- Complete
- Neutral
- Free from error
Friday, August 21, 2015
Maximize Perfection
"Financial information must faithfully represent the phenomena that it
purports to represent. To be a perfectly faithful representation, a
depiction would have three characteristics:
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Thomas Szasz and Brain Eaters
"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed."
Ernest Becker was a good friend of Szasz. But Szasz was tenured and Becker wasn't. Becker was fired from several universities because of his support of Szasz.
Szasz was influenced by Frigyes Karanthy, a Hungarian who wrote the novel Capillaria, a world of women. Small men discover the world. They are enslaved by the women, who use them for sex and to build large phallus-shaped buildings, which the women tear down the moment they are built. The women eat the oversized brains of the men. (Paraphrased from Wikipedia)
There is thus the strange position of the dead author. He is loved mostly because he is no longer alive, he has sealed and secured his courage: he has gone to the other world, but has left behind his essence and spirit. He has in every sense conquered death. He is a peaceful memorial to a great struggle. We revere, listen to, and study his words, because he is dead. You cannot struggle against a dead man, or can you? Can the dead be resurrected?
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Toltec and How My Brother Shot Me Twice
I.
Looking at Toltec art, you see a cheerful, yet somber, brightness and darkness. It is emblematic of the schizoid attitude.
There is a debate about what anthropologists can offer--that their guesses about how people 'were' in the past can't overcome anachronism. Yet artwork and artifacts really don't need overcoming. The reaction to the artwork of these lost people is all that counts.
What is striking is that what today we call a "severe mental illness" was the very world view of some peoples. It is quite insidious because it is one thing to fight a war with a culture and kill it off, and another to diagnose a culture as "ill." Hence in this perspective, psychology, for some, represents a clinical murder of a way of seeing the world. For those from the dominant culture, of course, psychology is an aspect of the culture, and strengthens the culture and its world view. But cultures have always been at war. Perhaps they were always fleeing and attacking, rarely getting along.
The dominant class has performed admirably: there is only on form of happiness; let the marginalia be called mental illness.
II.
Riding home from a hill workout, I stopped by a truck. $1000. The old man invited me to his porch and I leaned the bike on the wall and we started her up. "Give her a test drive. I've got your bike." It drove fine.
The main issue was passing inspection and we discussed strategies. He invited me in to see his pistols and holsters. One of his Chihuahuas sat on my lap. He has a pistol belt buckle that held a tiny 22 revolver. One of the screws on his laser sight was stripped and was taking a trip to Kyle to have it fixed.
"My wife passed away in June, and I don't need two trucks and a car. I also have an RV, a 16-footer, and I just sold my other RV to my neighbor. I don't need all that."
We walked down the street and he showed his neighbor's driveway and the RV he had just sold. We talked more about guns. "I'm gonna show you what I'm really into." He connected a power chord to a light, and unlocked his workshop. "Each one of these is a dye for a different caliber." There were about 30 dyes. "That's for polishing the brass. I use walnut husk powder and I let the machine work for 2-4 hours depending on the condition of the brass."
There was an electronic scale for the gunpowder, a bench for the dye press, and boxes and boxes of shells ad bullets, and jars upon jars of gunpowder in its various manifestations.
It was beastly hot inside the workshop, which he doesn't use in the summer. "You die in the heat," he said, "plus you can't have on a fan while your working with the gunpowder."
We sat on the porch and the fan was refreshing after the hot workshop. "I've got two bullets in my leg. My brother shot me twice."
"Your brother shot you?"
"By accident, of course. First time he was going under a fence and I had come out first. When he ducked in, he shot me in the calf, right here. But our mother would take away our rifles if she found out, so he took out his pocket knife to fish out the bullet. But that only made it worse so now we were forced to go to the doctor, but mother didn't take away the rifle, as I had suffered enough.
The second time the shotgun was laying across my belly. My brother saw a bird and as he grabbed the shotgun it blew off my coat and shirt and I was certain I was a mess of guts and bound to die. But I peeled away the clothes and nothing, not a shot."
Looking at Toltec art, you see a cheerful, yet somber, brightness and darkness. It is emblematic of the schizoid attitude.
There is a debate about what anthropologists can offer--that their guesses about how people 'were' in the past can't overcome anachronism. Yet artwork and artifacts really don't need overcoming. The reaction to the artwork of these lost people is all that counts.
What is striking is that what today we call a "severe mental illness" was the very world view of some peoples. It is quite insidious because it is one thing to fight a war with a culture and kill it off, and another to diagnose a culture as "ill." Hence in this perspective, psychology, for some, represents a clinical murder of a way of seeing the world. For those from the dominant culture, of course, psychology is an aspect of the culture, and strengthens the culture and its world view. But cultures have always been at war. Perhaps they were always fleeing and attacking, rarely getting along.
The dominant class has performed admirably: there is only on form of happiness; let the marginalia be called mental illness.
II.
Riding home from a hill workout, I stopped by a truck. $1000. The old man invited me to his porch and I leaned the bike on the wall and we started her up. "Give her a test drive. I've got your bike." It drove fine.
The main issue was passing inspection and we discussed strategies. He invited me in to see his pistols and holsters. One of his Chihuahuas sat on my lap. He has a pistol belt buckle that held a tiny 22 revolver. One of the screws on his laser sight was stripped and was taking a trip to Kyle to have it fixed.
"My wife passed away in June, and I don't need two trucks and a car. I also have an RV, a 16-footer, and I just sold my other RV to my neighbor. I don't need all that."
We walked down the street and he showed his neighbor's driveway and the RV he had just sold. We talked more about guns. "I'm gonna show you what I'm really into." He connected a power chord to a light, and unlocked his workshop. "Each one of these is a dye for a different caliber." There were about 30 dyes. "That's for polishing the brass. I use walnut husk powder and I let the machine work for 2-4 hours depending on the condition of the brass."
There was an electronic scale for the gunpowder, a bench for the dye press, and boxes and boxes of shells ad bullets, and jars upon jars of gunpowder in its various manifestations.
It was beastly hot inside the workshop, which he doesn't use in the summer. "You die in the heat," he said, "plus you can't have on a fan while your working with the gunpowder."
We sat on the porch and the fan was refreshing after the hot workshop. "I've got two bullets in my leg. My brother shot me twice."
"Your brother shot you?"
"By accident, of course. First time he was going under a fence and I had come out first. When he ducked in, he shot me in the calf, right here. But our mother would take away our rifles if she found out, so he took out his pocket knife to fish out the bullet. But that only made it worse so now we were forced to go to the doctor, but mother didn't take away the rifle, as I had suffered enough.
The second time the shotgun was laying across my belly. My brother saw a bird and as he grabbed the shotgun it blew off my coat and shirt and I was certain I was a mess of guts and bound to die. But I peeled away the clothes and nothing, not a shot."
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Who were the gods? The Outsiders
Get outside the city, and there are plenty of old timers who kick around the 'crazy' stories.
Back in the day, the gods came down to man. The visit forever distracted and transformed man. They had, thousands of years ago, the technology now being formed. Man has striven to re-create this vision ever sense. The act of creation and the feeling of power drives him.
Whether man is building the things the gods once used or whether man is tying to build the gods or whether man is trying to transform himself into a god--it is a new chase of the hunt, to borrow Moraline's metaphor of the hunter-gatherer.
Hesiod, one of these old timers, knew of the gods. He used to sing of them before he could write. Everyone used to sing of them. They were enormous, immortal, never suffered.
What, now, is the difference between the caribou-spirit-god and the immortal, powerful creature from far away (who was a god when he arrived, and perhaps is the god driving man's current transformation)?
Back in the day, the gods came down to man. The visit forever distracted and transformed man. They had, thousands of years ago, the technology now being formed. Man has striven to re-create this vision ever sense. The act of creation and the feeling of power drives him.
Whether man is building the things the gods once used or whether man is tying to build the gods or whether man is trying to transform himself into a god--it is a new chase of the hunt, to borrow Moraline's metaphor of the hunter-gatherer.
Hesiod, one of these old timers, knew of the gods. He used to sing of them before he could write. Everyone used to sing of them. They were enormous, immortal, never suffered.
What, now, is the difference between the caribou-spirit-god and the immortal, powerful creature from far away (who was a god when he arrived, and perhaps is the god driving man's current transformation)?
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Golden Age of the Present: Morning Sermon
Chrome has recently reminded us that the Golden Age is today, here in
the present. So the question then becomes: how do we make these current
moments the golden age?
From Scott: each part of the earth is unique, and the humans (and animals and volcanoes and plants) are unique to each piece of earth. Human beings are happy when they can live based on how they have learned to adapt to each part of the earth--western men might call this culture, and the way they have adapted, technology.
Expressions of joy, spirit, routine, tradition, perhaps there is artwork, worship, sacrifice. Perhaps this concept of the gods and of myth. The question is--who would want to have an adversarial attitude to the gods? Those who didn't share these feelings, outsiders (an outside tribe). We jump forward too far to say immediately: those who come from outside with a scientific viewpoint to create a system of legibility to form a matrix to utilize these humans as productive factors on a human farm.
For if gods are a source of power for one group, they are a source of confusion for another.
The modern attack on reification and hypostasis falls in line with the same prohibition of the spiritual, prohibition of gods.
Popper's 'solution' is to just ditch any way of thinking that departs from the practical--that is to say, banausic--that in these dense (highly populated) societies, the mystical or the spiritual or the gods are too dangerous, because they rile up man and delude him and lead to bad 'human events.' (A cynic would say Popper believes these beliefs make man less legible and less controllable, but Popper argues the opposite). Assuming Popper's 'account of history' is perfectly correct, his solution gives way for an unchecked life of production. All language, culture, and activity must be based on the activities of modern science and production. Whether this new way of being is a liberation or a new enslavement is perhaps the matter of debate at the moment as humans forge their way to a new golden age or iron age.
Now man worships what he makes. What he makes requires the transformation of the earth. The void that has been created by the prohibition of gods and finally the prohibition of reification and hypostasis means that there is no longer any way of being that remains that could enjoy leisure--in theory, that is, if we take Popper's argument to its teleological end. That man still engages in leisure--look no further than the kayaking, swimming, climbing, running, cycling, frisbee, bat watching etc., that blankets this city every day. It isn't that there no longer exists, mathematically, the resources which would allow for 'free time' which would enable 'leisure activities.' What has been wiped out is a way of being capable of enjoying and be able to carry out leisure activities. This is what has accelerated man's use and transformation of the earth. And yet leisure still manifests itself spontaneously and in great protest to the otherwise mechanical 'work day.'
This city represents a strange and friendly tribe on a sunny and beautiful piece of the earth. Indeed the young people who roam the city on bicycles are unburdened by the myths of the past. One day, I cycled 11 miles, encountering 20 percent graded hills, then ran with a small tribe in the hills, then cycld again through the tribal territories without headlamp through the hills in the dark, and on my way encountered several hundred bicycle riders who had begun their weekly night time tribal group ride which had formed spontaneously. Many of the riders attached boom boxes to their bicycles and many had colorful lights on wheels and spokes. Had the gods returned and attached themselves to the bicycles?
On the way to encountering the tribe of Bicycles and Lights, I encountered the tribe of Blue Moon watchers, who gathered on the large bridge to photograph the Blue Moon. I stopped and asked them of the Blue Moon and they shared with me stories of the Blue Moon, which happens only once a year. This tribe, then, has only one ceremony per year. If the ceremony happens on a cloudy day, there is great sadness.
Then there is the famous tribe of Bat-Watchers, who gather each night to watch the bats fly out from under a large bridge. They bring blankets and food and other merriment and gaze at the Bat-Creatures.
Thousands gather each day at the cold spring to cool from the intense heat. This tribe is called People of the Spring. It is the not uncommon for the People of the Spring to become the Bat Watchers or the Night Time Spirit Riders.
Tonight is the tribe of the great Runners of the Oval. The tribe runs in the Circle. Cold Water is worshiped between Circle Runs. Today is the running of the great Mile. Time is given, but time must first be created to be given.
From Scott: each part of the earth is unique, and the humans (and animals and volcanoes and plants) are unique to each piece of earth. Human beings are happy when they can live based on how they have learned to adapt to each part of the earth--western men might call this culture, and the way they have adapted, technology.
Expressions of joy, spirit, routine, tradition, perhaps there is artwork, worship, sacrifice. Perhaps this concept of the gods and of myth. The question is--who would want to have an adversarial attitude to the gods? Those who didn't share these feelings, outsiders (an outside tribe). We jump forward too far to say immediately: those who come from outside with a scientific viewpoint to create a system of legibility to form a matrix to utilize these humans as productive factors on a human farm.
For if gods are a source of power for one group, they are a source of confusion for another.
The modern attack on reification and hypostasis falls in line with the same prohibition of the spiritual, prohibition of gods.
Popper's 'solution' is to just ditch any way of thinking that departs from the practical--that is to say, banausic--that in these dense (highly populated) societies, the mystical or the spiritual or the gods are too dangerous, because they rile up man and delude him and lead to bad 'human events.' (A cynic would say Popper believes these beliefs make man less legible and less controllable, but Popper argues the opposite). Assuming Popper's 'account of history' is perfectly correct, his solution gives way for an unchecked life of production. All language, culture, and activity must be based on the activities of modern science and production. Whether this new way of being is a liberation or a new enslavement is perhaps the matter of debate at the moment as humans forge their way to a new golden age or iron age.
Now man worships what he makes. What he makes requires the transformation of the earth. The void that has been created by the prohibition of gods and finally the prohibition of reification and hypostasis means that there is no longer any way of being that remains that could enjoy leisure--in theory, that is, if we take Popper's argument to its teleological end. That man still engages in leisure--look no further than the kayaking, swimming, climbing, running, cycling, frisbee, bat watching etc., that blankets this city every day. It isn't that there no longer exists, mathematically, the resources which would allow for 'free time' which would enable 'leisure activities.' What has been wiped out is a way of being capable of enjoying and be able to carry out leisure activities. This is what has accelerated man's use and transformation of the earth. And yet leisure still manifests itself spontaneously and in great protest to the otherwise mechanical 'work day.'
This city represents a strange and friendly tribe on a sunny and beautiful piece of the earth. Indeed the young people who roam the city on bicycles are unburdened by the myths of the past. One day, I cycled 11 miles, encountering 20 percent graded hills, then ran with a small tribe in the hills, then cycld again through the tribal territories without headlamp through the hills in the dark, and on my way encountered several hundred bicycle riders who had begun their weekly night time tribal group ride which had formed spontaneously. Many of the riders attached boom boxes to their bicycles and many had colorful lights on wheels and spokes. Had the gods returned and attached themselves to the bicycles?
On the way to encountering the tribe of Bicycles and Lights, I encountered the tribe of Blue Moon watchers, who gathered on the large bridge to photograph the Blue Moon. I stopped and asked them of the Blue Moon and they shared with me stories of the Blue Moon, which happens only once a year. This tribe, then, has only one ceremony per year. If the ceremony happens on a cloudy day, there is great sadness.
Then there is the famous tribe of Bat-Watchers, who gather each night to watch the bats fly out from under a large bridge. They bring blankets and food and other merriment and gaze at the Bat-Creatures.
Thousands gather each day at the cold spring to cool from the intense heat. This tribe is called People of the Spring. It is the not uncommon for the People of the Spring to become the Bat Watchers or the Night Time Spirit Riders.
Tonight is the tribe of the great Runners of the Oval. The tribe runs in the Circle. Cold Water is worshiped between Circle Runs. Today is the running of the great Mile. Time is given, but time must first be created to be given.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
A reponse to comments on Hesiod, Plato, and Moraline: An Eternal Golden Triangle
The missing link, and all the work that has to be done if Western man is to entertain himself in this philosophical business is to get at the phenomenology of the fall of man from Eden. I am pointing out here that the fall of man was lamented by even a statist like Plato. Why was that? It is a smoking gun insofar as man, in all his progress and glory, still thinks he has done something wrong when he sees nature and animals. Why would an ex-futures trader and truck-driver (Moraline), a small farmer and son of a sailor (Hesiod), and an aristocrat (Plato) all say the same thing? (Namely, why would they all lament the fall of man from Eden)?
Also, note the contradiction between Hesiod's philosophy--currently my central philosophy as well-- and your explanation for the fall from grace: that of claiming possession. What it reveals is how entrenched man already was that private property was a far lesser evil than government. Seen in another light, perhaps it is premature to point back immediately the the hunter-gatherers before we have addressed the more immediate and menacing problem of the state. This is Hesiod's point, although he spends plenty of time on the fall of man from the golden age, to the silver age, to his current age, in which he says he wishes he were never born. So, like Moraline, he is an unabashed pessimist of the current age, but believes the pessimism is warranted, and without such pessimism, there would be philosophical illusion rather than clarity--in other words, a sugar-coated view would be mendacious and cause more harm than a candid and critical viewpoint. His poetry about the golden age might also offer a mystical solution to again finding the path of the hunter-gatherer. Not transcendent, where one meditates and believes one is an Inuit, for example, but one in which there is an indirect attitude which leads to a lessening of legibility, conflict, and possession. But for Hesiod, there is an overarching pragmatism that, no matter how terrible the loss of the golden age, it can only get worse if man loses autonomy. This means enforcing the great sin of property and self-sufficiency. I myself learned this the hard way in Alaska: if you have no roots in Alaska, you will starve, freeze, and die, at which point noting is possible. I found my own plot of land, marked it off, pounded nails into trees with the sign: No Trespassing, Private Property. I would carry a fire arm with me as I walked my property. Kevin said that you'll never be able to look at an animal the same once you look down at him on your plate.
Kubrick surmised in 2001: Space Odyssey that it was man's increase of protein through killing other animals that made him more aggressive, and this led to his killing and enslaving other men. I wonder if it was the hunting aspect of hunting-gathering that was a potential cause of vortex.
I don't believe we find illumination by merely saying that the fall of man happened when he first said "this is mine." Much had to happen before that could happen. First, he had to have language. Second, he had to know the land well enough to pick out one piece and say it was his. This meat tat he had to stop moving. Did he stop moving because the climate changed, or because there was a tribe who was so different from his own that they didn't get along? (New languages, customs, competition for women.)
Second, if we are claiming that this man delineated a piece of land for farming, then we have to travel far back and get at the origin of farming. Did that happen by accident or by a radical, new project, and break with man, animals, and earth?
The screaming, blaring, hot-coals-under-feet question is WHY DID MAN LEAVE HIS GOLDEN AGE BEHIND? If he was happiest under ideal conditions, why on earth would he pursue that which makes him unhappy and sick? Everyone skips the essential questions, the essential phenomenology. Either there was no golden age, and man progressed, and continues to progress, or there was a golden age, and something bad happened to end it. What was the bad thing that happened that ended the golden age? That is the question of philosophy. I wrote the above article to draw attention to the modern reader that your questions of surplus are continuations of perennial questions of literate men, going back at least 2,700 years. In other words, the men who founded the current way of living still lamented a loss of an older, and better way of living. Why didn't Plato say that the present is better, and the past was inferior?
Also, note the contradiction between Hesiod's philosophy--currently my central philosophy as well-- and your explanation for the fall from grace: that of claiming possession. What it reveals is how entrenched man already was that private property was a far lesser evil than government. Seen in another light, perhaps it is premature to point back immediately the the hunter-gatherers before we have addressed the more immediate and menacing problem of the state. This is Hesiod's point, although he spends plenty of time on the fall of man from the golden age, to the silver age, to his current age, in which he says he wishes he were never born. So, like Moraline, he is an unabashed pessimist of the current age, but believes the pessimism is warranted, and without such pessimism, there would be philosophical illusion rather than clarity--in other words, a sugar-coated view would be mendacious and cause more harm than a candid and critical viewpoint. His poetry about the golden age might also offer a mystical solution to again finding the path of the hunter-gatherer. Not transcendent, where one meditates and believes one is an Inuit, for example, but one in which there is an indirect attitude which leads to a lessening of legibility, conflict, and possession. But for Hesiod, there is an overarching pragmatism that, no matter how terrible the loss of the golden age, it can only get worse if man loses autonomy. This means enforcing the great sin of property and self-sufficiency. I myself learned this the hard way in Alaska: if you have no roots in Alaska, you will starve, freeze, and die, at which point noting is possible. I found my own plot of land, marked it off, pounded nails into trees with the sign: No Trespassing, Private Property. I would carry a fire arm with me as I walked my property. Kevin said that you'll never be able to look at an animal the same once you look down at him on your plate.
Kubrick surmised in 2001: Space Odyssey that it was man's increase of protein through killing other animals that made him more aggressive, and this led to his killing and enslaving other men. I wonder if it was the hunting aspect of hunting-gathering that was a potential cause of vortex.
I don't believe we find illumination by merely saying that the fall of man happened when he first said "this is mine." Much had to happen before that could happen. First, he had to have language. Second, he had to know the land well enough to pick out one piece and say it was his. This meat tat he had to stop moving. Did he stop moving because the climate changed, or because there was a tribe who was so different from his own that they didn't get along? (New languages, customs, competition for women.)
Second, if we are claiming that this man delineated a piece of land for farming, then we have to travel far back and get at the origin of farming. Did that happen by accident or by a radical, new project, and break with man, animals, and earth?
The screaming, blaring, hot-coals-under-feet question is WHY DID MAN LEAVE HIS GOLDEN AGE BEHIND? If he was happiest under ideal conditions, why on earth would he pursue that which makes him unhappy and sick? Everyone skips the essential questions, the essential phenomenology. Either there was no golden age, and man progressed, and continues to progress, or there was a golden age, and something bad happened to end it. What was the bad thing that happened that ended the golden age? That is the question of philosophy. I wrote the above article to draw attention to the modern reader that your questions of surplus are continuations of perennial questions of literate men, going back at least 2,700 years. In other words, the men who founded the current way of living still lamented a loss of an older, and better way of living. Why didn't Plato say that the present is better, and the past was inferior?
Hesiod versus Plato
One of Hesiod's central messages is to work very hard, not necessarily because it regulates the mind or is good for the soul, but because it ensures autonomy. Without autonomy, a man can't regulate his own affairs, he can't raise his family. His actions are dependent on others who rule him. He will be petty in his affairs, and appeal to the state to accomplish things for him that, if he were otherwise autonomous, he would do for himself. The only person mentioned in Hesiod's Works and Days is his brother, Persius, who is suing Hesiod for some of Hesiod's assets (the assets comprising his grain farm). Hesiod tells Persius that he wouldn't be having any trouble if he just got to work and managed his farm properly. Instead, Persius is using the local government to force Hesiod to give up his assets, the product of his own hard work. Persius has created, in Hesiod's mind, a false problem, a false dispute, to excuse him from getting to work on his own farm. The local "gift-eaters," the local government, are more than happy to help Persius, as they work for bribes.
Hence much of Hesiod's 'philosophy' is a field manual for farming: when and what to plant, what animals to use, what personnel, how to store grain, how and when to sell grain, etc.. There is also a brilliant account of the gods and the poetry has no comparison.
According to Karl Popper in his Open Society and its Enemies, Plato used a term "banausic" to describe middle-class pursuits of money. Both Plato and Aristotle were patently against such pursuits. They were writing for the land-owning aristocracy, and from this perspective and to this audience, they condemned banausic (technical, money-making) activity. They believed society exists for the purpose of leisure, and men's interacting with other men of leisure class. Leisure exists only for the landed, noble ruling class, which is not to farm the land, but reap the benefits of the slaves who farm the land. Hunting, warfare, and athletics were worthy activities. Philosophy was a worthy activity.
Yet, like Hesiod, who wrote 3 centuries before Plato, Plato also spoke of a more perfect way of being of the nomad or the hunter-gatherer--the golden age of man.
I find it very interesting that Moraline's whole lament about the loss of the hunter-gatherer society is the same damn script as a guy who wrote in 7 B.C and another guy who wrote in 3 B.C.
I will go further. Moraline has it out for the aristocracy--the billionaire class, the hedge fund managers. His feelings for the hedge fund crowd are similar to Hesiod's feelings for Persius--both Hesiod and Moraline claim that such activity lacks nobility and honor and is self-deceptive and will result in future trouble and misery.
Moraine, like Hesiod, associates physical labor with autonomy. The problems of the state go away when men have the strength to take care of themselves (and their family) and settle their own affairs. Moraline might carry the role of physical labor further, glorifying the activity itself. How seriously this glorification is to be taken seriously is a matter of scholarship and speculation. The glorification can be seen as a taunt to the aristocracy. They believe themselves to be the power holders, they believe themselves to be holding privileged, rarified positions, creating great amounts of what they consider to be 'wealth.' Yet Moraline claims that man can be a heroic god without having to bow to authority, without being forced into one system. A man can create his own adventure, and find glory and satisfaction in what is seemingly mundane and lowly. Moreover, he claims that the rarified and ostensible power the aristocrats believe themselves to possess is in fact illusory. They are slaves in a system, the eventual 'good' to be had a transcendent fantasy. They are unwatched by the gods.
Incidentally, if it is true that the nomads and hunter-gatherers are the gods (as Hesiod may be, at times, claiming), it is interesting to note the gods would not disdain the hedge fund crowd, but would rather ignore them.
I don't know what Plato would say about these hedge fund guys. They are neither middle-class tradesmen, nor landed men of benevolent leisure. They are not intellectual. They are not spiritual. They are not great explorers or conquerors. They are not landed aristocracy, but they do indeed reap the 'benefit' of significant 'assets,' jittering 0s and 1s guarded by nuclear weapons. The question I believe Moraline raises is: what, indeed, is this benefit? What is the asset? The 'product' received by these hedge fund guys is big and powerful, no doubt, but what is it?
Hesiod warned that a man should never lose his autonomy. It will sink man lower than he already is. Hesiod believed the nomads and hunter-gatherers to be no less than gods, immortal men who never suffered, never died, and lived in a manner far elevated and inconceivable to the men of his time. In essence Hesiod was telling men two things: First, that they are wretched compared to what they used to be. Second, to not get worse and far more wretched. If men lost their autonomy, they would create bad habits that would destroy the freedom of all men through the growth of government (gift eaters). Interestingly, to Hesiod it was implicit that the bad behavior resulting from the loss of autonomy or the use of gift-eaters was the default behavior of women. Recall that Pandora's Box, a story first introduced by Hesiod, was a vessel of evil spilled by a woman that decimated the happiness of man and was the origin of man's sorrows. Of course, this raises the critical question. What was the downfall of man for Hesiod, the loss of hunter-gatherers or the spilling of Pandora's Box? Or did one cause the other?
A glaring question then arises: Is Plato no different than Persius? There are certain similarities but also certain crucial differences. The similarities: Plato believes the manual labor of farming to be beneath him. But in place of this labor a man should fill his life with hunting, war, and intellectual pursuits.And of course a man should never use the state to sue another man and take his assets. He does not believe it is noble for one man of land to use the state to rob another man of his grain, land, slaves, or farm implements (that is to say, his wealth). What did Persius do in lieu of farming? Was he a man of leisure?
Initially it may seem that these questions are irrelevant. But if we are asking questions about the growth of surplus (and not the origin of surplus, which we can agree began with the fall of nomadi or hunter-gatherer society), we have to ask how we get from small-scale farms with only a few slaves and at most 1-2 years of stored grain (in other words, almost no credit, which is the modern manifestation of Moraline's concept of surplus) in 700 B.C. Greece to enormous farms, credit, currency, and big government by the time of Plato. (I ignore here civilizations in India, China, Syria, etc. which predeceased but probably didn't influence Greece at the time, and which had reached greater sophistication and size before the time of Plato). Were these large farms and large governments only possible through the organized theft and monopoly of violence of government?
Plato would perhaps imagine he and his culture had advanced a long way since the time of Hesiod. But what if it is the case that Plato's culture was only possible through engaging in the very conduct that Hesiod condemned?
It is only a theory, of course, as it is possible that the large farms and large governments simply grew out of advancing farm technology, that the technology and growth happened without the state and growth of the strength and size of its gift-eaters. But my question is: was this technology advanced through credit growth--Moraline's surplus--that had its genesis in organized petty theft? The implication is that the mystery of surplus arises from a violation of at least two of the ten commandments: coveting thy neighbor, and theft.
Plato's landed aristocracy and their leisure class gave way to immersion of the aristocracy in banausic activity--surplus eventually destroyed the leisure of the landed class--surplus destroyed a bastion of autonomy.
In conclusion, I have noted that Hesiod, Plato, and Moraline have lamented the fall of man from Eden, the golden age of mankind. Hesiod's solution has some similarities with Moraline, insofar as Moraline advocates independent hard work as a solution to some philosophical problems. The similarities end there however as Moraline would look for a way of life more primitive than Hesiod himself.
Here is where we have an interesting similarity between all three strange bedfellows--the small farmer, the aristocratic philosopher, and the blue collar truck driver: all three lament the loss of the nomadic hunter-gatherer and all three agree that man's life worsened, and his problems began, with the fall of the nomadic or hunter-gatherer life. I point this out because there is a common tendency to discredit those who long for some idealic golden age of man. What is fascinating is that there is growing evidence that such a golden age did in fact occur (see Wietzel's Origin of Human Mythology). It is also interesting to understand that Plato--considered one of the pillars of Western civilization, and by no means a lunatic--offers the same lamentation as the farmer and truck-driver.
Hence much of Hesiod's 'philosophy' is a field manual for farming: when and what to plant, what animals to use, what personnel, how to store grain, how and when to sell grain, etc.. There is also a brilliant account of the gods and the poetry has no comparison.
According to Karl Popper in his Open Society and its Enemies, Plato used a term "banausic" to describe middle-class pursuits of money. Both Plato and Aristotle were patently against such pursuits. They were writing for the land-owning aristocracy, and from this perspective and to this audience, they condemned banausic (technical, money-making) activity. They believed society exists for the purpose of leisure, and men's interacting with other men of leisure class. Leisure exists only for the landed, noble ruling class, which is not to farm the land, but reap the benefits of the slaves who farm the land. Hunting, warfare, and athletics were worthy activities. Philosophy was a worthy activity.
Yet, like Hesiod, who wrote 3 centuries before Plato, Plato also spoke of a more perfect way of being of the nomad or the hunter-gatherer--the golden age of man.
I find it very interesting that Moraline's whole lament about the loss of the hunter-gatherer society is the same damn script as a guy who wrote in 7 B.C and another guy who wrote in 3 B.C.
I will go further. Moraline has it out for the aristocracy--the billionaire class, the hedge fund managers. His feelings for the hedge fund crowd are similar to Hesiod's feelings for Persius--both Hesiod and Moraline claim that such activity lacks nobility and honor and is self-deceptive and will result in future trouble and misery.
Moraine, like Hesiod, associates physical labor with autonomy. The problems of the state go away when men have the strength to take care of themselves (and their family) and settle their own affairs. Moraline might carry the role of physical labor further, glorifying the activity itself. How seriously this glorification is to be taken seriously is a matter of scholarship and speculation. The glorification can be seen as a taunt to the aristocracy. They believe themselves to be the power holders, they believe themselves to be holding privileged, rarified positions, creating great amounts of what they consider to be 'wealth.' Yet Moraline claims that man can be a heroic god without having to bow to authority, without being forced into one system. A man can create his own adventure, and find glory and satisfaction in what is seemingly mundane and lowly. Moreover, he claims that the rarified and ostensible power the aristocrats believe themselves to possess is in fact illusory. They are slaves in a system, the eventual 'good' to be had a transcendent fantasy. They are unwatched by the gods.
Incidentally, if it is true that the nomads and hunter-gatherers are the gods (as Hesiod may be, at times, claiming), it is interesting to note the gods would not disdain the hedge fund crowd, but would rather ignore them.
I don't know what Plato would say about these hedge fund guys. They are neither middle-class tradesmen, nor landed men of benevolent leisure. They are not intellectual. They are not spiritual. They are not great explorers or conquerors. They are not landed aristocracy, but they do indeed reap the 'benefit' of significant 'assets,' jittering 0s and 1s guarded by nuclear weapons. The question I believe Moraline raises is: what, indeed, is this benefit? What is the asset? The 'product' received by these hedge fund guys is big and powerful, no doubt, but what is it?
Hesiod warned that a man should never lose his autonomy. It will sink man lower than he already is. Hesiod believed the nomads and hunter-gatherers to be no less than gods, immortal men who never suffered, never died, and lived in a manner far elevated and inconceivable to the men of his time. In essence Hesiod was telling men two things: First, that they are wretched compared to what they used to be. Second, to not get worse and far more wretched. If men lost their autonomy, they would create bad habits that would destroy the freedom of all men through the growth of government (gift eaters). Interestingly, to Hesiod it was implicit that the bad behavior resulting from the loss of autonomy or the use of gift-eaters was the default behavior of women. Recall that Pandora's Box, a story first introduced by Hesiod, was a vessel of evil spilled by a woman that decimated the happiness of man and was the origin of man's sorrows. Of course, this raises the critical question. What was the downfall of man for Hesiod, the loss of hunter-gatherers or the spilling of Pandora's Box? Or did one cause the other?
A glaring question then arises: Is Plato no different than Persius? There are certain similarities but also certain crucial differences. The similarities: Plato believes the manual labor of farming to be beneath him. But in place of this labor a man should fill his life with hunting, war, and intellectual pursuits.And of course a man should never use the state to sue another man and take his assets. He does not believe it is noble for one man of land to use the state to rob another man of his grain, land, slaves, or farm implements (that is to say, his wealth). What did Persius do in lieu of farming? Was he a man of leisure?
Initially it may seem that these questions are irrelevant. But if we are asking questions about the growth of surplus (and not the origin of surplus, which we can agree began with the fall of nomadi or hunter-gatherer society), we have to ask how we get from small-scale farms with only a few slaves and at most 1-2 years of stored grain (in other words, almost no credit, which is the modern manifestation of Moraline's concept of surplus) in 700 B.C. Greece to enormous farms, credit, currency, and big government by the time of Plato. (I ignore here civilizations in India, China, Syria, etc. which predeceased but probably didn't influence Greece at the time, and which had reached greater sophistication and size before the time of Plato). Were these large farms and large governments only possible through the organized theft and monopoly of violence of government?
Plato would perhaps imagine he and his culture had advanced a long way since the time of Hesiod. But what if it is the case that Plato's culture was only possible through engaging in the very conduct that Hesiod condemned?
It is only a theory, of course, as it is possible that the large farms and large governments simply grew out of advancing farm technology, that the technology and growth happened without the state and growth of the strength and size of its gift-eaters. But my question is: was this technology advanced through credit growth--Moraline's surplus--that had its genesis in organized petty theft? The implication is that the mystery of surplus arises from a violation of at least two of the ten commandments: coveting thy neighbor, and theft.
Plato's landed aristocracy and their leisure class gave way to immersion of the aristocracy in banausic activity--surplus eventually destroyed the leisure of the landed class--surplus destroyed a bastion of autonomy.
In conclusion, I have noted that Hesiod, Plato, and Moraline have lamented the fall of man from Eden, the golden age of mankind. Hesiod's solution has some similarities with Moraline, insofar as Moraline advocates independent hard work as a solution to some philosophical problems. The similarities end there however as Moraline would look for a way of life more primitive than Hesiod himself.
Here is where we have an interesting similarity between all three strange bedfellows--the small farmer, the aristocratic philosopher, and the blue collar truck driver: all three lament the loss of the nomadic hunter-gatherer and all three agree that man's life worsened, and his problems began, with the fall of the nomadic or hunter-gatherer life. I point this out because there is a common tendency to discredit those who long for some idealic golden age of man. What is fascinating is that there is growing evidence that such a golden age did in fact occur (see Wietzel's Origin of Human Mythology). It is also interesting to understand that Plato--considered one of the pillars of Western civilization, and by no means a lunatic--offers the same lamentation as the farmer and truck-driver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)