The Paradox

One of the first books I read about globalization was “Global Paradox” by John Naisbitt. I bought it because I wanted to learn more about globalization. As Naisbitt put it, there is a paradox about globalization in that it makes the world economically bigger and smaller at the same time. After finishing the book I wanted to know more about the paradox.

Naisbitt took it for granted that the reader instinctively knows what the paradox is. Most of use have a cursory knowledge of what it is. It is a phenomenon. But what is a phenomenon?

Knowing the paradox is not easy. I couldn’t find a satisfactory explanation for it. But, then, I was not thinking of it in the traditional, philosophical sense. I was thinking of it as a mechanism, as an action thing, as a phenomenon. What I found instead were explanations for things inanimate. I interpreted Naisbitt’s global paradox to be organic, something that animates and motivates things. He portrayed it as a force that causes change in the world, not as something lifeless and benign.

Hoping to find support for my interpretation, I looked up the paradox in a philosophy dictionary. There, however, I found it described as an abstraction, difficult to understand. There was nothing animating or life-like about it. Then I read a book that discussed the role of the paradox in writing. It described the paradox “as the ‘schizophrenic presentation’ of two or more possibilities, each having equal claim to validity”. It also said that the paradox is a “child of polarity, a linguistic construct by which we give expression to our polarized human existence”. As a linguistic construct it animates what is written through a ‘creative tension’, generated by the ‘schizophrenic’ polemics it incapsulates. A Shakespearian example was given to show this linguistic construct at work where Juliet calls Romeo a "beautiful beast", two conflicting ideas but in combination very revealing and animating. A physical example of the linguistic paradox at work would be the opposing poles of electricity, each also having equal claim to validity, schizophrenically engaging in the creation of energy. This is how I see the paradox, as a power house, a sort of dialectical dynamo.

“The paradox is a child of polarity.” The paradox, then, resembles something in nature, like the the opposite poles of electricity. One of my articles was about contradiction and it being central to reality. Contradiction also is a child of polarity. The paradox and contradiction are related. Contradiction is the stuff of dialectic engines. The paradox is also a dialectical engine. This engine animates, energizes not only the written text but also the world we live in. It also creates and makes things possible. For instance, if the paradoxes of up and down, in and out didn’t exist we wouldn’t have the space we live in.

In many respects globalization and paradox are the same. Both are events. Both have deep meaning and create situations that are puzzling. They both send out mixed signals. Both are mechanisms that facilitate the human enterprise.

The other day I read a blog article that reminded me of the paradox. It presented an explanation for the metaphysical nature of the world. I think it did a good job. The article was entitled "entropy and dialectic".

The article explains that those two events or forces have put pressure on the world to become what it is, globalized and similar. Basically it is this, entropy deconstructs systems of culture and governance all over the world and as they reconstruct and renew themselves they become more alike, following the principles of the second law of thermodynamics about open and closed systems. Communism is a good example of a closed system which suffered permanent entropic damage and then reconstructed itself in its rival's image.

The dialectic, the article argued, adds the paradoxical element to globalization. It is the brain working, saying that despite the growing similarity we don't want everything to be the same. Culture resists sameness. In resisting while also melding with similarity we become wiser and more sophisticated because we are challenged with new concepts and alternatives. The paradox educates and improves our skills because it engages us with conundrums that require dialectical thinking and solutions.

Though entropy and dialectic are two different occurrences they are related. Entropy itself is part of a paradoxical relationship administrated by a form of the dialectic. Entropy is one side of the thermodynamic coin, the side which is about decline and disorder. The other side is about conversion and renewal. Entropy applies to thermodynamics' second law which refers to decline. Renewal applies to the first law. The second law says that in the end systems will come to an end. But the first law says that systems can continue if they are managed well and rejuvenated. What renews and rejuvenates systems is a type of dialectical, polemic action that converts ‘energy’ from less to more, from bad to good, as the first law says. These laws highlight the fundamental paradoxical nature of our world.

The world is always in flux. This flux is due to the polemic nature of the world. Naturally, it is paradoxical flux.

Capitalists and Labor.

The other day I read an article about the violent acts perpetrated by organized labor in the United States during the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th century, when labor was first organizing. The writer of the article, a conservative, portrayed these violent acts as terrorist acts and blamed them on the growing liberal/progressive element of the time. There is a constant theme to the articles written by this author, one of liberal/progressives bashing and that they throughout history have been the ones who have encouraged and cultivated the environment for terrorism and anarchy.

The liberal/progressives he speaks of in this article worked to advance a just and humane society in America. The author considers those liberal/progressives as subversive elements because in trying to create better working conditions for labor they were disrupting the righteous, free flow of capitalism. According to what I read in this article it was all right for capitalists to exploit labor and deny it better working conditions and salaries but it wasn't all right for labor to demand better treatment for its workers from capitalists. The inference I got is that labor should have been grateful to capitalists for creating jobs and to bad about the abuses perpetrated by them. After all, according to what was inferred, the abuse is part of doing business. However, I don't see those early labor agitators as terrorists or anarchists but as perhaps desperate and cornered people who had little or no recourse to address their labor grievances, hence the violence.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I don't condone violence. Anyone of reason cannot condone such activity. However, sometimes it has been the only means of recourse because the injustices and intransigencies instigated by humanity wouldn’t resolve themselves through reason. Violence, as we know, gets one's attention like nothing else. And unfortunately, sometimes there is no alternative. It is the means of last resort.

I really don't understand why the writer is against the labor movement. But then, he is a conservative; a state that tends not to support labor unions. And as a traditionalist he has a warped sense of how society ought to function, in a particularly structured, 'ruling class' way. He doesn't realize that the labor movement has had as much a part in creating the capitalist/democratic system we live in, which he seems to admire, as capitalism. The conflict between capitalism and those who have struggled against it for better wages and working conditions is what has made America what it is today, a reasonably decent place to live in. Because of what the labor movement has done for America he should be supportive of it rather than denigrate it.

The struggle between labor and management is what has given capitalism and free-market economics its legitimacy. If capitalists ran the whole show without labor’s input, as our writer suggests should have been the way, capitalism would have destroyed itself long ago like Marx observed. Marx believed, and rightly so, that capitalism's contradictions would be the death of it. Contradictions must to be resolved. Labor has challenged capitalism’s contradictions and altered many of them so as to make it fair and accessible to all. I don’t think our writer who is anti-Marxist wants to prove Marx right. So instead he should be supportive of the labor movement.

The way I understand it, our writer believes that from its beginnings capitalism was a fully developed system, like there was some sort of manual/bible out there on how it ultimately should be conducted. No. Capitalism has had to learn itself and its mode of operation from the bottom up just like has every other worthwhile system of human governance. The labor movement and the violence it sometimes provoked were part and parcel of its development. If capitalism had been full of clarity and wisdom from the start about how to properly conduct itself it would have known initially how to treat labor properly and avoid all the violence that has occurred in its name. But it didn't, hence the need for labor's participation to help shape it. It is, after all, a two way street.

Humans have always learned best and more convincingly through experience. An a priori wisdom has never been enough. For instance, just because the Ten Commandments told us how to behave we didn't follow it advice. No, we have learned its wisdom by first breaking its rules. True wisdom has always been gained through experience, practice and transformation. The free market place of ideas and commerce we reside in today was developed this way and unfortunately also through violent clashes, as those between labor and capitalism.

Capitalism on its own, without the labor movement, would have truly created a system of the survival of the fittest, a system to benefit a few, a system that would eventually have destroy itself or brought barbarians to its gates. Our writer’s criticism, though, is legitimate and worthy because such criticism in the larger arena has helped temper some of the outrages committed by the labor movement. As a criticizer of the labor movement he serves the same great purpose as those who criticize capitalism, tempering capitalism's extremes and helping to make it into something everybody can survive and benefit from, not just a few.

Natural Law II

I showed an acquaintance , JB, the article I wrote on “Natural Law”. I think he was impressed and thought I captured its essence pretty well. Interestingly, he focused on one particular idea I mentioned, “ruling class”.

One thing JB said that is interesting is, “rudimentary to ruling class is the concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’. He said that those two concepts are essentially conservative ones, confirming what I thought. What he said also added support to my argument that the person who originated the phrase “survival of the fittest”, Herbert Spencer, was a conservative. I was challenged on that point by another acquaintance.

JB wrote “natural law is unavoidable and it is the reason why neither communism or socialism are a viable system of economic and human governance”. I agree with him. It is an idea that I have been trying to articulate in past essays. He is saying that natural law doesn’t only apply to human existence but also to governing systems. What ‘natural law’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ are saying is that communism and socialism were not fit to survive because they didn’t follow natural law, the law of the ‘jungle’, which says that you have to remain current and adapt if you want to survive. Also, those systems tried to circumvent and reinvent natural law. All systems have to renew themselves to survive. That is natural. Communism in particular was inherently incapable of renewing itself. There are forces in nature that eat equally away at both physical and abstract systems. Natural law cannot distinguish between them. Abstract systems like human governance suffer from the same deteriorating forces of atrophy and entropy as do physical systems. They suffer from ware and tare, obsolescence and neglect. In physical systems parts have to be replaced. In abstract systems ideas and methods have to be replaced. Both systems also require maintenance. Communism, unlike Democracy, was incapable of replace worn out, static methods and ideas in its governance with new and fresh ones, Inherently it didn’t have the means or compulsion to do so. Communism succumbed to the dictates of natural law. It couldn’t avoid them. Hence its collapse.
 
“But also a natural law is the human desire to "level the playing field" for those unable to do so on their own. So no matter the dismal historical outcome of such efforts, we try and try again...thinking that we just have not hit on the right combination yet...struck the right balance so to speak.” After reading that I think natural law can be manipulated and transcended. How did I deduce that from what JB wrote? Let me explain.

There is Natural Law and then there is natural law, the latter is the advent of humans. Humans, in a sense , have transcended some aspects of Natural Law. JB implies this, although not intentionally. First of all, he believes and said, like a true conservative, that natural law says there are those who are born to govern and those who are born to be governed. But he is also saying that in doesn’t necessarily have to be that way because of the desire to “level the playing field”. For instance, there have been people from humble backgrounds with no governing experience that have become presidents and prime ministers. Such a transition has occurred mostly under Democracy, a system that has transcended and transformed the natural laws of the past. Natural law now believes more in equally than it did in the past, leveling the playing field as JB said. Whereas in the past natural law said it was only natural for kings and monarchies to rule, it now says it is natural for anybody who thinks she/he can be a leader to be a leader. Natural law doesn’t discriminate like it used to or is socially imposed as it used to be. Today’s natural law also says you don’t have to remain poor because you were born poor. It also says that one can move beyond one’s ‘station’ if one has the ability or desire.
 
I sort of get the impression that JB thinks, showing his conservative colors, it is futile to for people to try and transcend natural law and the ‘stations’ in life they have been handed. However, America, where he resides, is a great example of transcending what was once presumed to be social nature law. For instance, social natural law in the past was totally against same sex relationships. However , today it is almost as natural as heterosexual relationships. Also, years ago it was believed that blacks would never be equal to whites. That’s no longer is naturally accepted. I remember reading that in the 50’s it was natural to think that Jews, minorities and women would never rise to senior management position in large corporations. It also was unnatural for them to be in politics. Today those old natural laws have been transcended and the world has not fallen apart.

Natural law

I’ve had trouble understanding “natural law”. Some traditional conservatives and religious people talk about it as thought it should be the guiding principle of life. One article defined natural law as “the innate sense of morality that is believed to be written on people’s hearts and can be divined by human reason.” An encyclopedia defined it the “ theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discovered by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial secessions.” It goes on to say, “Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made law, conditioned by history and subject to continues change.” I am still unsure of it.

I guess there is a connection between natural law and religion because it is mentioned as a basis for morality and common sense. The Ten Commandments is a form of natural law because they do make common sense and are hard to argue with. Perhaps it also has to do with the idea that humankind is an extension of God. The rational behind that, I would think, is that God has instilled in us certain unalienable, 'God' given rights.

There is a connection between natural law and natural rights. John Locke (1632-1704) made the connection. Natural law and natural rights are connected because they both make perfect sense. A natural right Locke said individuals have is the right to own property. This natural right is a corner stone of America’s Declaration of Independents. In the Declaration it is worded as the right to pursue happiness. It was worded that way so as not to sound mercenary and selfish. In the Declaration there also are other natural rights Locke spoke of, the rights to life and liberty. It is also natural and natural law to think, Locke said, that one’s own labor is one’s property, belonging to them and should be paid for if employed by others.

Natural law and positive law are not as opposed to each other as one might think. In theory they are supposed to be. But in practice they aren’t that estranged. The Declaration and The Constitution of the United States together is a perfect example of this. The Declaration spells out the natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the Constitution encompasses the positive law that respect and uphold those natural rights. The framers of the Constitution knew full well that people by nature wouldn’t or couldn’t uphold and practice natural law on mere faith, just because it was declared as self-evident. For it to be respected and endure, natural law has to be supported by positive law of legislation and the courts.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that natural law emerged as an idea when it did, during Locke’s time. At the time the scientific revolution was in full swing and philosophers and scientists were beginning to understand the mechanics and logic of nature. They believed if such logic exists and works for nature why could it not be applied to the organization and workings of humankind. The word natural became synonymous with things that make sense and work. It was reasoned that if natural law and its derivatives was applied to the working of humankind and society they would function better and more logically.

Edmund Burke, the supposed founder of modern conservatism, didn’t believe in natural law. I thought he would have because today’s conservative do. However, conservatism in his day was different. He believed in a class structure and wasn’t for the common man. Natural law and its natural rights meant that under it the masses would be liberated and have input in the running of government. Burke didn’t think the masses were capable of organizing and governing themselves. A ruling class should continue to exit, he thought. Today, however, natural law is a cannon of conservative thinking. In Burke’s day it was viewed as liberal thinking. That reversal emphasizes something I have been thinking about, the topsy-turvy relationship that exists between conservative and liberal thinking, often trading places on issues.

I don’t think natural law is as natural as it is made out to be, especially when it comes to natural rights. I guess they feel natural because they obviously feel instinctive and inherently right. They are, after all, hard to argue with, like it is hard to argue with Mother Nature. However, it took some deliberation and education to open our eyes to them, to discover they were natural and inherent to all of us. It took someone like Locke to point out that they are and should appear as self-evident. He pushed the idea of natural rights as a way of making government realize that they are responsible to us, their constituents, not the other way around. When Locke first introduced them to us they didn’t appear to be so natural. However, now that we have a greater awareness and understanding of them they come to us as ‘second nature’, like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more natural?

Finally, I think natural law implies a responsibility. If we are to expect natural rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we must show responsibility and know they come with strings attached. They shouldn't be abused. And if we are to have them for ourselves we must acknowledge them for others. Also, natural rights require a vigilance because there is always someone around who wants to deny them to us. If we take them to much for granted we could lose them. And that is also natural law.

Darwin everywhere

All of a sudden there is a lot of 'Darwin' out there. Everybody is talking about Darwin. He has become a metaphor for a a whole host of things, from religious to business causes. Religious arguments use him to make the case for or against ID/Creationism or evolution. Business arguments use him to forward the idea that companies have to change and evolve to remain competitive. Traditional conservatives use Darwin to bash liberal/progressives and their evolutionary ideas.

There is a new business book out called " Dealing with Darwin". It emphasizes the importance of renewal and remaining flexible in the business world in order to continue to be competitive and alive. I think ID/Creationists should read it in order understand a major principle of evolution in the human domain.

I bet we are still evolving to stay ahead of the game.