines

Blooms, watering can and a hose hopper

  "So what are you actually trying to say about Straight Lines and Trinities?"

 If you think of breeze and the sails of sailing ships you might be able to think of breeze as influence. If you then address Charles Pierce's Semiotics - signs, symbols and communication - where he insisted  that "action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this trirelative - three related subjects - are an influence that cannot be resolved into actions between pairs." You might now conclude that minds are propelled by a breeze called triads or trinities that use words as symbols as they are blown into the corridors of meanings. And here, you as the interpretant are a third participating influence, or breeze along with the sign which is the word CAT and its object, an actual breathing cat that needs to be fed or whatever. 

 Unlike de Saussure, who concentrated his poststructural thinking on language around the signifier - the spoken word C-A-T - and the signified - the abstract image and understanding of cat that dwells in your mind - Pierce was of the opinion the whole combination that connects the cat form to the cat idea - the you - should not be underestimated and therefore in the study of semiotics there was a tri-relative - three related subjects - influence that could not be resolved by the actions of bi-relative - two related subjects.

 Pierce died in 1914, de Saussure died in 1913.

 "And your point?"

 Since those days, not so long ago, scientists of the mind and their terrifying machines, have determined that when the brain is engaged in routine task-solving, or cognitive custom and practice, it relies on predictable, boring apparently linear pathways that draw straight lines from Problem A to Solution B through a tri-relative process. (1) the Problem, (2) The solution, and (3) the subject, you or I, who more often has already mentally examined, carefully shelved and sanctified the solution to the problem long enough for it be classified as a habit of thinking that has achieved the status of "True."

 So when stuck in a loop of depression, or stuck in the loop of a failing belief system of predetermined solutions, those "There is no alternative" doctrines of the locust relieve common sense of its purpose by maintaining a triad that keeps the line straight, endless, unchanging until blessed release produces no actual somewhere else to go.

 But when the brain stops to actually think, it enters a genuinely creative state which neuroimaging suggests is a radically non-linear series of events. The brain turns to the wishy-washy parts  responsible for daydreaming, sometimes called memory-blending, and explores the glory of unconstrained association. 

 To do this, a mind intentionally breaks the triadic logic of "Given A and B, C must follow." The straight lines are gone, replaced by friction, anxiety, ambiguity, and a wandering that allows thoughts to drift out into the wilderness where unexpected connections hide behind or under rocks waiting to be presented as a possibility, sometimes called "hope" or "dreaming" or "the solution."

A "Just Is" that Curves Straight Lines

On The Move : Turkey Nursery

 "Trinity Thinkers. What are they? Please explain! I know we have looked at this before but at the moment if it was a question on a long bus trip I'd be a D-minus." 

 Let's make Kant proud and call them, as an example, Triadic Structures of Faith. We might begin to think of them in terms of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, how he thought thinking progressed from a slight disagreement between friends into a "dynamic process inherent in History and Reality." Here, for the billionth time we have a chance to raise the ancient specter of the dialectic, a three part process that starts with a statement or an argument, is then met by a contradicting statement or argument, and this potential for a third world war is resolved by combining the valid parts of both arguments into a new argument, or into the New Thesis.

 For Hegel and for Marx, their triad of the dialectic was a foundational axiom that produced a comforting  straight line of Historical Determinism that sort of lost touch with anything remotely resembling the curves of hope, the circles of dreams or any of those flagrantly subjective chains to heaven that have to be regularly polished, in case they rust away leaving a soul stranded.

 First of all, let's put something to bed. Creativity is a Just Is that  Curves Straight Lines in us people. "Artists," as defined by 21st Century US English Usage, are people who make a point of defining themselves and sell themselves as "creative." In the rest of the world, if we're lucky, "Artists" are still painters or drunks or confidence tricksters. Creativity is not a commodity, nor is it a skill that a data driven Agentic Intelligence can master. 

 The difference, my friend, is between "generating and output" and "living the creative act." If we return to Walter Benjamin's thesis on the mass production of Art, think ourselves into that time when to see the Mona Lisa you'd have to make a pilgrimage to Florence, or a castle in Amboise or since 1797 The Louvre. Look around for it now, and you can see the Mona Lisa hanging on many a wall, second hand shops, and post cards

 The market myth tells us that friction is bad—that the goal of life is to get from thought to finished product instantly, without effort.The machine can trace the straight lines of our past, but only a living human being can throw a curve into the future.

 Meanwhile structures in the mind of the self defined, and please forgive me for using the odious word, "creatives," have sourced their dawning sense of alienation in the myth of a fundamentally market driven trinity. And lo, our Over-lords having prepared the ground, have automated the soul first, because patterns in text and images were easier for algorithms to harvest than building a robot that can mop a floor or fix a pipe or say "have a good day" with a meaningful smile as it serves you a bacon and egg sandwich.

 Like the dismal loop of Beck's Cognitive Triad of Depression or anxiety. In comes the professional to bandage you up by taking the curves out of your line and straightening you up by suggesting a new trinity.  

Stoicism, the Libertarian Elect and Market Forces.

Turkey Tail Fungi

 Kant was sweet with his categorical imperative and his structures in general. You got to do something, can't just do nothing - was his version of Parmenides' own wisdom which offered "whatever it is, it must be, it cannot not be."

 Kant was a trinity thinker, he'd followed the classic vandalism standards of the later Bronze Ages, he'd straightened his curve with a three in one to keep us people from ever experiencing bliss, which in my view was unenlightened of him but you know, better than releasing the Kraken by not telling other people to think like Calvin and allowing Stoics to morph into limp wristed Libertarians as the Western Beatnik alternative to being a born again Christian.

To make sense of this rabble of words, you have to start with the Renaissance, which went on a bit through the 1300's into the 1600's and the early 1700's. The Renaissance was a peculiar reawakening, in my view led by Thomas Aquinas' attempts to broaden the horizons of the Catholic Belief System by reintroducing the church to an idea that science, while often the practice of heretical covens is also God's precious gift.

 If we go back to the ancient Stoics, and here I reference the Greek Epictetus, who was born a slave, and the Roman Seneca, who advised Nero the fiddle player, but not Marcus Aurelius, a Roman born in Austria who became a Roman Emperor, who might have done better with a personal witch doctor, a god or a psychiatrist rather than attempting to commodify a set of beautiful understandings with his imperial seal.

 These originals of Stoicism, arose during times of massive imperial decay and autocratic rule. A central maxim was to divide the world into what is in our control - such as our opinions, desires, and character - and into what is outside our control - such as the market, the Emperor, sickness, supply and demand, death and for Sartre and Schopenhauer other people.

 But, and I think this an important grasp for the dignity of cocktail hour Stoics, the ancient Stoics while they had an ethic of internal sovereignty, they were not "atomized individualists." They believed in a universal human brotherhood which they expressed through civic duty and an understanding of a cosmopolis, a world city that included all men, both free and enslaved, but probably not girls. The Ancient Stoics, the true blue pre-Roman Emperor from Austria Stoics, were not remotely Libertarian in their thinking!

 Libertarians, or atomized individualists or crude modern day sociopaths, are a mutation of the early Stoics - mutations of the Aurelius castle building cul-de-sac, rather than Epictetus or the practical ethics of the Stoic Seneca the Younger, a poet, playwright and a philosopher.

 Libertarianism took the Stoic emphasis on "internal control" and converted it into property rights and hyper-individualism. "I control my inner soul, I own my body and my capital, and no collective has the right to touch either." And it goes on into an economic coldness, the shameful frigidity of, "If you are poor or struggling, that is your individual responsibility to overcome through discipline; do not ask society for a safety net. Die silently please."

 Yes indeed, by straightening human life into a pure line of Contract and Market Exchange, Libertarianism creates a new aristocracy, much like Calvinism did. The "elect" aren't those predestined by God, but the "self-made" individual who successfully navigates the market without "complaining."

We are constantly told by Libertarians, market dogmatists assure us that "supply and demand" is a law of nature, like gravity or photosynthesis.

 It is not.

 "Supply and demand" under modern capitalism is a human-constructed set of rules that measures purchasing power, not human need and has no clue what a free market is. Those Axioms that emerge from the thinking patterns of Adam Smith and Ricardo are now jaded, old, unenlightened and illiberal.

 If a community has 1,000 hungry children and zero money, the market registers "zero demand" for food in that town. If a billionaire wants a third yacht, the market registers "high demand" for luxury shipyards. (Remember the Bush Doctrine)

 The great moral scandal of our gluttonous era is that we live in a world of manufactured scarcity inside a reality of potential abundance. When we let "market forces" dictate resource distribution, we aren't submitting to a natural law of the universe; we are surrendering human agency, morality, and reason to an unthinking accounting mechanism which defines the future as ever expanding.

The value of honesty.

A Senna Plant in Bloom

 We talked yesterday about interconnections of such magnitude they are sometimes referred to as "Global." The word "Global" was supposed to hint at a meaning so vastly interconnected and complicated, that it ultimately defies attempts to accurately define it with structures. 

 On this topic of interconnections, another way of defying Wittgenstein's "whereof one cannot speak" is to go full "Global Web," blind everyone with Tech Bros Speak and raise the banner "Epistemic Holism" as though it was an untouched round of cheese.

 "It all sounds a little like foreplay?"

 Of interest, in this wide world of meanings, "Epistemic Holism" has a twin opposite called "Epistemic Atomism." Epistemic atomism is the understanding that knowledge, justification, law, pretty much anything that looks whole, is actually made up of what can be referred to as: individual, foundational units.

"What about true scientific value prior to empirical testing?"

Therein lies the rub, my friend. Sometimes when you test the individual, foundational units to find out why the whole isn't working there's nothing wrong with the parts........

"I know the feeling.  It's when the whole is too ennui-laden to get out of bed."

 The Duhem-Quine thesis does rather shrink the value of reductionism as it supports a more coherentist grasp of our universe of things. Pierre Duhem's own Underdetermination Theory of empirical evidence and of course Willard Quine put Akron Ohio on the map with his acid distinction between "no unmarried man is married" and "no bachelor is married" argument which suggested that the analytic stance is fundamentally circular in nature and therefore prone to repeatable  errors.

 "Atomists are such Dweebs."

 Logical Positivists aren't so much Dweebs, Comrade, as reluctant to risk the perils of intuition and that chasm of subjective hopefulness that results in the extreme vacuum of belief states that result in a solidarity around such absurdities as Raelism and Vicarious Redemption.

"They don't actually believe that! It just makes them feel special and different."

 For God's sake! We were not made in laboratory by an extra terrestrial species who has lost contact with us, anyone who thinks that's where we came from struggles with retardation.

 "When you're trying to boff a UFO princess who has a BMW, Raelism makes a lot of sense."

 I'll give you that, but there is no way an infinite, invisible deity came into the world disguised as a man, was executed, and this specific execution is a cosmic legal substitute for the moral failings of all humanity.

 "Stop being a whataboutist!"

 Don't make me go Epistemic Fallibilist combined with Pragmatism all over your kitchen floor comrade! We don't build our ships in the dry dock, we build them from drift wood and bits of floating plastic along with loose bits of kelp while we're at sea. 

The Trouble with Air Breathing Swim bladders

Raintree

  One view suggests language is a representation of reality that varies from language to language and as a result produces different understandings of reality.

 Chomsky's  view suggests  that language is essentially the same from one language to another language.

 You and I talk about flexible meanings in the symbols of language. I think my view is that while the symbols might stay the same meaning changes, gets added to words and it gets taken away from words. Language is a process that moves.

 What do Cognitive science people say about language and  how we understand things.

 What they come up with is an interconnection, sometimes called Global to mean really interconnected, that ultimately defies attempts to define it with structures. That old Austrian Wittgenstein's conviction "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is a tidy axiom. But we forget that synthesizing thought predates the noises of spoken language, we have to work out how to say things and sometimes we have to invent new words, or take one from another language, like "schadenfreude" to satisfy those "thereof one must be silent" moments.

 God knows where grammar comes from.

 We humans did not make our vocal cords from scratch, they go back to a simpler time 400 million years ago, when we were air breathing fish. A lung fish which had developed folds to prevent water entering our air breathing swim bladders. 

  

The Husserl/Sartre Heresy

Mallow

  Easy to get side tracked with Saint Teresa, she was an astonishing person, and I wonder about the causes and sources of her fits, which might have been epilepsy, might have been moldy bread, could have been mushroom or womanly wiles.

 Which brings us back to Husserl's influence on Sartre's essay - Emotions: Toward a Theory. His suggestion that Emotions were a Bad Faith, magical source of illegitimate excuses for inauthentic action must have been received with degrees of astonishment from professionals in the psychiatry business who, I believe, had been suggesting since Descartes that the Ego was a guide or some sort of decider with the power to squash rebellion and exile the rebellious 

  Sartre's Ego-less existence, when confronted be a Bolshy back row does, in his theory of emotions, seem to have a rebellion squashing technique. I think Freud and maybe Jung saw the role of psychology in our society as "bandage the damaged and send them back to the front." Sartre was, if you'll forgive me, more wishy-washy liberal in his search for a cure rather than a bandage.

  Patience sweet one! For Husserl consciousness was always "intentional." What does that mean? It means consciousness is always directed at something. Might come as a surprise to some, but you aren't just always slack- jawed conscious, what you are is always conscious of something, of a tree, of ruby red lips, of a spot on someone's nose, and so on. Consciousness for Husserl darts around from one corner of the eye to the other, and yes it can be absolutely exhausting.

 Sartre would have seen Saint Teresa's visions, whether from epilepsy, moldy bread, or mushrooms, as her mind choosing a magical transformation of the world. His main squeeze, de Beauvoir, along with a vast swath of psychiatrists, psychologists and the like would want to remind Sartre that the brain was part of a situation. Then they'd go on to moan about how Consciousness does not start from a vacuum. It has to interpret and it has to inhabit the physical state it finds itself in. Consciousness doesn't just lush out and dream of sex and chocolate, it's intentional, it darts around form object to object.

 With Husserl and subsequent thinkers the meaning in "Object" contained the idea that Consciousness was always conscious of something, this something included both traditional objects such as cups and loaves of bread and other objects of the mind including ideas, fear, emotions anything that consciousness could be conscious of. 

 Here the argument goes, "As soon as you reflect on something, that something becomes an Object." 

 This understanding was a golden moment for Sartre. Consciously and intentionally reflecting on something resulted in that object becoming an object that could be examined. The object, in this case an emotion, whether it be ennui or rage, is no longer you. It's an object.

 For Sartre, "If I can step back and observe my own fear, my own ideas, and even my own Ego, then none of those things are ME. They are all objects floating in front of consciousness." And as such, from occasion to situation, these objects could be thought of as a rebellious back row, which meant the magical transformation this particular rebellious back row was attempting to make could be eidetically examined, the layers peeled away and the truth, bad faith or otherwise, revealed.

  Husserl’s phenomenology had dragged everything out into the light. Sartre loved it, it was liberating. But for traditional Cartesian Philosophy, your "mind" or "Ego" was a sacred inner room where emotions, thoughts, and identity lived together as a cozy, neurotic heap of "I'm thinking therefore I am-ing." It was a pile or a stack rich with potential for well paid work, so long as Union Breakers like Husserl and down-right Bolsheviks like Sartre didn't have their way. 

Beauvoir's Situation

Boots and Socks

  Beauvoir's views on object and subject explored in her book Ethics of Ambiguity, addresses an understanding that "You cannot manifest freedom in a vacuum." My freedom requires your freedom. You can't just say "hell is other people" because other people mess with your theory. Schopenhauer might have agreed with Sartre on the "other people" issue, Beauvoir did not.

 Those who avoid wallowing in the extreme irony of sociopathy and retain a fondness for ethics, moral principles and good human conduct, might enjoy Beauvoir's : "To will oneself free is also to will others free." We can think about that as we look to understand the world Beauvoir preferred to live in. 

 In Ethics of Ambiguity, creating the "Me" is inherently political and collective. You build your "Me" through your concrete actions in the public square, and your primary moral duty is to tear down the physical, economic, and political structures that prevent others from building their "Me." Freedom isn't an abstract feeling inside your head, it's the physical space you fight to clear so that every human being has the bread, the dignity, and the air to decide who they want to become.

 She had her archetypes, her villains, her "other people," her crew of inauthentic. They included:

 The Apathetic. They live in a state of dull inertia, letting society, habit, or routine make every decision for them. They fear passion, fear commitment, and live like a houseplant.

The Serious Man. Claims to care deeply about morality, but they surrender themselves to an external Cause, an Organization, a Party, or a God. They say things like "The doctrine is absolute. I am just a humble servant." By pretending the "Cause" is an objective truth, they feel justified in crushing anyone who opposes it.

The third type, Beauvoir referred to as Nihilists.  I think we can consider Beauvoir's Nihilist as the person who knows the Serious Man is full of crap, but has decided that nothing is objectively true, nothing matters! Everything is permitted! It's a cynical and destructive nihilism, an Existential Nihilism rather than an Epistemological Nihilism.

 Her fourth archetype, she called The Adventurer. The Adventurer loves their own freedom and lives wildly, taking risks, pursuing passions, and exploring the world, but doesn't care about anyone else's freedom. They treat other people as mere scenery or obstacles in their personal game. A cad and bounder. A spittoon next to an altar, as they say. 

 For Sartre without a pre-ordained "Me," you are radically free to become your own "Me" in a world that is simultaneously material and idea, object and subject. Now if your existence precedes your essence and if you are radically free to be a "Me" your "Me" has no excuse for your Bad Faith choices

 Sartre treated the emergence of "essence" as a solo flight into empty space. Beauvoir saw that emergence as a human life lived on solid ground among other people. For her, essence is not something you invent in a vacuum, it is a slow, concrete sediment built up through your choices in dialogue with the world, your body, and the choices of others.

 Beauvoir agreed that there is no divine blueprint or fixed "nature" waiting inside us when we enter the world. But her point was that even without a fixed nature, you never exist as a blank slate. No!  You exist in a Situation.

Breakfast with Simone and Jean-Paul

Young Turkey

 Let's look at existence as it was between Sartre and Beauvoir who shared a long intimate relationship with each other. The Sartre in question is Jean-Paul Sartre, a man presented as a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, and is considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. The Beauvoir is Simone de Beauvoir a woman presented as a writer, social theorist, and feminist activist, who didn't consider herself a philosopher, nor was she considered a philosopher at the time of her death, yet her influence on Feminist Existentialism and Feminist Theory is considered dramatic.

 For those who might be concerned about this and that, or find it difficult to breath without titles, a philosopher, is either a Professional Confuser, a Question Machine, or according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, a thinker, scholar, or seeker of wisdom who studies fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reason.

 One of Beauvoir's many books, is Second Sex which was published in 1949 and was soon banned by the Vatican. In the book Beauvoir asked "What is Woman?"

 Her answer, in mid twentieth century society, Men were considered the default, Women were considered the other. She argued that the great defeat of woman occured in the Bronze age with the emergence of private property which resulted in woman becoming riveted to their body, like an animal and made it possible for men to dominate both her and nature. Beauvoir followed the Ancient Greek idea that men succeed in the world by transcendence, immanence is the lot of women. She added the twist that "One is not born, rather one becomes a woman." And yes her writing style was very precise. 

 Immanence for Beauvoir meant existing within the boundries of an object, a cup, a mind, a body, nature. There was no way out, no transcending motherhood for girls. Her point, the family and patrimony oppresses women. Yes indeed Simone de Beauvoir was one of the few who believed that of women this side of the Bronze Age only Saint Teresa of Avila lived her life for herself.

 What did Beauvoir think of her long time male friend who was scared of lobsters, a condition exacerpated by his one time, 1935, experiment with that favorite of the early beatnik aesthetic, Mescaline. How did she manage his understanding of Freedom, how did she react to his approach to a theory of emotions which suggested that emotions were basically feeble bad faith reactions that resulted from chosing not to be free.

 Well these were the cool people, the van guard of the future, who understood irony, never delivered milk, mail or worked in a coal mine. For them Mescaline was an experiment with the mind in an attempt to get closer to creative, not a chance to forget until Monday morning.

Simone wanted to show how men had historically built a culture that claimed, Reason, Logic, and Action for themselves. This was their Ego, they were the Subject of Reason, Logic and Action.. In the process, as Simone understood it, they dumped Emotion, Passivity, and the Body onto women. To men, Beauvoir was inclined to think, Women were the Shadow, they were the Object of Emotion, Passivity and the Body, an immanence they were unable to transcend because, you know, they gave men sons.

 At the breakfast table the Patriachal division of existence went this way for Simone. The Male was reason, action, mind. He was The Subject. The female was emotion, passivity, body. She was the Subjugated Other.

 When men labeled women as overly emotional or hysterical, Beauvoir reckoned  they were doing exactly what Sartre called Bad Faith. Men were running away from their own bodily, emotional vulnerabilities, because they'd dumped those weakness onto woman.

 For Jean-Paul emotions were a magic trick, they were chosen by consciousness to avoid difficult realities, they were malaise foi big time. For Simone, there was no magic trick, emotions were "genuine, embodied responses to real world vulnerabilities and situations."

 For Jean-Paul, other people were a threat to his freedom. "Hell," he claimed, "Is other people." Simone thought that just silly.  For Simone, the condition of her freedom was my freedom. Her freedom required the freedom of others.

 For Jean-Paul the body was a fact. It was a facticity, it was something to transcend though choice. For Simone, we people lived through our physical, emotional and everything else body. It was the anchor. Go ahead, transcend appendicitis while you eat your crusty baguette and complain about your coffee being too hot!

 Sartre saw us people as possesing a radical, lonely freedom, we had no moral guide to tell us what to do. For Simone that was a bunch of quaint pipe smoking and sometimes cute nonsense. She saw action in solidarity, people helping people. Freedom was only authentic when it worked to liberate others. Anything else and what was the point, go live in a mountain, be a Pallas's Cat.

 Those breakfasts must have been fun to witness

Das Man, Authentic, Inauthentic, Bad Faith.

Fruitfly Season

 The Daimōn of the Ancients is Jung's Shadow. Jung's Persona, a person's outward presentation, is Heidegger's Das Man. For Jung, Sartre's Bad Faith, his beautiful expression mauvaise foi, is the ego denying the shadow, or attempting to deny the shadow a voice role in the public square. Jung's Individuation, is an often heated negotiation between the control freak that is Ego who wants a persona that makes no ripples and the "what about me's" of the often disruptive Minority interests of the Shadow.

 Inauthenticity and Bad Faith are the Ego’s attempt to live a half-life, holding up a polite, sterile mask, aligator skin shoes and a bowtie, while pretending the dark cellar beneath the house doesn't exist.

 Authenticity and Individuation require an act of bravery. The Ego stepping out of the crowd, listening to the uncomfortable, disruption of the Daimōn, going down into the cellar to shake hands with the Shadow, and owning the total, messy, finite reality of one's existence.

 With straight faces Sartre and Heidegger acknowledge the existential demands of freedom and honesty. Jung in his turn gives us the internal map of the territory we have to traverse to achieve freedom and honesty.

 But all is not well in this world of clever boys pontificating on this existence of Das Man. Men do that to girls, mother life, the womb of all things and then men claim credit because men have the larger Adam's Apple and like girls we have twenty four ribs. 

 We've talked about Arendt and Heidegger. How her Martin left her to rot in the stew of his own authenticity. Tomorrow we'll look at Sartre's reaction to a mescaline trip and at Sartre's Simone de Beauvoir, who wrote her book the Second Sex, in it she took apart her Jean-Paul's ice cold approach to a theory of emotions, and, by so doing took the Daimōn out of the interstitial spaces through her understanding of emotion, passivity and the body. 

God, Man, Captains, Heidegger and Sartre.

Goldenrod

 "I do suspect that material plenty is an incorrect answer to a question that was asked generations ago." And why? We people tried to answer an existential question with an industrial material answer. Sartre's ego-less consciousness, a sailing ship at sea looking for the wind. Sartre's consciousness, his 'Being-For-Itself,' is a Nothingness which catches the breeze of a choice, a project, or a commitment.

 A material answer to For-Itself leaves nothing but "more" in its wake until it becomes the absurdity of "Let's go to Mars." At the other extreme "There's paradise after death for the dutiful in a world beyond the heavens." This doesn't feed the children or protect the playground from Leopards.

 We were going to talk about Sartre's clash between "Being-For-Itself" and "Being-In-Itself."

 Being-in-itself. The Being of inanimate objects. Solid, fixed, mindless object, it's identical with itself, it has no freedom. It just is.

 Being-for-itself. The Being of human consciousness. It's not a solid object, it is an empty gap, a Nothingness. And because it has no fixed essence, it is pure freedom, constantly projecting itself into the future.

 For Sartre, his "Being-in-the-world" means a being For-itself, a free, hovering consciousness, dropped into a sea of concrete "Being-In-itself" where "Being-For-Itself" is forced to make sense of it all without a safety net.

 Our problem as sentient creatures is who trims the sails, who decides and why.  As for the sapient let them smoke weed, until then Sartre had his idea of "Project" and Heidegger had his idea of "Resolutness."

 Meanwhile, long before Plato the ancients had their Daimōn. Not quite a god, not quite a man. A Priestess once told Socrates that Love was a Great Daimōn, a divine something, a divine what, no one really knew. When Zarathustra went for his Ahura Mazda, to put an end to the quarreling he wanted one source of Wisdom, but far too many minds had wanted to keep their Daimōn, their neither God nor Man, an Aedicule, not good not bad, yet understanding and friendly, fun to be around. Christians, weren't that fond of the semi divine, saw the Daimōn by any other name as a devilish. The Virgin Mary, she's still thought of as an understanding of Daimōn, and she was for Christian Priests, of course different, no devil there.

 In the sailing ship terms and where was the captain if not in the interstitial places between God and man, here's Heidegger and Sartre:

 Heidegger’s Resoluteness.  Heidegger heard the call of his horizon, his captain recognized giveness, the exact build of his wooden ship, he read the specific tides and stars of the waters he was born into, accepting that the ship would eventually sink, he took the wheel with total, quiet authority.

 Sartre’s Fundamental Project. Sartre launched his ship into empty spaces, his captain realized the ship has no assigned destination on any map, picking a point on the horizon purely because he decided to, and catching the wind to sail toward it, knowing full well he could turn the wheel hard west tomorrow if he chooses.

 Called by history. Making sense of nothingness. Interstitial devious Devils. Take your pick