Listen to a reading of this article: You're not jaded; everything really is just as phony and vapid as it looks. I say this because if you are reading this it's likely the result of a personal quest for truth which has led to a gradual peeling away of the lies our society is made of. Your eyes probably found this text because you're the sort of person who's been trying to make sense of the world in a sea of propaganda and deception, which often results in a growing disgust not just with the power structures which oppress and tyrannize humanity, but with our entire civilization.
Any system can work. We've also never seen a true communist state. It could work. Probably not, because human nature will twist it into an authoritarian nightmare, but it could. All systems are sabotaged by the simple fact that humans are, well, humans.
Human nature is not evil - that is part of the propaganda, and it has been very successful due to the combined efforts of state religion and fascistic states. Don't tell me religion has not supported fascist values - with one side of its mouth - because the record proves otherwise.
I apologize for misrepresenting your intentions: but the implications for "human nature" are not good if a fair, reasonable system is beyond our capabilities, and out of keeping with our natural inclinations. I don't believe that is the case: a social system based generally on equality of all members, where reason and fairness are the ruling principles and differences can be settled by negotiation, not superstition and hateful bias, is the most natural of all systems. We claim to value love, equality, progress, fairness, openness, justice, democracy: these are concepts that are supposed to be manifested in ideas, but they aren't: exploitative war is not just: misogyny is not love: government secrecy, fraud and lies, is not openness and democracy: rule by religious nut cases is not progress. On down the line we lie to ourselves and become inauthentic and ineffective.
I don't think humans are evil, but, with all due respect, I find the following statement highly naive: "a social system based generally on equality of all members, where reason and fairness are the ruling principles and differences can be settled by negotiation, not superstition and hateful bias, is the most natural of all systems"
That system is not natural to humans at all. If it were, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.
Well put, DWE. I think it is one thing to see the inherent flaws and contradictions in capitalism, and the moral contortions it puts its adherents into. But It is quite another to come to terms with the human capacity for greed and self-deception. Certainly no social construct can ever accord total “freedom” to its members and be fair, and we have had several millennia of blowhards who defend the power, manhandle the weak and brag that that is “freedom.”
I'm curious how you would interpret "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
You've described how it's supposed to be and then gone on to conclude it's not. Then what does it mean? If someone is "good" but makes all kinds of mishaps that lead to evil outcomes, well, we don't really have to call him "evil". Just that what he did ended up being it.
No, any system cannot work, if by that you mean provide for the needs of the people equally well. Both theory and history confirm free markets (to the extent they are allowed to function) provide for such needs far better than any other system. The late great Ludwig von Mises, dean of the Austrian School of economics devastated all arguments favoring state controlled economic systems by demonstrating that lacking free pricing to reflect consumer preferences, hence the ability to rationally allocate resources in the most efficient manner to provide for people want, such state controlled systems are doomed to failure.
I don't think it is human nature, although I think I understand what you are saying. I think it is that people get twisted and misled. Babies are the most perfect human creatures and while they do demand that their basic needs are met, it takes a while for them to learn from those around them to be truly authoritarian.
"True Communism" ALWAYS involves totalitarianism; Karl Marx himself admitted this. There is no "nice" form of Communism; in addition, Communism as an economic system is doomed to failure from the start, for it does not further the generation of wealth, as does Capitalism. Thus, our task should be to CLEAN UP capitalism, recognize, correct its weaknesses. No easy task, considering human nature, but then: human nature is why ANY system ultimately fails.
Balderdash. Human beings created a rigged system to keep wealth in the hands of the minority that already possess it, to extract labor from those who need it, to compensate the latter at a rate to keep them needing and working, and to deal with competitors however the see fit. When laborers have organized to seek justice, they have been slaughtered, beaten down with batons, bought off and ultimately convinced they can never legally achieve their goal. Add to this the historical violation of sovereignty of nations that our corporations have routinely played at. They create the pretext in the complicit media, convince the sheeple to hate and fear, and voila the targeted state has a new, friendly leader.
None of the above represents “human nature.” Call it what it is: murder, theft, criminal abuse, human exploitation, and most obviously, greed.
Uh...and WHO is committing those murders, thefts, criminal abuses, human exploitation, and greed, if not HUMANS. Of course, not everyone commits such acts, but there are enough people who do, and therefore, all the crimes/ sorry tendencies you mention occur again and again, throughout history, in ALL sorts of political systems.
How about this one: " My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." Letter from Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer". Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. dated March 5, 1852 in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works Vol. 39 (International Publishers: New York, 1983) pp. 62–65. Note the use of the term DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. Sure sounds totalitarian to me! That Marx believed that the dictatorship would then lead to an abolition of all classes, shows Marx's great naivete; those who possess power are virtually ALWAYS reluctant to give it up.
That's good, your starting to think, but you need to go deeper. Look up dictatorship as defined in Webster's, and see if such a word could be applied to a proletariat vs a individual. Then compare it to the definition used by (edit: deleted repetition) European political philosophers at the time of Marx writing, and you might see where you could be misled. Context, always context.
Human nature, if not shaped, will continue from the normal (probably overly mother-indulged) self-concerned "me" of the two year old to the self-concerned 16, 22, 30, 40 years old much more dangerous version of "me."
Pointing to human flaws and imperfections as a way of explaining injustice has been a traditional way of defending crooked systems. There is no perfect system, but rigged games are not down to the flawed Everyman.
Humans are humans. They are not "flawed." They are humans, produced over millennia. Humans will act like humans. I'm not defending nor advocating any "system" over any other system. If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I don't consider the US a true capitalist system. I also don't consider Russia or China a true communist system. Those systems only exist in books because applying them in the real world runs into the trap of forgetting that humans are humans. What you *can* do is take the best of each system and take into account those things in human nature that sabotage systems, or allow for them to "rig" the systems as you put it, and work with them and counter them with open eyes. That's not something I actually see anyone advocating. They'd rather argue that humans are "flawed" and don't blame humans and this system or that system is worse or better rather than finding any practical solution that benefits the most amount of people and allows for the least amount of abuse.
It seems you misread "What you *can* do is take the best of each system and take into account those things in human nature that sabotage systems, or allow for them to "rig" the systems as you put it, and work with them and counter them with open eyes."
Also to reward. That is the thing. If you have a system that allows for or ecourages aspects of human nature to flourish in such a manner that is beneficial, we win. For instance, it may be argued that the desire to accumulate wealth is a human thing. So a system that encourages a better mouse trap- say by the inventor of that mousetrap acquiring wealth- we all benefit.
That's way oversimplifying, but as a practical matter, all things are equal. Any arrangement, with the consent and buy-in of the governed, can be made to work. Equally, no system is free from the temptation to stratify to the point where the masses are little more than disposable serfs to support a small elite. That's why the structure of our "capitalist" US and the "communist" China or Russia look very much the same: a few people on the top of the pile with a stranglehold on the resources and the rest, the masses, supporting those few.
I agree with your main point, which is adapting whatever system for the social good. But it isn’t humans that rig capitalism, it’s a rigged system full stop. Sure little folks can benefit to a small degree, but it can not be equitable, and it is predicated on perpetual growth... which leads to perpetual war. Can barter and fair trade be fashioned in such a way that doesn’t have all the merchants living at the top of the hill? I don’t know...
I do not know that all merchants want to live at the top of the hill, and it is true that there are only so many hands in a deck of cards. This is the nature of materialism, the kind that is "inarguable" i.e. we are at least partially material. All we can do is strive for justice. Now, what do we call justice? Another question. Surely being angry that a better mousetrap inventor has more than the dim or less ambitious gets us nothing good. Encourage that which benefits all, discourages that which actually harms others and pray we all know the difference.
Communism can never work because it relies upon force. It also fails to calculate individual needs, so even if it could be forced to 'work' it will always leave the public unhappy and rebellious.
Unhappy and enslaved people is part of the term "works" when applied to any form of collectivism that exists by force. Some supporters are people who are naive, some are just plain authoritarianists who believe they should be and WILL BE on top.
"Government is not logic, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE, and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
We were warned point blank by the would-be proprietors themselves before we adopted their ideals and gave them power, and we continue to give it to them by giving credence and "full faith and credit" to hierarchical systems every time we accept or pass their fraudulent currency, vote for the lesser of two evils, and any number of "ordinary" activities that assure the continuity of the abusive systems that traumatize and exploit in an ever-more parasitic intergenerational cycle. The only way out of the trap is OUT of the centralized mindset we have built WITHIN ourselves since our self-domestication began with our building of the first walled cities.
"Any man who would trade a little liberty for a little security will lose both, and deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin
If that is the case, all this shit we live in is "just human nature' and we will only subvert the best-intentioned systems we can invent, develop or evolve even; why not give up now? As nothing we do on this planet is really anything other than exploitative, contemptuous and fatal to other things living here, surely the kindest and most moral thing we could all do is make like the lemmings and head for the nearest cliff, either actual or metaphorical, to slide off over the edge of. Surely? Dontcha think?
Because it's also human nature to strive for something better and because our natural instinct to survive as a species demands we go on and try to solve these problems.
And to solve these problems, rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to someone who says "it's human nature," perhaps try to understand human nature honestly and on its own terms.
The term is conundrum or contradiction. Capitalism and free market, they can not exist in the same space. Capital always distorts the operation of a market. Libertarians define free market as a market completely in the control of (eventually a) private monopoly on capital, which is also a conundrum.
I just hate government - the use of force - instead of cooperation. I hate the banks manipulating interest rates and distorting production over time - leading to the boom bust cycle. I hate corruption. I love your right to live as you see fit and make profit by serving your fellow man. Because that’s the only way you make profit in a capitalist system by serving the sovereign consumer.
I'd have thought your avatar name is tremblo slice?
I was not suggesting alternatives, just pointing out contradictions. If you want a suggestion, free ones are not always very good. However, here I go. Perhaps living on a deserted island might help you meet some points. Maybe all of them but last one, which is a dogma. I don't know what you can do about that but examine your thinking. Maybe, but no promise, maybe you could have one other person on the island, a person in all ways of equal capacity. Once you get to three, well politics and government start to appear. After all the rules and mores of family in various societies is the most local form of government.
That was going to be my point. I'm not sure the US is truly a capitalist state. In fact, I'd put it closer to fascism or oligarchy than capitalism. But the rest she's spot on about. It is *all* fake.
"communism, autocracy, and authoritarianism." I'm good on the meaning of authoritarianism, which is rule through authority. However too many people bander the first two about without a care for earlier established definitions so that I can't take advantage of your point without clarification. Please, per above can you give me workable definitions or existing examples. (Nota bene: There are (and were) no nations with the word communist in their title that claim they are communist, they all state(d) that they want to reach an end state of communism, but that does not preclude there being communist states that don't (publicly) acknowledge they are, so point them out if you know of them in leu of a useful definition).
From what I can tell, the closest a nation came to communism was Cuba, but I think "communism" is really only found in small subsystems, such as Amish or Hutterite colonies or the "communes" of the 60s, where everything goes into a pot, the system relies on each person to exercise their strengths, do their part, and put their back into supporting the whole, and everyone has what they need if not what they want. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong. You seem thoughtful, so I am more than willing to learn.
You make an interesting point about names. You're right in that "communism" is usually a label applied from the outside, though in internal politics, the ruling parties seem happy to apply it to themselves, unless that is more Western propaganda in "mistranslating" names.
"communism is really only found in small subsystems, such as Amish or Hutterite colonies or the "communes" of the 60s." Does (edit: "authoritarianism," not )"autocracy" fit them? I'm not that familiar with them, but I know they use religion, and thus dogma to structure their social order, so I would assume religious leaders, both dead and alive, would exert rule through their authority given by religion/dogma. If we agree autocracy is rule by one person in absolute power then do their religious authorities have absolute power?
Separately, Soviet Union even under Stalin and under Mao were not autocracies. These two men were extremely powerful, probably as powerful as the top leadership of the CIA* now, but there were limits to their power, hence all the scheming and cabals, show trials, etc. - an absolute ruler would not waste time with such machinations.
*CIA domestically does not have to exert the blood letting of a Stalin or Mao because things are more or less going along swimmingly in it's desires. An occasional accident and an extremely oppressive judicial system does the rest. Don't forget they went after Julian Assange on made up rape charges, how easy it is today. Stalin and Mao would have to get physical evidence manufactured, now they just have to plant a file on a device.
Yes, even some of the standard definitions, such as authoritarianism = rule through authority, are circular but it's a start. To have a discussion we'd have to be pretty sure we understand each other on the terms (we don't have to agree, just understand), or it's just talking past each other. I'm flexible on working with others based on their definitions, as long as they are sound and consistent. I find it's a lot easier than trying to get them to take on mine.
Curious how you can readily define and judge socialism, but we have to wait on capitalism because it has never been truly put into practice. You must win all your arguments.
Well it sure ain’t a democracy. When did an American taxpayer last actually vote on something that mattered? To the taxpayer?
Hordes of lamprey-like cyclostomes sucking on the front teat of the status quo. No wonder they’re so vicious when that is threatened, even with a bit of exposure. Ah, the cuddly Kangaroo Kakistocracy of Korruptistan. Nice acronym too.
You gave me something to think about earlier in one of your comments about capitalism destroying free markets. I can't answer this question without considering and reading and deciding if I've confused the two.
Yes. People/organizations always will try to find a way to mess with their competitors or attempt to monopolize a certain market by using vicious and unfair practices. "True free market capitalism" can't be achieved without rules, actually. Isn't it ironic?
But then the people who make the rules become prime target for bribery -> we're here. Then libertarians come and say "Oh but it's because of the rules!!". No, it's the nature of the system. You erase rules, the bribery/unfair practices would just go somewhere else. People screwing other people to make more money, an old tale.
A way to preserve freedom and liberty in the markets while also preserving economic justice would be ideal, but it's a hard balance to find.
So many corporate behemoths are flush with tax write-offs and public monies. This is usually arbitrary and done in the dark, and working stiffs wonder where their money went. This picture cannot be found in media or schoolbooks.
Free market capitalism isn't a good thing either. The free exchange of goods and services across borders is a net negative and we know that many corporations are government fronts.
I used to wonder why music no longer reflects the sentiment of the 60s and 70s. Knowing that the FBI had a folder on The Monkeys tells me all I need to know. The. MONKEES. For God's sake. The one's who sang "Daydream Believer."
Actually, if you read about Mickey Dolenz' lawsuit against the FBI, the FBI began these files because their stage show during the song "The Last Train to Clarksville" showed anti-war images.
If I never read anything else, this essay would sustain my spirit for the rest of my time on this planet. Because it testifies to the one fact you can hold onto: all the lies, the deception and hypocrisy, the evil manipulation, point to one thing: it could not exist and be so carefully cultured and nurtured, like an evil, unnatural plant grown out of control that hides the sun and moon and sky, and tries to convince us that's all there is - so live with it - if there were not something wonderful it was desperately attempting to hide, disguise, kill. We were not born evil, we are not naturally ugly, and the universe does not seek to annihilate us. Our planet is wonderful, has it all: isn't that a clue to the truth? Even animals are totally wonderful to consider and behold in their power, grace, courage and good humour.
The ugly was invented by the ugly few who took control, and even their enforcing god is ugly and vengeful. But it is all built on a crumbling foundation that can't stand up to reason, love and fairness.
Reminds me of a quote attributed to Werner Heisenberg ... ''The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.''
The literal minded will see only what they are capable of seeing in that quote, but with an approach closer to Joseph Campbell's (The Power of Myth),that 'god' is the god of Spinoza, Emerson, and Einstein ... a metaphor for nature in its entirety. Your essay manages to say the same thing to me, but without the now irrevocably shattered and divisive words of 'god' or 'spiritual'.
A thread of thought I am seeing in comments to your other posts, more so than in the original posts, is that some sort of collective moral progress is possible ... either through an alternative ideology (-ism), or through mind-expanding drugs. Although JMHO, I don't think we social primates are neurologically wired to collectively mature as a species. We all begin life, not as little angels, but close to a fractal mirror of dark-triad (B-cluster) personality types — little narcissistic, opportunistic, psychopaths which have to be nurtured and educated, individually, to become mature, morally autonomous members of a community ... or not.
Various ''- isms'' may provisionally solve some problems but at the cost of creating others. Capitalism, for example, does not do a very good job of constraining the small but persistent percentage of dark-triad personality types in any population, and neither does it deal with some of the competing instincts in the more neuro-typical majority ... the tendency to depend on tribalism for identity, deference to authority, or a preference for loss-aversion behavior — even when that is not the best choice of strategy to solve a problem. Frans de Waal termed us 'the bi-polar ape'. I liked how you showed the dark side of 'the force' first, and the potential for the good in human nature as a counterpoint.
Cheers Cailin. Looking forward to see what directions your writing will lead.
I like the example in Star Wars (the Force Awakens?) where the human stormtroopers are trained to kill from a very young age and some choose probable death instead.
Actually, we do not know whether babies would be angels or demons or are a blank page waiting to be written upon. It sounds like you are making the Christian argument that humans are born in sin.
What if this immense range of behavior on the continuum of barbarism to altruism, this possibility of choice and the potential of change are stimuli of awakening?
But I also grew up on a farm where it is easy to see the total dependence that new born mammals have on their mother, and the energy expended by the mother or members of the social group, to insure enough maturity in the young to become biologically autonomous — find their own food, do their own mating, and raise their own brood until their time for that dust-to-dust thingy. Humans, in the best of circumstances, are not so different ... though a lot of nepotism, cronyism, tribalism ... and yes, too literal-minded an approach to language, both on the writer's part and the reader's part.
I like the ideas of nurturing, educational communities, but have found this 'modern era( has left more to rule-driven institutions than to empathy-driven communities ... and to the detriment of education as fostering the full potential of positive human autonomy. I find it in the small print of college contracts .... the purposeful conflation of 'touchy-feely' educational communities with non-disclosure agreements to silence would-be whistle blowers of institutional corruption.
It takes two to dance, and I am ready for another number.
I prefer jazz Carol.
Do you speak Jazz?
Here is a piece I was playing for background music while Japanese Jr. High kids were doing group work about the provisional nature and potential problems (such as the explosion of the 1999 Mars Climate Orbiter mission — it's on wiki) of quantification (that necessary filtering of raw information referred to earlier) when those cultures 'speaking' the metric system run up against those who have stubbornly stayed with the 'imperial system' ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ODR70Xg08Y ... I made the montage myself.
As an interesting contrast, that music was from the 1970's ... antiquated by 'pop' standards. Compare that with something making the rounds from the last couple of years ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRg_8NNPTD8. I actually like Heilung, and their back-story of healing through 'amplified history' performances is a wonderful idea. But to compare the complexity and sophistication of the music on merits of music alone, I can't help but to question the very idea of 'progress' regardless of domain.
As with religion or questions of 'god' in Japan, none of the students bothered to ask if the music's melody was 'true' or 'false'. By culture, they knew such a question would make no sense. Yet that does not let Japan Inc. off the hook.
As in the states, none of the higher-echelon 'dark-triads' which make up Japan's LDP ruling political party, nor any of 'manager-priests' in the former Unification Church who are caught up in dirty 'dark-triad' concentrations of power leading to former Prime Minister Abe's assassination are among my friends. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/09/03/national/politics-diplomacy/unification-church-ties-ldp/
To get a better handle on those would-be mover-and-shakers who are dark-triads, I found Dr. Ramani's YouTube Masterclass with MedCircle for the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths to shed more light on the subject — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w&t=48s .
And in a recent substack by Mathew Crawford, was introduced to two new words ... 'ponerology' (the study of evil ... and a great book that I think is better than Mathias Desmet's current take on Mass Formation Psychosis ... Andrzej Łobaczewski's work ... ''Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism''. The short wiki read on ponerology is quite revealing about the corporate nation-state's preference of tactics to try and herd us ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ponerology
Although I haven't searched, I would not be surprised if the Inuit did not have a term for 'angel'.
Just now finishing this edit before I am shuttled into a classroom of Jr. High kids and trotted out as a nature speaker model for 'proper' American pronunciation. A far cry from years spent as a college biology lab director, or decades spent teaching Comparative Culture or communication skills in Japanese colleges. Still ... gotta pay the rent, and pensions in Japan are becoming about as worthless as the fiat currency they are printed on.
Thanks again for the clarification Carol. I do hope we can find the time and opportunity to chat beyond the limitations of technology.
Oh wow! I just edited this, and for the first time, got a short message, in red, just below the comment box reading .... 'Please type a shorter comment'. I thought only YouTube and Facebook put a cap on comment length.
Will post this edited comment as 'Part 1' and 'Part 2', beginning with the first half ...
Part 1
Hi Carol,
Thanks for the later clarification. Yeah, maybe babies are born with the predisposition to 'sin' by virtue of being the rationalizing beast. Get a hundred Christians (or Capitalists) together in one room, and sooner or later, you'll have a hundred different definitions of each ... that narcissism of small differences thingy. And ironically, the more self aware we are, the less likely we are united in how we express ourselves (except against a common existential threat). Herding poets is like herding cats. These social dynamics continues to play out time and again since before the beginning of history.
Yes I agree you are 'right', depending on how you define 'sin', or 'who', specifically, is awakening. Triangulating between a career in applied linguistics, an undergrad in biology in particular agreement with a lot of the implications of primatologists Frans de Waal and Jane Goodall, and a passing acquaintance with other intersections between the 'hard' and 'soft' sciences.
My basic assumption is that language, logic, and its cutting-edge extensions such as algorithms were originally proxies for the empathy which bound our evolutionary progenitors (along with some other species). This allowed us to extend a small community or family of hunter-gatherers into towns, cities, or empires which would aspire to a thousand years .... and fail, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. The abstraction of language itself, from empathy, and sometimes its re-synthesis pointing back to empathy (as Caitlin has done with her post) has its trade-offs. Depending on one's sensibility, one may call language the 'original blessing, and sin'.
And I agree with your assumption about the immense range along a moral continuum ... the good, the bad, and the ugly ... the possibility of choice, potential for change, and stimuli for awakening.
Where I am on more shaky ground is our biological wiring to do so 'collectively'. I see salient temperamental differences in a litter of kittens. How much more that range of moral diversity, and the speed and timing of change, if at all, can be different between different individuals even within the same nuclear family, much less a community, and much-much less a universal evolution.
I like reading Caitlin, not so much for her critique of Capitalism, as for her critique of the dark side of human nature as expressed by some current definitions of Capitalism. If 'the same' Caitlin had been born in another time and era, I suspect she would be nailing her equivalence of Martin Luther's theses to the Catholic Church's corrupt door, or writing a first draft of The Magna Carta. But then, she would not be 'the same Caitlin'. Or would she? Don't want to go down that rabbit hole of the fundamental attribution 'fallacy' for now, but would like to think there is something uniquely individual about her, aside from the circumstance we are all in.
At the most literal, conversational level, I agree with you ... neither original sin nor literal angels or demons have anything to do with it. I live in Japan, a secular land of a thousand gods. This is a culture where 'do you believe in god' is a conversational non-starter ... and any metaphysical exploration or discussion takes a back seat to the social-psychological dynamics that come with navigating in-groups and out-groups ... a mind-set that has advantages and problems of its own, but is not the topic of discussion here. The petty politics of 'small village mentality' within rule-driven institutions can be infuriatingly frustrating here.
I expect Caitlin's readers are beyond the traditional Western fundamentalists' idea of 'god' as a separate big-daddy in the sky along with all of the psychological contortions that usually come with that package. However, I count a few Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists among my friends, but for more personal, individual reasons not connected with any tribal identity regarding their mythos, narrative, schemata, or what whatever you want to call the cultural scaffolding that keeps them ticking.
Similar to the reason I follow Caitlin, they are friends because of their personal integrity and temperament. Though there are genetic and epigenetic components to that temperament, I know they did not have that level of integrity at birth. How they dealt with the loves and losses of experience must have a lot to do with it ... and that is something more fundamental and universal to human nature than any particular language or narrative under which they matured.
As I mentioned, I do not take language or logic itself, literarily. The best we can do with mathematical models or literary metaphors is to describe and only provisionally 'invent' our realities. I think it was the physicist Max Born who said something along the lines of 'we can never 'know' reality, only observe our descriptions of it'. As I think we can intuit things that we can not express in symbols, I don't entirely agree with him. But I like how he hints at how those models and metaphors come along with their own psychological trade-offs for for the intuitions, traditions, and provisional practicalities w've gained from them ... or for the idealist's continual fall down the rabbit hole in quest of 'unfiltered empirical information' — an oxymoron in itself for those who have have kicked Wittgenstein's Ladder behind them, smiled at the more general implications of Gödel's Theorem, or just remember the smell of bong-water wafting up from a dorm room's shag carpet .
Cheers back at you! I do index finger writing on my phone .. why my comments are short! I like the practice of simple and concise expression.
I used the Christian reference as an example not to imply anything about you.
Rather than attempt to respond to so many idea you expressed I postulate another possibility. What if this is like the Matrix except that rather than reality being an apocalyptic aftermath the reality is a world most cannot see that is all around us of Consciousness full of love and light?
So, we have the potential to awaken to Consciousness and perhaps create a different and more equal and compassionate society. Maybe we are having this experience of Maya to learn and create because it is one thing to read about a thing or be taught about a thing and quite another to directly experience a thing.
Cheers back atcha Carol ... and sorry for going full bore essay in a mere sub-comment. We appear to be on the same side, (as with Caitlin). Will go back and edit with the new info in mind. 'Simple and concise' .... a great aim. In the right hands, it would reduce us to the pregnant silence of zen. In the wrong hands, a handful of Zuckerberg's emoticons. (I'm still banned from Facebook for breaking community standards with my concise verbosity 🤣.
And yes, although I tend to follow Occam's Razor in metaphysics, it is my twist on Hanlon's Razor I have come to apply to these periodic expansions and contractions of concentrations of social hierarchies ... 'Never attribute incompetence to that which can adequately be explained by corruption.' — Martin's Razor.
I hold Russel Brand or Vandana Shiva as more optimistic role models, but by circumstance, temperament, or age, I can't quite follow in their footsteps.
I agree with you about the possibility of that Matrix-like world of illusion. I remember a phrase coined by Schopenhauer a couple of hundred years ago that he had borrowed from the Vedic scriptures ... 'The Veil of Maya' as a metaphor to distinguish superficial epiphenomenon from fundamental reality. But the first time I saw 'The Matrix' ... I immediately thought, 'Oh, a re-make of Plato's Allegory of the Cave! Used it a couple of times for group discussions in those Japanese college Comparative Culture classes. The kids seemed to get it.
And that last sentiment you expressed about love and light, yes. Those Japanese who think about it might refer to it as 'ki' ... roughly translated as the same 'energy' in Einstein's famous equation. It's interesting to watch the back and forth between the structural reductionists and process-oriented in the sciences.
I found T.S. Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' as an easily digestible read using the history of the concept of the atom as a metaphor for paradigm shifts. The current paradigm seems to suggest we've 'progressed' to the planck unit as a theoretical limit to the infinity of the small. No doubt that if we survive long enough as a species, some day, that unit will be as blunt and quaint a concept as Democritus's original idea of the atom. Ironically, Bertrand Russell did not realize how apt the expression of 'Turtles, all the way down' was when he tried to dismiss the metaphysical intuition found in religious faith.
At school, now, and no classes for a bit, so will go back and edit my original sub-comment, and think about making an independent essay or story out of it. In another life, I would have tried to say the same 'thing' in a piano improvisation.
Cheers again Carol, and thanks for the clarification. 🥰
Now, this is rich, for who to choose to represent the so-called free world.
Canadian Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is one of the likely candidates set to replace NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who is leaving his post next year, according to an article by CBC published on Wednesday.
The selection of Freeland, grandaughter of the Ukrainian World War Two Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak would raise eyebrows, not least in Russia. The politician has paid tribute to Chomiak’s legacy, despite knowing that he “was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper in occupied Poland that vilified Jews during the Second World War,” according to the Globe and Mail newspaper.
She reportedly speaks Ukrainian at home and is a former Moscow bureau chief of the Financial Times. Freeland has been banned from Russia for a number of a years, apparently due to her strong support for the post-Maidan regime in Kiev.
Excellent writing! You've really captured the essence of what life is like for so many of us dealing with the constant propaganda/bullsh*t of the 21st century. I only wish I had half your optimism that eventually we'll all free ourselves from these mental cages and realize the truth of our existence on this planet. Time will tell.
Death awaits, no passport need. Those who love Absurdistan believe they can use capitalism to beat death to death, if only the can accumulate enough of it.
That's a pretty good question because most of us are deeply addicted to civilization. We don't know how to live without it. Indeed, without industrial methods of production, a dominant feature of civilization, most of us -- 99.9% I would guess -- could not eat or clothe and house ourselves, or defend ourselves from diseases and large predators. Looks like we're stuck with it.
This is fantastic Caitlin. Pretty much, from the first word to the last, describes how I feel every day.
Agreed.
That's why everyone confuses fake capitalism and blames it as if it were true free market capitalism.
Oh well, fake and stupid it really is.
"true free market capitalism." A fine example of an oxymoron. Also a fine example of death cult propaganda.
Any system can work. We've also never seen a true communist state. It could work. Probably not, because human nature will twist it into an authoritarian nightmare, but it could. All systems are sabotaged by the simple fact that humans are, well, humans.
Human nature is not evil - that is part of the propaganda, and it has been very successful due to the combined efforts of state religion and fascistic states. Don't tell me religion has not supported fascist values - with one side of its mouth - because the record proves otherwise.
Did I say human nature was evil? I said human nature is human nature.
I apologize for misrepresenting your intentions: but the implications for "human nature" are not good if a fair, reasonable system is beyond our capabilities, and out of keeping with our natural inclinations. I don't believe that is the case: a social system based generally on equality of all members, where reason and fairness are the ruling principles and differences can be settled by negotiation, not superstition and hateful bias, is the most natural of all systems. We claim to value love, equality, progress, fairness, openness, justice, democracy: these are concepts that are supposed to be manifested in ideas, but they aren't: exploitative war is not just: misogyny is not love: government secrecy, fraud and lies, is not openness and democracy: rule by religious nut cases is not progress. On down the line we lie to ourselves and become inauthentic and ineffective.
I don't think humans are evil, but, with all due respect, I find the following statement highly naive: "a social system based generally on equality of all members, where reason and fairness are the ruling principles and differences can be settled by negotiation, not superstition and hateful bias, is the most natural of all systems"
That system is not natural to humans at all. If it were, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.
Well put, DWE. I think it is one thing to see the inherent flaws and contradictions in capitalism, and the moral contortions it puts its adherents into. But It is quite another to come to terms with the human capacity for greed and self-deception. Certainly no social construct can ever accord total “freedom” to its members and be fair, and we have had several millennia of blowhards who defend the power, manhandle the weak and brag that that is “freedom.”
I'm curious how you would interpret "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
You've described how it's supposed to be and then gone on to conclude it's not. Then what does it mean? If someone is "good" but makes all kinds of mishaps that lead to evil outcomes, well, we don't really have to call him "evil". Just that what he did ended up being it.
No, any system cannot work, if by that you mean provide for the needs of the people equally well. Both theory and history confirm free markets (to the extent they are allowed to function) provide for such needs far better than any other system. The late great Ludwig von Mises, dean of the Austrian School of economics devastated all arguments favoring state controlled economic systems by demonstrating that lacking free pricing to reflect consumer preferences, hence the ability to rationally allocate resources in the most efficient manner to provide for people want, such state controlled systems are doomed to failure.
Well put!
I don't think it is human nature, although I think I understand what you are saying. I think it is that people get twisted and misled. Babies are the most perfect human creatures and while they do demand that their basic needs are met, it takes a while for them to learn from those around them to be truly authoritarian.
"True Communism" ALWAYS involves totalitarianism; Karl Marx himself admitted this. There is no "nice" form of Communism; in addition, Communism as an economic system is doomed to failure from the start, for it does not further the generation of wealth, as does Capitalism. Thus, our task should be to CLEAN UP capitalism, recognize, correct its weaknesses. No easy task, considering human nature, but then: human nature is why ANY system ultimately fails.
Balderdash. Human beings created a rigged system to keep wealth in the hands of the minority that already possess it, to extract labor from those who need it, to compensate the latter at a rate to keep them needing and working, and to deal with competitors however the see fit. When laborers have organized to seek justice, they have been slaughtered, beaten down with batons, bought off and ultimately convinced they can never legally achieve their goal. Add to this the historical violation of sovereignty of nations that our corporations have routinely played at. They create the pretext in the complicit media, convince the sheeple to hate and fear, and voila the targeted state has a new, friendly leader.
None of the above represents “human nature.” Call it what it is: murder, theft, criminal abuse, human exploitation, and most obviously, greed.
Uh...and WHO is committing those murders, thefts, criminal abuses, human exploitation, and greed, if not HUMANS. Of course, not everyone commits such acts, but there are enough people who do, and therefore, all the crimes/ sorry tendencies you mention occur again and again, throughout history, in ALL sorts of political systems.
How they incentivize such actions is going to be unique. Context, always context.
"True Communism" ALWAYS involves totalitarianism; Karl Marx himself admitted this.
Please can you provide which text and what line informed that declaration?
How about this one: " My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." Letter from Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer". Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. dated March 5, 1852 in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works Vol. 39 (International Publishers: New York, 1983) pp. 62–65. Note the use of the term DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. Sure sounds totalitarian to me! That Marx believed that the dictatorship would then lead to an abolition of all classes, shows Marx's great naivete; those who possess power are virtually ALWAYS reluctant to give it up.
That's good, your starting to think, but you need to go deeper. Look up dictatorship as defined in Webster's, and see if such a word could be applied to a proletariat vs a individual. Then compare it to the definition used by (edit: deleted repetition) European political philosophers at the time of Marx writing, and you might see where you could be misled. Context, always context.
Human nature, if not shaped, will continue from the normal (probably overly mother-indulged) self-concerned "me" of the two year old to the self-concerned 16, 22, 30, 40 years old much more dangerous version of "me."
Self-concerned, when left in peace, leads to the division of labor, specialists and abundance.
"We" leads to the tragedy of the commons and the horrors of communism.
You are presuming the properly shaped "me" of course and the failed development of many "me"s to make that "we." Something I read a long time ago and have saved a link to kinda makes the point: https://etherzone.com/diversity-alone-is-division-diversity-with-unity-is-a-blessing/
Pointing to human flaws and imperfections as a way of explaining injustice has been a traditional way of defending crooked systems. There is no perfect system, but rigged games are not down to the flawed Everyman.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/06/26/financial-manipulation-and-inequality-keep-rising/
Humans are humans. They are not "flawed." They are humans, produced over millennia. Humans will act like humans. I'm not defending nor advocating any "system" over any other system. If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I don't consider the US a true capitalist system. I also don't consider Russia or China a true communist system. Those systems only exist in books because applying them in the real world runs into the trap of forgetting that humans are humans. What you *can* do is take the best of each system and take into account those things in human nature that sabotage systems, or allow for them to "rig" the systems as you put it, and work with them and counter them with open eyes. That's not something I actually see anyone advocating. They'd rather argue that humans are "flawed" and don't blame humans and this system or that system is worse or better rather than finding any practical solution that benefits the most amount of people and allows for the least amount of abuse.
so anything goes and everything is equal, according to your book. got it.
It seems you misread "What you *can* do is take the best of each system and take into account those things in human nature that sabotage systems, or allow for them to "rig" the systems as you put it, and work with them and counter them with open eyes."
Also to reward. That is the thing. If you have a system that allows for or ecourages aspects of human nature to flourish in such a manner that is beneficial, we win. For instance, it may be argued that the desire to accumulate wealth is a human thing. So a system that encourages a better mouse trap- say by the inventor of that mousetrap acquiring wealth- we all benefit.
That's way oversimplifying, but as a practical matter, all things are equal. Any arrangement, with the consent and buy-in of the governed, can be made to work. Equally, no system is free from the temptation to stratify to the point where the masses are little more than disposable serfs to support a small elite. That's why the structure of our "capitalist" US and the "communist" China or Russia look very much the same: a few people on the top of the pile with a stranglehold on the resources and the rest, the masses, supporting those few.
I agree with your main point, which is adapting whatever system for the social good. But it isn’t humans that rig capitalism, it’s a rigged system full stop. Sure little folks can benefit to a small degree, but it can not be equitable, and it is predicated on perpetual growth... which leads to perpetual war. Can barter and fair trade be fashioned in such a way that doesn’t have all the merchants living at the top of the hill? I don’t know...
I do not know that all merchants want to live at the top of the hill, and it is true that there are only so many hands in a deck of cards. This is the nature of materialism, the kind that is "inarguable" i.e. we are at least partially material. All we can do is strive for justice. Now, what do we call justice? Another question. Surely being angry that a better mousetrap inventor has more than the dim or less ambitious gets us nothing good. Encourage that which benefits all, discourages that which actually harms others and pray we all know the difference.
You literally just linked to counterpunch lol. OK comrade.
Communism can never work because it relies upon force. It also fails to calculate individual needs, so even if it could be forced to 'work' it will always leave the public unhappy and rebellious.
Unhappy and enslaved people is part of the term "works" when applied to any form of collectivism that exists by force. Some supporters are people who are naive, some are just plain authoritarianists who believe they should be and WILL BE on top.
"Government is not logic, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE, and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
We were warned point blank by the would-be proprietors themselves before we adopted their ideals and gave them power, and we continue to give it to them by giving credence and "full faith and credit" to hierarchical systems every time we accept or pass their fraudulent currency, vote for the lesser of two evils, and any number of "ordinary" activities that assure the continuity of the abusive systems that traumatize and exploit in an ever-more parasitic intergenerational cycle. The only way out of the trap is OUT of the centralized mindset we have built WITHIN ourselves since our self-domestication began with our building of the first walled cities.
"Any man who would trade a little liberty for a little security will lose both, and deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin
If that is the case, all this shit we live in is "just human nature' and we will only subvert the best-intentioned systems we can invent, develop or evolve even; why not give up now? As nothing we do on this planet is really anything other than exploitative, contemptuous and fatal to other things living here, surely the kindest and most moral thing we could all do is make like the lemmings and head for the nearest cliff, either actual or metaphorical, to slide off over the edge of. Surely? Dontcha think?
Because it's also human nature to strive for something better and because our natural instinct to survive as a species demands we go on and try to solve these problems.
And to solve these problems, rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to someone who says "it's human nature," perhaps try to understand human nature honestly and on its own terms.
Do you know why lemmings go over the cliff? Do you know what they do afterward?
The term is conundrum or contradiction. Capitalism and free market, they can not exist in the same space. Capital always distorts the operation of a market. Libertarians define free market as a market completely in the control of (eventually a) private monopoly on capital, which is also a conundrum.
I had to think about it for a moment, but that's a good point. It would explain what seems to always "go wrong."
It must be tough not understanding what capitalism is and hating it so much.
Could be worse, not understanding what capitalism is and loving it so much.
I just hate government - the use of force - instead of cooperation. I hate the banks manipulating interest rates and distorting production over time - leading to the boom bust cycle. I hate corruption. I love your right to live as you see fit and make profit by serving your fellow man. Because that’s the only way you make profit in a capitalist system by serving the sovereign consumer.
So call me a dirty capitalist! What would you suggest as the alternative?
Join the army.
I'd have thought your avatar name is tremblo slice?
I was not suggesting alternatives, just pointing out contradictions. If you want a suggestion, free ones are not always very good. However, here I go. Perhaps living on a deserted island might help you meet some points. Maybe all of them but last one, which is a dogma. I don't know what you can do about that but examine your thinking. Maybe, but no promise, maybe you could have one other person on the island, a person in all ways of equal capacity. Once you get to three, well politics and government start to appear. After all the rules and mores of family in various societies is the most local form of government.
wrote the death cultist.
He's right, you're wrong John. Just so you know.
That was going to be my point. I'm not sure the US is truly a capitalist state. In fact, I'd put it closer to fascism or oligarchy than capitalism. But the rest she's spot on about. It is *all* fake.
Fascism, oligarchy and capitalism, are conjoined triplets. They each feed and thrive of the other. They are one.
I could also say that communism, autocracy, and authoritarianism are all conjoined triplets. They tend to appear alongside each other.
"communism, autocracy, and authoritarianism." I'm good on the meaning of authoritarianism, which is rule through authority. However too many people bander the first two about without a care for earlier established definitions so that I can't take advantage of your point without clarification. Please, per above can you give me workable definitions or existing examples. (Nota bene: There are (and were) no nations with the word communist in their title that claim they are communist, they all state(d) that they want to reach an end state of communism, but that does not preclude there being communist states that don't (publicly) acknowledge they are, so point them out if you know of them in leu of a useful definition).
From what I can tell, the closest a nation came to communism was Cuba, but I think "communism" is really only found in small subsystems, such as Amish or Hutterite colonies or the "communes" of the 60s, where everything goes into a pot, the system relies on each person to exercise their strengths, do their part, and put their back into supporting the whole, and everyone has what they need if not what they want. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong. You seem thoughtful, so I am more than willing to learn.
You make an interesting point about names. You're right in that "communism" is usually a label applied from the outside, though in internal politics, the ruling parties seem happy to apply it to themselves, unless that is more Western propaganda in "mistranslating" names.
"communism is really only found in small subsystems, such as Amish or Hutterite colonies or the "communes" of the 60s." Does (edit: "authoritarianism," not )"autocracy" fit them? I'm not that familiar with them, but I know they use religion, and thus dogma to structure their social order, so I would assume religious leaders, both dead and alive, would exert rule through their authority given by religion/dogma. If we agree autocracy is rule by one person in absolute power then do their religious authorities have absolute power?
Separately, Soviet Union even under Stalin and under Mao were not autocracies. These two men were extremely powerful, probably as powerful as the top leadership of the CIA* now, but there were limits to their power, hence all the scheming and cabals, show trials, etc. - an absolute ruler would not waste time with such machinations.
*CIA domestically does not have to exert the blood letting of a Stalin or Mao because things are more or less going along swimmingly in it's desires. An occasional accident and an extremely oppressive judicial system does the rest. Don't forget they went after Julian Assange on made up rape charges, how easy it is today. Stalin and Mao would have to get physical evidence manufactured, now they just have to plant a file on a device.
Yes, even some of the standard definitions, such as authoritarianism = rule through authority, are circular but it's a start. To have a discussion we'd have to be pretty sure we understand each other on the terms (we don't have to agree, just understand), or it's just talking past each other. I'm flexible on working with others based on their definitions, as long as they are sound and consistent. I find it's a lot easier than trying to get them to take on mine.
💖
The most famous creator of fascism came to it from socialism.
Mussolini was originally a socialist politician
Curious how you can readily define and judge socialism, but we have to wait on capitalism because it has never been truly put into practice. You must win all your arguments.
Well it sure ain’t a democracy. When did an American taxpayer last actually vote on something that mattered? To the taxpayer?
Hordes of lamprey-like cyclostomes sucking on the front teat of the status quo. No wonder they’re so vicious when that is threatened, even with a bit of exposure. Ah, the cuddly Kangaroo Kakistocracy of Korruptistan. Nice acronym too.
The US is no longer a Republic. It is a Fascist Oligarchy feudal state of the WEF/Gates consortium. Abused by their government for 40 years.
Nobody notices because they have the latest IPhone LED sneakers cheeseburger sugar bomb torpedo
Exactly. Many do not know the US was a Republic, not a Democracy.
Please, can you define a "truly capitalist state" or point to an example if the former is difficult.
You gave me something to think about earlier in one of your comments about capitalism destroying free markets. I can't answer this question without considering and reading and deciding if I've confused the two.
Yes, I was a bit unsure as to your meaning as well, and there are so many "definitions" in play so I couldn't do much more than raise the questions.
Actually, “true free market capitalism” leads to “fake capitalism”
Yes. People/organizations always will try to find a way to mess with their competitors or attempt to monopolize a certain market by using vicious and unfair practices. "True free market capitalism" can't be achieved without rules, actually. Isn't it ironic?
But then the people who make the rules become prime target for bribery -> we're here. Then libertarians come and say "Oh but it's because of the rules!!". No, it's the nature of the system. You erase rules, the bribery/unfair practices would just go somewhere else. People screwing other people to make more money, an old tale.
A way to preserve freedom and liberty in the markets while also preserving economic justice would be ideal, but it's a hard balance to find.
A good summary of the problem.
So many corporate behemoths are flush with tax write-offs and public monies. This is usually arbitrary and done in the dark, and working stiffs wonder where their money went. This picture cannot be found in media or schoolbooks.
Free market capitalism isn't a good thing either. The free exchange of goods and services across borders is a net negative and we know that many corporations are government fronts.
Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
Where have you been?
It's alright we know where you've been
(Pink Floyd)
I used to wonder why music no longer reflects the sentiment of the 60s and 70s. Knowing that the FBI had a folder on The Monkeys tells me all I need to know. The. MONKEES. For God's sake. The one's who sang "Daydream Believer."
The Monkeys were the American version of The Beatles. Maybe that had something to do with it!
It was their hair, not their music.
Actually, if you read about Mickey Dolenz' lawsuit against the FBI, the FBI began these files because their stage show during the song "The Last Train to Clarksville" showed anti-war images.
I think the national mood has shifted, and the public schools have had more opportunity to alienate students and stifle inquisitiveness.
Thank you, Caitlin, for putting it all together so beautifully. I absolutely agree with you.
Wow! I needed to hear this prospective.
Thank you!
If it were merely fake and stupid I might just ignore it, but
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/09/07/john-pilger-silencing-the-lambs-how-propaganda-works/
JOHN PILGER: Silencing the Lambs — How Propaganda Works
September 7, 2022
Leni Riefenstahl said her epic films glorifying the Nazis depended on a “submissive void” in the German public. This is how propaganda is done.
That is a great article by JP. Thanks for linking that.
TITLE SAYS IT ALL.
If I never read anything else, this essay would sustain my spirit for the rest of my time on this planet. Because it testifies to the one fact you can hold onto: all the lies, the deception and hypocrisy, the evil manipulation, point to one thing: it could not exist and be so carefully cultured and nurtured, like an evil, unnatural plant grown out of control that hides the sun and moon and sky, and tries to convince us that's all there is - so live with it - if there were not something wonderful it was desperately attempting to hide, disguise, kill. We were not born evil, we are not naturally ugly, and the universe does not seek to annihilate us. Our planet is wonderful, has it all: isn't that a clue to the truth? Even animals are totally wonderful to consider and behold in their power, grace, courage and good humour.
The ugly was invented by the ugly few who took control, and even their enforcing god is ugly and vengeful. But it is all built on a crumbling foundation that can't stand up to reason, love and fairness.
I don't know how to express that what you have written here is so incredibly true. Thank you
The perfect articulation of just what I needed. I can now get through another day.
Thanks Caitlin! - this article really speaks to me more than usual - I needed the reminder that I am not alone - much appreciated.
I like this one Caitln.
Reminds me of a quote attributed to Werner Heisenberg ... ''The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.''
The literal minded will see only what they are capable of seeing in that quote, but with an approach closer to Joseph Campbell's (The Power of Myth),that 'god' is the god of Spinoza, Emerson, and Einstein ... a metaphor for nature in its entirety. Your essay manages to say the same thing to me, but without the now irrevocably shattered and divisive words of 'god' or 'spiritual'.
A thread of thought I am seeing in comments to your other posts, more so than in the original posts, is that some sort of collective moral progress is possible ... either through an alternative ideology (-ism), or through mind-expanding drugs. Although JMHO, I don't think we social primates are neurologically wired to collectively mature as a species. We all begin life, not as little angels, but close to a fractal mirror of dark-triad (B-cluster) personality types — little narcissistic, opportunistic, psychopaths which have to be nurtured and educated, individually, to become mature, morally autonomous members of a community ... or not.
Various ''- isms'' may provisionally solve some problems but at the cost of creating others. Capitalism, for example, does not do a very good job of constraining the small but persistent percentage of dark-triad personality types in any population, and neither does it deal with some of the competing instincts in the more neuro-typical majority ... the tendency to depend on tribalism for identity, deference to authority, or a preference for loss-aversion behavior — even when that is not the best choice of strategy to solve a problem. Frans de Waal termed us 'the bi-polar ape'. I liked how you showed the dark side of 'the force' first, and the potential for the good in human nature as a counterpoint.
Cheers Cailin. Looking forward to see what directions your writing will lead.
— steve
I like the example in Star Wars (the Force Awakens?) where the human stormtroopers are trained to kill from a very young age and some choose probable death instead.
Actually, we do not know whether babies would be angels or demons or are a blank page waiting to be written upon. It sounds like you are making the Christian argument that humans are born in sin.
What if this immense range of behavior on the continuum of barbarism to altruism, this possibility of choice and the potential of change are stimuli of awakening?
Part 2
But I also grew up on a farm where it is easy to see the total dependence that new born mammals have on their mother, and the energy expended by the mother or members of the social group, to insure enough maturity in the young to become biologically autonomous — find their own food, do their own mating, and raise their own brood until their time for that dust-to-dust thingy. Humans, in the best of circumstances, are not so different ... though a lot of nepotism, cronyism, tribalism ... and yes, too literal-minded an approach to language, both on the writer's part and the reader's part.
I like the ideas of nurturing, educational communities, but have found this 'modern era( has left more to rule-driven institutions than to empathy-driven communities ... and to the detriment of education as fostering the full potential of positive human autonomy. I find it in the small print of college contracts .... the purposeful conflation of 'touchy-feely' educational communities with non-disclosure agreements to silence would-be whistle blowers of institutional corruption.
It takes two to dance, and I am ready for another number.
I prefer jazz Carol.
Do you speak Jazz?
Here is a piece I was playing for background music while Japanese Jr. High kids were doing group work about the provisional nature and potential problems (such as the explosion of the 1999 Mars Climate Orbiter mission — it's on wiki) of quantification (that necessary filtering of raw information referred to earlier) when those cultures 'speaking' the metric system run up against those who have stubbornly stayed with the 'imperial system' ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ODR70Xg08Y ... I made the montage myself.
As an interesting contrast, that music was from the 1970's ... antiquated by 'pop' standards. Compare that with something making the rounds from the last couple of years ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRg_8NNPTD8. I actually like Heilung, and their back-story of healing through 'amplified history' performances is a wonderful idea. But to compare the complexity and sophistication of the music on merits of music alone, I can't help but to question the very idea of 'progress' regardless of domain.
As with religion or questions of 'god' in Japan, none of the students bothered to ask if the music's melody was 'true' or 'false'. By culture, they knew such a question would make no sense. Yet that does not let Japan Inc. off the hook.
As in the states, none of the higher-echelon 'dark-triads' which make up Japan's LDP ruling political party, nor any of 'manager-priests' in the former Unification Church who are caught up in dirty 'dark-triad' concentrations of power leading to former Prime Minister Abe's assassination are among my friends. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/09/03/national/politics-diplomacy/unification-church-ties-ldp/
To get a better handle on those would-be mover-and-shakers who are dark-triads, I found Dr. Ramani's YouTube Masterclass with MedCircle for the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths to shed more light on the subject — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w&t=48s .
And in a recent substack by Mathew Crawford, was introduced to two new words ... 'ponerology' (the study of evil ... and a great book that I think is better than Mathias Desmet's current take on Mass Formation Psychosis ... Andrzej Łobaczewski's work ... ''Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism''. The short wiki read on ponerology is quite revealing about the corporate nation-state's preference of tactics to try and herd us ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ponerology
Another surprising word for me is the Inuit word r'Kungaleta' .... roughly translated as 'psychopath'. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/66548/1/167COMPLETE%20FILE%20FINAL%2010-01-14%20PDF.pdf
Although I haven't searched, I would not be surprised if the Inuit did not have a term for 'angel'.
Just now finishing this edit before I am shuttled into a classroom of Jr. High kids and trotted out as a nature speaker model for 'proper' American pronunciation. A far cry from years spent as a college biology lab director, or decades spent teaching Comparative Culture or communication skills in Japanese colleges. Still ... gotta pay the rent, and pensions in Japan are becoming about as worthless as the fiat currency they are printed on.
Thanks again for the clarification Carol. I do hope we can find the time and opportunity to chat beyond the limitations of technology.
Cheers!
— steve
Oh wow! I just edited this, and for the first time, got a short message, in red, just below the comment box reading .... 'Please type a shorter comment'. I thought only YouTube and Facebook put a cap on comment length.
Will post this edited comment as 'Part 1' and 'Part 2', beginning with the first half ...
Part 1
Hi Carol,
Thanks for the later clarification. Yeah, maybe babies are born with the predisposition to 'sin' by virtue of being the rationalizing beast. Get a hundred Christians (or Capitalists) together in one room, and sooner or later, you'll have a hundred different definitions of each ... that narcissism of small differences thingy. And ironically, the more self aware we are, the less likely we are united in how we express ourselves (except against a common existential threat). Herding poets is like herding cats. These social dynamics continues to play out time and again since before the beginning of history.
Yes I agree you are 'right', depending on how you define 'sin', or 'who', specifically, is awakening. Triangulating between a career in applied linguistics, an undergrad in biology in particular agreement with a lot of the implications of primatologists Frans de Waal and Jane Goodall, and a passing acquaintance with other intersections between the 'hard' and 'soft' sciences.
My basic assumption is that language, logic, and its cutting-edge extensions such as algorithms were originally proxies for the empathy which bound our evolutionary progenitors (along with some other species). This allowed us to extend a small community or family of hunter-gatherers into towns, cities, or empires which would aspire to a thousand years .... and fail, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. The abstraction of language itself, from empathy, and sometimes its re-synthesis pointing back to empathy (as Caitlin has done with her post) has its trade-offs. Depending on one's sensibility, one may call language the 'original blessing, and sin'.
And I agree with your assumption about the immense range along a moral continuum ... the good, the bad, and the ugly ... the possibility of choice, potential for change, and stimuli for awakening.
Where I am on more shaky ground is our biological wiring to do so 'collectively'. I see salient temperamental differences in a litter of kittens. How much more that range of moral diversity, and the speed and timing of change, if at all, can be different between different individuals even within the same nuclear family, much less a community, and much-much less a universal evolution.
I like reading Caitlin, not so much for her critique of Capitalism, as for her critique of the dark side of human nature as expressed by some current definitions of Capitalism. If 'the same' Caitlin had been born in another time and era, I suspect she would be nailing her equivalence of Martin Luther's theses to the Catholic Church's corrupt door, or writing a first draft of The Magna Carta. But then, she would not be 'the same Caitlin'. Or would she? Don't want to go down that rabbit hole of the fundamental attribution 'fallacy' for now, but would like to think there is something uniquely individual about her, aside from the circumstance we are all in.
At the most literal, conversational level, I agree with you ... neither original sin nor literal angels or demons have anything to do with it. I live in Japan, a secular land of a thousand gods. This is a culture where 'do you believe in god' is a conversational non-starter ... and any metaphysical exploration or discussion takes a back seat to the social-psychological dynamics that come with navigating in-groups and out-groups ... a mind-set that has advantages and problems of its own, but is not the topic of discussion here. The petty politics of 'small village mentality' within rule-driven institutions can be infuriatingly frustrating here.
I expect Caitlin's readers are beyond the traditional Western fundamentalists' idea of 'god' as a separate big-daddy in the sky along with all of the psychological contortions that usually come with that package. However, I count a few Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists among my friends, but for more personal, individual reasons not connected with any tribal identity regarding their mythos, narrative, schemata, or what whatever you want to call the cultural scaffolding that keeps them ticking.
Similar to the reason I follow Caitlin, they are friends because of their personal integrity and temperament. Though there are genetic and epigenetic components to that temperament, I know they did not have that level of integrity at birth. How they dealt with the loves and losses of experience must have a lot to do with it ... and that is something more fundamental and universal to human nature than any particular language or narrative under which they matured.
As I mentioned, I do not take language or logic itself, literarily. The best we can do with mathematical models or literary metaphors is to describe and only provisionally 'invent' our realities. I think it was the physicist Max Born who said something along the lines of 'we can never 'know' reality, only observe our descriptions of it'. As I think we can intuit things that we can not express in symbols, I don't entirely agree with him. But I like how he hints at how those models and metaphors come along with their own psychological trade-offs for for the intuitions, traditions, and provisional practicalities w've gained from them ... or for the idealist's continual fall down the rabbit hole in quest of 'unfiltered empirical information' — an oxymoron in itself for those who have have kicked Wittgenstein's Ladder behind them, smiled at the more general implications of Gödel's Theorem, or just remember the smell of bong-water wafting up from a dorm room's shag carpet .
Cheers back at you! I do index finger writing on my phone .. why my comments are short! I like the practice of simple and concise expression.
I used the Christian reference as an example not to imply anything about you.
Rather than attempt to respond to so many idea you expressed I postulate another possibility. What if this is like the Matrix except that rather than reality being an apocalyptic aftermath the reality is a world most cannot see that is all around us of Consciousness full of love and light?
So, we have the potential to awaken to Consciousness and perhaps create a different and more equal and compassionate society. Maybe we are having this experience of Maya to learn and create because it is one thing to read about a thing or be taught about a thing and quite another to directly experience a thing.
Cheers back atcha Carol ... and sorry for going full bore essay in a mere sub-comment. We appear to be on the same side, (as with Caitlin). Will go back and edit with the new info in mind. 'Simple and concise' .... a great aim. In the right hands, it would reduce us to the pregnant silence of zen. In the wrong hands, a handful of Zuckerberg's emoticons. (I'm still banned from Facebook for breaking community standards with my concise verbosity 🤣.
And yes, although I tend to follow Occam's Razor in metaphysics, it is my twist on Hanlon's Razor I have come to apply to these periodic expansions and contractions of concentrations of social hierarchies ... 'Never attribute incompetence to that which can adequately be explained by corruption.' — Martin's Razor.
I hold Russel Brand or Vandana Shiva as more optimistic role models, but by circumstance, temperament, or age, I can't quite follow in their footsteps.
I agree with you about the possibility of that Matrix-like world of illusion. I remember a phrase coined by Schopenhauer a couple of hundred years ago that he had borrowed from the Vedic scriptures ... 'The Veil of Maya' as a metaphor to distinguish superficial epiphenomenon from fundamental reality. But the first time I saw 'The Matrix' ... I immediately thought, 'Oh, a re-make of Plato's Allegory of the Cave! Used it a couple of times for group discussions in those Japanese college Comparative Culture classes. The kids seemed to get it.
And that last sentiment you expressed about love and light, yes. Those Japanese who think about it might refer to it as 'ki' ... roughly translated as the same 'energy' in Einstein's famous equation. It's interesting to watch the back and forth between the structural reductionists and process-oriented in the sciences.
I found T.S. Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' as an easily digestible read using the history of the concept of the atom as a metaphor for paradigm shifts. The current paradigm seems to suggest we've 'progressed' to the planck unit as a theoretical limit to the infinity of the small. No doubt that if we survive long enough as a species, some day, that unit will be as blunt and quaint a concept as Democritus's original idea of the atom. Ironically, Bertrand Russell did not realize how apt the expression of 'Turtles, all the way down' was when he tried to dismiss the metaphysical intuition found in religious faith.
At school, now, and no classes for a bit, so will go back and edit my original sub-comment, and think about making an independent essay or story out of it. In another life, I would have tried to say the same 'thing' in a piano improvisation.
Cheers again Carol, and thanks for the clarification. 🥰
— steve
I'm so with you Caitlin.
Now, this is rich, for who to choose to represent the so-called free world.
Canadian Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is one of the likely candidates set to replace NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who is leaving his post next year, according to an article by CBC published on Wednesday.
The selection of Freeland, grandaughter of the Ukrainian World War Two Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak would raise eyebrows, not least in Russia. The politician has paid tribute to Chomiak’s legacy, despite knowing that he “was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper in occupied Poland that vilified Jews during the Second World War,” according to the Globe and Mail newspaper.
She reportedly speaks Ukrainian at home and is a former Moscow bureau chief of the Financial Times. Freeland has been banned from Russia for a number of a years, apparently due to her strong support for the post-Maidan regime in Kiev.
Excellent writing! You've really captured the essence of what life is like for so many of us dealing with the constant propaganda/bullsh*t of the 21st century. I only wish I had half your optimism that eventually we'll all free ourselves from these mental cages and realize the truth of our existence on this planet. Time will tell.
The Simpsons advertising for Ukraine proxy war is almost too much to bare. OMFG
The Simpsons have been zombies for 20-odd years but you're right, it still stings
Do we need a passport to get out of Absurdistan? Where can we go for asylum?
Death awaits, no passport need. Those who love Absurdistan believe they can use capitalism to beat death to death, if only the can accumulate enough of it.
That's a pretty good question because most of us are deeply addicted to civilization. We don't know how to live without it. Indeed, without industrial methods of production, a dominant feature of civilization, most of us -- 99.9% I would guess -- could not eat or clothe and house ourselves, or defend ourselves from diseases and large predators. Looks like we're stuck with it.
This is not civilization. This is plutocracy and slavery and the reign of brutality