Page 1 of 1 pages
What Lapham says about religion, “it
Posted by m goodwin on Dec 14, 2005 at 6:29 AM
Greece. Nice, huh?
Those poor chumps. I almost feel sorry for the administration. What a bunch of turncoats. It seems to be true, for as long as I can remember that Americans want to be on the side that’s winning. Like Homer Simpson said, ‘it’s more important to be popular’.
My guess is that all but the true believers (who may kill their family and themselves before questioning the Rapture, W. as a man of God, and Israel as a monument to biblical proportions), will simply act like they never thought otherwise , but that George and his posse were all crooks and incompetent boobs.
The same people who would have turned me in to the Secret Service had they heard my opinions, will suddenly be whistling a different tune and saluting whomever the new “winners” might be. Let’s hope they’re not worse.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 14, 2005 at 12:24 PM
“With religion you often run up against people who already know all the answers and don
Posted by wolf on Dec 14, 2005 at 1:35 PM
While agreeing with Mr. Lapham’s assessment of our current wealth disparity,I can’t help but feel that this guy deserves no kudos.
Why didn’t he let his opinion be known while he was probably raking in more than 300 times more than an average press operator at Harper’s?
Maybe,for some people,a golden parachute comes with a guilty conscience.
Posted by Dr.D on Dec 14, 2005 at 7:43 PM
I’ve been reading Lewis H. Lapham’s <i>Notebook<> in Harper’s for about twenty years.
I guess I never stopped to ask myself how much more an accomplished career writer and editor made when compared to the wages of an average press operator. In my opinion, his writing is better than average, and it isn’t his responsibility to correct the behavior of our national economy, but I’m a superstar in Plato’s cave, or whatever, so what do I know?.
I’ll ask Mr. Lapham——
Mr. Lapham, how did your pay compare to the pay of “your average press operator”? And, why didn’t you do something about it ? Don’t you think you owe every and any body an apology for everything—-past, present, and future?
Did you get a “golden parachute”, or did you just retire? Or something yet more sinister that I have not even imagined, (living in a cave and all)?
How many of Harper’s employees are up the creek without a canoe, while you jet off to the islands where you can slap the help?
How can you sleep at night? Here you are TALKING about wealth inequality, when you have wealth—- a little too close to the topic, to talk about it, and still be eligible for ‘kudos’, don’t you think?
Hope you can sleep at night without those “kudos”. Confess your guilt now, and perhaps you’ll be eligible for a sticker.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 14, 2005 at 8:57 PM
I can change my mind as the result of “more enlightened conversation”—-even on big issues. At least, if I don’t change my “yes” to a “no”, or “no” to a “yes, being able to frame something differently or weigh it differently is to be influenced. We’re all influenced by other people.
I see your point about the left slamming religion, and I wish they wouldn’t because they are only being religiously anti-religious, and I don’t believe that it is “stupid” or “sheepish” to have religious beliefs; but that doesn’t mean that a religious idealogue doesn’t have a tendency to use faith to make him/herself dangerously unaccountable to human reason and earthly law. Not every criticism is “slamming”.
This danger is inherent in religious ideology that is primarily composed of “followers” who feel that it is blasphemous for them to question their human leaders, whether or not the left is being fair in their criticisms.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 14, 2005 at 10:13 PM
Lapham has a way with words, no doubt.
Although I personally think the most pressing issue for America is not how to define “national security”, but how to use our incredible power and influence in a way that benefits ourselves and also helps/refrains from hurting other societies.
Which is to say, how to use hyperpower properly.
If, that is, you accept the idea that people and nations are responsible for the harm they do, no matter whether it’s a main effect or a side effect of their intentional actions.
Some people don’t buy that, ya know…
Personally, I’m not too disturbed by the ratio of the CEO’s salary to the lowest salary in the firm and much more disturbed by the facts that 1) too many CEOs get a raft of goodies BEFORE they’ve done anything beneficial for the company (paying in advance doesn’t foster the best performance in a worker, even a worker in a corner office) and continue to get it even if their leadership damages that company and the people working for it, and 2) worse, the conditions in which diligent work, creativity, and intelligence could be translated into an improved life appear to be narrowing in America, not expanding.
It’s the excellence thang, ya dig. Why should I work so bloody hard if I’ll be stuck with a crap wage and little chance for advancement anyway? Might as well just do the minimum to get by…
I do think LL has a point about the admixture of religious fervor with government’s agenda, i.e. reacting as though questioning policy is a morally suspect and even treasonous behavior. A terrible attitude for an American to take! Wolf is right, though, when he points out that ideologues come in secular as well as churchy flavors. Some people you just can’t talk to, because they already know everything.
When people like that get ahold of power, better watch your back! Who cares if they’re devout or atheist? They’ll justify your destruction either way, and tell you why it was right, true, and appropriate that you be destroyed.
Well, an eloquent viejo’s musings are worth reading, I guess. A little bit.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 14, 2005 at 10:51 PM
<i> Although I personally think the most pressing issue for America is not how to define
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 14, 2005 at 11:41 PM
Hi wileywitch,
No doubt, getting a handle on “national security” as a function of informed citizens’ feelings of connectedness and confidence would be great, I just have had a lot of thoughts about America’s inordinate economic and cultural influence (hyperpowerful influence that’s out of proportion to our numbers on the planet, also out of proportion to our apparent wisdom as a society… if societies can be wise, as individuals sometimes are), and so my phrasing. Lapham’s musings triggered me sharing a few of my own, not much more. I wasn’t particularly slamming him, maybe just altering the emphasis a bit.
Your point about the hazards of science being used foolishly or in dangerous ways is important to consider. It preoccupies me somewhat, because I tend to favor science as a way of learning about the world and (my hope) improving human life while minimizing the damage we do. Science is an enormously powerful tool, easy to misuse or to employ toward stupid or evil ends. I certainly think it’s more useful as a way of understanding the material world than any metaphysical approach, although in the absence of ethical restraints or a contemplation of possible bad consequences, its power can bring about some terrible results.
Thanks for your responses, always appreciated.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 15, 2005 at 6:50 PM
Well (not to be argumentative) but I don’t think that the metaphysical and physical worlds are necessarily at odds in any natural sense.
You might be interested in reading some of Fritjof Capra’s work, like the “Tao of Physics”, if you haven’t already. In “The Turning Point”, I think he made a really good argument for working toward shedding ourselves of Cartesian assumptions. The mind/body reductionist and dualistic thinking divides us against ourselves. A lot of stuff in it went over my head, but I hope to catch up with it bit by bit.
Not that DeCartes didn’t get things done and give us tools to better study the world—-he most certainly did—- but many physicists find this framework limited and not up to task on the sub-atomic level.
I think we’re less likely to do stupid stuff with science when we accept ourselves as sensuous and fickle humans, instead of minds in a vat of meat that only need to be properly engineered—-socially and/or genetically—-to some measurable level of “perfection”.
Thank you for your response.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 15, 2005 at 7:50 PM
“I think we
Posted by Kuya on Dec 15, 2005 at 9:15 PM
The triumph - and curse - of science is that you have to standardize your environment in order to minimize your unknowns to a manageable level, in order to ensure a predictable outcome. You can’t drive a car without a network of roads and highways to convey it. Even a Land Rover requires a relatively flat, level surface in order to function efficiently.
The ability to reduce (standardize) your variables in order to predict a positive outcome is not limited to physics and the presumably inanimate objects it manipulates, but extends beyond the physical boundaries to include social, economic and political organizations which educate and inform its membership with the necessary cultural ideals required to reproduce the organizational structure. The organization thereby becomes a functional organism, possessed of a collective, corporate intelligence, with attributes which extend far beyond the mortality of ordinary individual human life.
Theological references to divinity are thereby veiled, coded allusions to the operation of natural and social organizations, clothed in the vocabulary of supernatural events designed to elicit a collective standardized response to the stimuli of its religipous leadership. Human consciousness is thereby reduced to more manageable levels of collective operation.
Scientists, as such, are the secular clerics of the postmodern state.
Posted by Major Major on Dec 17, 2005 at 5:38 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen12162005.html
This is quick, light reading—- I think it’s a reasonable look at the issue of science and religion both having their places, functions, and limits.
If put on a pedestal and accepted without question, then science becomes a religion and ceases to be science.
And just a thought, science is not just standardization and control. Observation, imagination, and questioning are important to the art of science. Much has been discovered through intuition and accident. The history of science is dominated by prior scientific theories and conjecture being proven wrong—-which is part of it’s charm, I think, we do manage to advance somehow by falling forward.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 17, 2005 at 11:53 PM
I’m not arguing for or against the Scientific Project, in contrast to the Theocratic Project. I’m just trying to delineate the structural similarities between the two, and see where it gets us. The Scientific Project would have been impossible without the Industrial Revolution, just as the Theocratic Project would have been impossible without the Agricultural Revolution. In either case, major advances were made with respect to the social division of labor. Entire categories of class, and the people who constituted them, were created and destroyed in order to accomodate emergent methods of production and social reproduction. The evolution of industrialism is coincident with the evolution of the Scientific Revolution. Condemning the social dislocations produced by industrialism (imperialism, fascism and communism) while praising the scientific discoveries which made them possible appears, to me, to be hypocritical and grossly disingenuos.
Newton modestly praised the “shoulders of giants” upon which he stood in order to extend his scientific perception. He failed completely to perceive the shoulders of those millions of people who made it possible for the “intellectual giants” to create their scientific discoveries. They were invisible. They were unimportant. And they were expendable.
Posted by Major Major on Dec 18, 2005 at 8:25 AM
Condemning the social dislocations produced by industrialism (imperialism, fascism and communism) while praising the scientific discoveries which made them possible appears, to me, to be hypocritical and grossly disingenuos.
I hadn’t intended to contradict you at that point. I recommended that article because I though it complimented what you were saying.
Science and social structure is an interesting juxtaposition that I hadn’t really contemplated much. I was thinking that the age of Industrialism was kicked off by fossil fuels, but I can see the science connection you referred to.
Would you wish us back to the Stone Age? It looks to me like you’ve set up an argument that makes it convenient to point a blamey finger at anyone expressing gratitude for scientific discovery, and that seems disinegenuous to me. I’m not saying that you haven’t made a point, just saying that it’s only really useful as an attempt to foil discussion of scientific topics. Like you said the “the evolution of industrialism is coincident with the evolution of the Scientific Revolution. Emphasise “coincident”.
We’re all “standing on the shoulders of giants”. We could, by your argument, logically say that it’s hypocritical to praise anything we do because it fails to take into account the demise of the CroMagnon.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 18, 2005 at 12:43 PM
There are no giants. We stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, who stood on the shoulders of their predecessors, who stood on the shoulders of their predecessors. Our individual social contributions are incremental and infinitesimal, and appear to be gigantic only in the limits of integration over the history of our special experience. Speecial, as opposed to speshul. Innovation is a social and collective process, and requires the participation of all its constituents.
Posted by Major Major on Dec 18, 2005 at 10:09 PM
In other words, intelligence is over-rated.
Posted by Major Major on Dec 18, 2005 at 10:20 PM
It’s not like I just love to argue with you, but I feel compelled to say “what’s your point”? Are you being deconstructionist?
I think that there are “giants”. They would not have been “giants” without the conditions that allowed them to be which is moving toward an ontological argument here—-a lot of great artists worked in the shadow of Michaelangelo, and Michaelangelo probably would not have been as great as he was had he not been surrounded by them and the work of prior great artists but there are geniuses that deserve credit.
Is it hypocritical for a person to like the statue of David if that person doesn’t agree with the Roman Catholic church?
You seem to me to be arguing in favor of rigid thinking and word traps. You also seem to be asserting that anyone not considered great has been treated as Alpo throughout human history. I think not.
And it is not only in hindsight that accomplishments are recognized and credited with greatness or innovation.
I think you’re totally oversimplifying humanity and history.
Intelligence over-rated? Intelligence is just the beginning, but I think it’s a little hard to over-rate. Good looks aren’t going to save us. And we all know the adage about good intentions.
The problem I see with our culture is that we don’t recognize different kinds of intelligence, our school system makes most children feel stupid, television makes most people feel unattractive and undeserving of attention, and our culture makes people too afraid of being wrong and making mistakes. Big whoop. Everybody is wrong. Everybody makes mistakes. And in my opinion, everybody has at least one form of intelligence that enhances life. I’ve never met a stupid person. And I’ve never met anyone who didn’t do or say stupid things now and then.
If you said wisdom is underrated, and there is no such thing as a “self-made” man I’d have to agree.
Did you ever tell me if you got the name “Major Major” from “Catch-22?”
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 18, 2005 at 10:51 PM
I guess I’m not as infatuated with the “intellectual giants” as you seem to be. More to the point, our collective infatuation with hyperindividuality ignores the people who provide the intellectual aristocracy with the affluence and leisure they require to construct the masterpiece. To cite your own example, it took an entire society to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, from the stonecutters who quarried the granite to the masons who built the structure, the “canvas”, to the peasants who starved to provide his patrons with the food to feed him.
Catch-22? What’s that?
My father, C. Sharp Major, was, like his father, a consummate practical jokester, and christened me Major after my birth. He “was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anybody but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government paid him, and he spent every penny he didn
Posted by Major Major on Dec 19, 2005 at 6:14 PM
I’m just as infatuated with people who aren’t “giants”. I think their accomplishments are all of ours.
I didn’t know you were funny Major Major (my friend just said that I’m “giggling uncontrollably to myself again”) but that is a funny story that could be straight out of Catch 22.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 8:57 PM
Oh .. he is funny alright :)
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:10 PM
Harpers is the only magazine i ever actually subscribed to in my life and the only thing i really missed after “exiling” myself to Saigon in 1994—aside from licorice ju-jubes and baklava.
When Harpers finally went part way onto the Net, i was in ecstasy (and i suppose i should add for the Witch’s and Kuya’s sakes, that that is as opposed to “into” ecstasy [quick wink and a smile]).
Even today, Harpers’ Index never fails to astound me and spur my imagination. With the heedless approach to intellectual property epitomized by the Orient’s Pearl, i rip a few entries from the most recent Index as examples:
* Number of journalists killed in Vietnam during twenty years of war there: 63 [Reporters without Borders (Paris)]
* Number killed in Iraq since March 2003: 71 [Reporters without Borders (Paris)]
* Years after the start of the Vietnam War that a majority of Americans first said it was a mistake: 3 1/2 [The Gallup Organization (Washington)]
* Years after the start of the Iraq War that a majority said this: 1 1/4
Those stat’s will just have to be replayed in the Saigon Times. I’ll see what i can do.
Lapham’s responses to Aaron Sarver’s questions only reinforce the opinions i’ve held since being a born-yesterday baby-boomer back in Canadada.
Though i too experience some angst when trying to imagine how much i might make as a junior journo versus Lapham’s parting package from Harpers—and i cannot claim to have any notion of what the real difference might be, fair or not—i have no qualms about a sub-market that puts its highest relative values on those who contribute as hugely to the spread of Real Justice in the world, even if only their intellects and words, as Lewis Lapham has.
Lastly, in light of the Witch’s (raw HTML) CounterPunch reference (above), i’d like to add another more directly related to what i see as Lapham’s general gist in this interview: The Decline of the American Empire by Gabriel Kolko, AD.2005.Dec.17. Kolko elegantly outlines a scenario which i’m pretty sure a whole lot of us are now actively working towards, from La Paz to Pretoria, Montreal to Mumbai, Harare to HoChiMinh, Tokyo to Tiblisi…
The abstract leading into Kolko’s piece seems a fact of life outside the US: Defeated in Iraq, Bankrupt at Home, Despised Around the Globe (And That’s Just the Good News).
AD.2005.Dec.20.11:49.ICT (IndoChina Time)
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:54 PM
Glad to see you sober AD. Or looking like it anyway.
Oh yeah—-Lapham. He can put together some complex sentences—-usually in an historical perspective. A person could easily do worse with their education.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 11:10 PM
Just a different stage, dear Witch, a different role to play. As your own posts suggest between their lines, the ambiance of Lewis Lapham is quite unlike that of Baba Vonnegut.
But just to show i can be as fortunately fecetious as ever (am@[home]$ fortune -am sober all): The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober.—William Butler Yeats
AD.2005.Dec.20.15:57.ICT (IndoChina Time)
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 20, 2005 at 2:01 AM
Ad, I love Lapham’s writing and will not allow my subscription to Harper’s to run out for now. Everything stops around here when I get a new issue. I hope it doesn’t nose-dive now that L.L. is gone. It seems like it hasn’t had as much punch as it used to, but still I like it.
(I wouldn’t be hanging around here so much if I weren’t sick with a flu, btw. Like the threads, but am looking forward to making myself a bit scarce in the near future. The other day my bones were melting, now they feel frozen, though I feel rubbery all around them. Those viruses are sly ones.)
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 20, 2005 at 4:59 PM
wileywitch - hope you feel all the way better soon. Take care and have a Merry Christmas!
Posted by wolf on Dec 21, 2005 at 9:26 AM
Thank you, Wolf. Merry Christmas to you and yours—-sincerely—- (your little joke has not gone over my head.)
Public service message—- the death toll for medical error has exceeded the death toll for car accidents, so drive carefully (you don’t want to end up in the hospital).
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 21, 2005 at 5:32 PM
That was brill’ WileyWitch. LOL!!! I’m plugging it into my not-ions database right away. Can i attribute it to you?
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 21, 2005 at 5:55 PM
You can attribute it to wileywitch.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 23, 2005 at 1:28 AM
whew, at last, that file’s been sitting open for two days <smirk>
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 6:55 AM
root@[fortune]# fortune -sam wileywitch all
%% (not-ions)
Public service message—the death toll for medical error has
exceeded the death toll for car accidents, so drive carefully
(you don
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:00 AM
Just fixed “Lapham’s”... (oops) - thx, wiley
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:02 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
What Lapham says about religion, “it
Greece. Nice, huh?
Those poor chumps. I almost feel sorry for the administration. What a bunch of turncoats. It seems to be true, for as long as I can remember that Americans want to be on the side that’s winning. Like Homer Simpson said, ‘it’s more important to be popular’.
My guess is that all but the true believers (who may kill their family and themselves before questioning the Rapture, W. as a man of God, and Israel as a monument to biblical proportions), will simply act like they never thought otherwise , but that George and his posse were all crooks and incompetent boobs.
The same people who would have turned me in to the Secret Service had they heard my opinions, will suddenly be whistling a different tune and saluting whomever the new “winners” might be. Let’s hope they’re not worse.
“With religion you often run up against people who already know all the answers and don
While agreeing with Mr. Lapham’s assessment of our current wealth disparity,I can’t help but feel that this guy deserves no kudos.
Why didn’t he let his opinion be known while he was probably raking in more than 300 times more than an average press operator at Harper’s?
Maybe,for some people,a golden parachute comes with a guilty conscience.
I’ve been reading Lewis H. Lapham’s <i>Notebook<> in Harper’s for about twenty years.
I guess I never stopped to ask myself how much more an accomplished career writer and editor made when compared to the wages of an average press operator. In my opinion, his writing is better than average, and it isn’t his responsibility to correct the behavior of our national economy, but I’m a superstar in Plato’s cave, or whatever, so what do I know?.
I’ll ask Mr. Lapham——
Mr. Lapham, how did your pay compare to the pay of “your average press operator”? And, why didn’t you do something about it ? Don’t you think you owe every and any body an apology for everything—-past, present, and future?
Did you get a “golden parachute”, or did you just retire? Or something yet more sinister that I have not even imagined, (living in a cave and all)?
How many of Harper’s employees are up the creek without a canoe, while you jet off to the islands where you can slap the help?
How can you sleep at night? Here you are TALKING about wealth inequality, when you have wealth—- a little too close to the topic, to talk about it, and still be eligible for ‘kudos’, don’t you think?
Hope you can sleep at night without those “kudos”. Confess your guilt now, and perhaps you’ll be eligible for a sticker.
I can change my mind as the result of “more enlightened conversation”—-even on big issues. At least, if I don’t change my “yes” to a “no”, or “no” to a “yes, being able to frame something differently or weigh it differently is to be influenced. We’re all influenced by other people.
I see your point about the left slamming religion, and I wish they wouldn’t because they are only being religiously anti-religious, and I don’t believe that it is “stupid” or “sheepish” to have religious beliefs; but that doesn’t mean that a religious idealogue doesn’t have a tendency to use faith to make him/herself dangerously unaccountable to human reason and earthly law. Not every criticism is “slamming”.
This danger is inherent in religious ideology that is primarily composed of “followers” who feel that it is blasphemous for them to question their human leaders, whether or not the left is being fair in their criticisms.
Lapham has a way with words, no doubt.
Although I personally think the most pressing issue for America is not how to define “national security”, but how to use our incredible power and influence in a way that benefits ourselves and also helps/refrains from hurting other societies.
Which is to say, how to use hyperpower properly.
If, that is, you accept the idea that people and nations are responsible for the harm they do, no matter whether it’s a main effect or a side effect of their intentional actions.
Some people don’t buy that, ya know…
Personally, I’m not too disturbed by the ratio of the CEO’s salary to the lowest salary in the firm and much more disturbed by the facts that 1) too many CEOs get a raft of goodies BEFORE they’ve done anything beneficial for the company (paying in advance doesn’t foster the best performance in a worker, even a worker in a corner office) and continue to get it even if their leadership damages that company and the people working for it, and 2) worse, the conditions in which diligent work, creativity, and intelligence could be translated into an improved life appear to be narrowing in America, not expanding.
It’s the excellence thang, ya dig. Why should I work so bloody hard if I’ll be stuck with a crap wage and little chance for advancement anyway? Might as well just do the minimum to get by…
I do think LL has a point about the admixture of religious fervor with government’s agenda, i.e. reacting as though questioning policy is a morally suspect and even treasonous behavior. A terrible attitude for an American to take! Wolf is right, though, when he points out that ideologues come in secular as well as churchy flavors. Some people you just can’t talk to, because they already know everything.
When people like that get ahold of power, better watch your back! Who cares if they’re devout or atheist? They’ll justify your destruction either way, and tell you why it was right, true, and appropriate that you be destroyed.
Well, an eloquent viejo’s musings are worth reading, I guess. A little bit.
<i> Although I personally think the most pressing issue for America is not how to define
Hi wileywitch,
No doubt, getting a handle on “national security” as a function of informed citizens’ feelings of connectedness and confidence would be great, I just have had a lot of thoughts about America’s inordinate economic and cultural influence (hyperpowerful influence that’s out of proportion to our numbers on the planet, also out of proportion to our apparent wisdom as a society… if societies can be wise, as individuals sometimes are), and so my phrasing. Lapham’s musings triggered me sharing a few of my own, not much more. I wasn’t particularly slamming him, maybe just altering the emphasis a bit.
Your point about the hazards of science being used foolishly or in dangerous ways is important to consider. It preoccupies me somewhat, because I tend to favor science as a way of learning about the world and (my hope) improving human life while minimizing the damage we do. Science is an enormously powerful tool, easy to misuse or to employ toward stupid or evil ends. I certainly think it’s more useful as a way of understanding the material world than any metaphysical approach, although in the absence of ethical restraints or a contemplation of possible bad consequences, its power can bring about some terrible results.
Thanks for your responses, always appreciated.
Well (not to be argumentative) but I don’t think that the metaphysical and physical worlds are necessarily at odds in any natural sense.
You might be interested in reading some of Fritjof Capra’s work, like the “Tao of Physics”, if you haven’t already. In “The Turning Point”, I think he made a really good argument for working toward shedding ourselves of Cartesian assumptions. The mind/body reductionist and dualistic thinking divides us against ourselves. A lot of stuff in it went over my head, but I hope to catch up with it bit by bit.
Not that DeCartes didn’t get things done and give us tools to better study the world—-he most certainly did—- but many physicists find this framework limited and not up to task on the sub-atomic level.
I think we’re less likely to do stupid stuff with science when we accept ourselves as sensuous and fickle humans, instead of minds in a vat of meat that only need to be properly engineered—-socially and/or genetically—-to some measurable level of “perfection”.
Thank you for your response.
“I think we
The triumph - and curse - of science is that you have to standardize your environment in order to minimize your unknowns to a manageable level, in order to ensure a predictable outcome. You can’t drive a car without a network of roads and highways to convey it. Even a Land Rover requires a relatively flat, level surface in order to function efficiently.
The ability to reduce (standardize) your variables in order to predict a positive outcome is not limited to physics and the presumably inanimate objects it manipulates, but extends beyond the physical boundaries to include social, economic and political organizations which educate and inform its membership with the necessary cultural ideals required to reproduce the organizational structure. The organization thereby becomes a functional organism, possessed of a collective, corporate intelligence, with attributes which extend far beyond the mortality of ordinary individual human life.
Theological references to divinity are thereby veiled, coded allusions to the operation of natural and social organizations, clothed in the vocabulary of supernatural events designed to elicit a collective standardized response to the stimuli of its religipous leadership. Human consciousness is thereby reduced to more manageable levels of collective operation.
Scientists, as such, are the secular clerics of the postmodern state.
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen12162005.html
This is quick, light reading—- I think it’s a reasonable look at the issue of science and religion both having their places, functions, and limits.
If put on a pedestal and accepted without question, then science becomes a religion and ceases to be science.
And just a thought, science is not just standardization and control. Observation, imagination, and questioning are important to the art of science. Much has been discovered through intuition and accident. The history of science is dominated by prior scientific theories and conjecture being proven wrong—-which is part of it’s charm, I think, we do manage to advance somehow by falling forward.
I’m not arguing for or against the Scientific Project, in contrast to the Theocratic Project. I’m just trying to delineate the structural similarities between the two, and see where it gets us. The Scientific Project would have been impossible without the Industrial Revolution, just as the Theocratic Project would have been impossible without the Agricultural Revolution. In either case, major advances were made with respect to the social division of labor. Entire categories of class, and the people who constituted them, were created and destroyed in order to accomodate emergent methods of production and social reproduction. The evolution of industrialism is coincident with the evolution of the Scientific Revolution. Condemning the social dislocations produced by industrialism (imperialism, fascism and communism) while praising the scientific discoveries which made them possible appears, to me, to be hypocritical and grossly disingenuos.
Newton modestly praised the “shoulders of giants” upon which he stood in order to extend his scientific perception. He failed completely to perceive the shoulders of those millions of people who made it possible for the “intellectual giants” to create their scientific discoveries. They were invisible. They were unimportant. And they were expendable.
Condemning the social dislocations produced by industrialism (imperialism, fascism and communism) while praising the scientific discoveries which made them possible appears, to me, to be hypocritical and grossly disingenuos.
I hadn’t intended to contradict you at that point. I recommended that article because I though it complimented what you were saying.
Science and social structure is an interesting juxtaposition that I hadn’t really contemplated much. I was thinking that the age of Industrialism was kicked off by fossil fuels, but I can see the science connection you referred to.
Would you wish us back to the Stone Age? It looks to me like you’ve set up an argument that makes it convenient to point a blamey finger at anyone expressing gratitude for scientific discovery, and that seems disinegenuous to me. I’m not saying that you haven’t made a point, just saying that it’s only really useful as an attempt to foil discussion of scientific topics. Like you said the “the evolution of industrialism is coincident with the evolution of the Scientific Revolution. Emphasise “coincident”.
We’re all “standing on the shoulders of giants”. We could, by your argument, logically say that it’s hypocritical to praise anything we do because it fails to take into account the demise of the CroMagnon.
There are no giants. We stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, who stood on the shoulders of their predecessors, who stood on the shoulders of their predecessors. Our individual social contributions are incremental and infinitesimal, and appear to be gigantic only in the limits of integration over the history of our special experience. Speecial, as opposed to speshul. Innovation is a social and collective process, and requires the participation of all its constituents.
In other words, intelligence is over-rated.
It’s not like I just love to argue with you, but I feel compelled to say “what’s your point”? Are you being deconstructionist?
I think that there are “giants”. They would not have been “giants” without the conditions that allowed them to be which is moving toward an ontological argument here—-a lot of great artists worked in the shadow of Michaelangelo, and Michaelangelo probably would not have been as great as he was had he not been surrounded by them and the work of prior great artists but there are geniuses that deserve credit.
Is it hypocritical for a person to like the statue of David if that person doesn’t agree with the Roman Catholic church?
You seem to me to be arguing in favor of rigid thinking and word traps. You also seem to be asserting that anyone not considered great has been treated as Alpo throughout human history. I think not.
And it is not only in hindsight that accomplishments are recognized and credited with greatness or innovation.
I think you’re totally oversimplifying humanity and history.
Intelligence over-rated? Intelligence is just the beginning, but I think it’s a little hard to over-rate. Good looks aren’t going to save us. And we all know the adage about good intentions.
The problem I see with our culture is that we don’t recognize different kinds of intelligence, our school system makes most children feel stupid, television makes most people feel unattractive and undeserving of attention, and our culture makes people too afraid of being wrong and making mistakes. Big whoop. Everybody is wrong. Everybody makes mistakes. And in my opinion, everybody has at least one form of intelligence that enhances life. I’ve never met a stupid person. And I’ve never met anyone who didn’t do or say stupid things now and then.
If you said wisdom is underrated, and there is no such thing as a “self-made” man I’d have to agree.
Did you ever tell me if you got the name “Major Major” from “Catch-22?”
I guess I’m not as infatuated with the “intellectual giants” as you seem to be. More to the point, our collective infatuation with hyperindividuality ignores the people who provide the intellectual aristocracy with the affluence and leisure they require to construct the masterpiece. To cite your own example, it took an entire society to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, from the stonecutters who quarried the granite to the masons who built the structure, the “canvas”, to the peasants who starved to provide his patrons with the food to feed him.
Catch-22? What’s that?
My father, C. Sharp Major, was, like his father, a consummate practical jokester, and christened me Major after my birth. He “was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anybody but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government paid him, and he spent every penny he didn
I’m just as infatuated with people who aren’t “giants”. I think their accomplishments are all of ours.
I didn’t know you were funny Major Major (my friend just said that I’m “giggling uncontrollably to myself again”) but that is a funny story that could be straight out of Catch 22.
Oh .. he is funny alright :)
Harpers is the only magazine i ever actually subscribed to in my life and the only thing i really missed after “exiling” myself to Saigon in 1994—aside from licorice ju-jubes and baklava.
When Harpers finally went part way onto the Net, i was in ecstasy (and i suppose i should add for the Witch’s and Kuya’s sakes, that that is as opposed to “into” ecstasy [quick wink and a smile]).
Even today, Harpers’ Index never fails to astound me and spur my imagination. With the heedless approach to intellectual property epitomized by the Orient’s Pearl, i rip a few entries from the most recent Index as examples:
* Number of journalists killed in Vietnam during twenty years of war there: 63 [Reporters without Borders (Paris)]
* Number killed in Iraq since March 2003: 71 [Reporters without Borders (Paris)]
* Years after the start of the Vietnam War that a majority of Americans first said it was a mistake: 3 1/2 [The Gallup Organization (Washington)]
* Years after the start of the Iraq War that a majority said this: 1 1/4
Those stat’s will just have to be replayed in the Saigon Times. I’ll see what i can do.
Lapham’s responses to Aaron Sarver’s questions only reinforce the opinions i’ve held since being a born-yesterday baby-boomer back in Canadada.
Though i too experience some angst when trying to imagine how much i might make as a junior journo versus Lapham’s parting package from Harpers—and i cannot claim to have any notion of what the real difference might be, fair or not—i have no qualms about a sub-market that puts its highest relative values on those who contribute as hugely to the spread of Real Justice in the world, even if only their intellects and words, as Lewis Lapham has.
Lastly, in light of the Witch’s (raw HTML) CounterPunch reference (above), i’d like to add another more directly related to what i see as Lapham’s general gist in this interview: The Decline of the American Empire by Gabriel Kolko, AD.2005.Dec.17. Kolko elegantly outlines a scenario which i’m pretty sure a whole lot of us are now actively working towards, from La Paz to Pretoria, Montreal to Mumbai, Harare to HoChiMinh, Tokyo to Tiblisi…
The abstract leading into Kolko’s piece seems a fact of life outside the US: Defeated in Iraq, Bankrupt at Home, Despised Around the Globe (And That’s Just the Good News).
AD.2005.Dec.20.11:49.ICT (IndoChina Time)
Glad to see you sober AD. Or looking like it anyway.
Oh yeah—-Lapham. He can put together some complex sentences—-usually in an historical perspective. A person could easily do worse with their education.
Just a different stage, dear Witch, a different role to play. As your own posts suggest between their lines, the ambiance of Lewis Lapham is quite unlike that of Baba Vonnegut.
But just to show i can be as fortunately fecetious as ever (am@[home]$ fortune -am sober all): The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober.—William Butler Yeats
AD.2005.Dec.20.15:57.ICT (IndoChina Time)
Ad, I love Lapham’s writing and will not allow my subscription to Harper’s to run out for now. Everything stops around here when I get a new issue. I hope it doesn’t nose-dive now that L.L. is gone. It seems like it hasn’t had as much punch as it used to, but still I like it.
(I wouldn’t be hanging around here so much if I weren’t sick with a flu, btw. Like the threads, but am looking forward to making myself a bit scarce in the near future. The other day my bones were melting, now they feel frozen, though I feel rubbery all around them. Those viruses are sly ones.)
wileywitch - hope you feel all the way better soon. Take care and have a Merry Christmas!
Thank you, Wolf. Merry Christmas to you and yours—-sincerely—- (your little joke has not gone over my head.)
Public service message—- the death toll for medical error has exceeded the death toll for car accidents, so drive carefully (you don’t want to end up in the hospital).
That was brill’ WileyWitch. LOL!!! I’m plugging it into my not-ions database right away. Can i attribute it to you?
You can attribute it to wileywitch.
whew, at last, that file’s been sitting open for two days <smirk>
root@[fortune]# fortune -sam wileywitch all
%% (not-ions)
Public service message—the death toll for medical error has
exceeded the death toll for car accidents, so drive carefully
(you don
Just fixed “Lapham’s”... (oops) - thx, wiley
register a new account »Posting Security