DNA data storage

This sounds like science fiction but human-like DNA is being used to store data. (The practice is still in its infancy.) Up to now the data that is used in computing has been stored and warehoused in huge facilities that require a lot of electricity. A constant flow of electricity is required to keep the data galvanized. I am not quite sure how it works but DNA storage of data will not require the huge amounts of electricity that are now being used. DNA and the data it has on it does not require electricity to keep it galvanized. 

Image the data we have stored on our own DNA. It is like our memory stick. Imagine also that someday somebody will be able to tap into our own personal DNA to extract personal information. Everything we've done in life or thought will be have been encoded on our DNA. So if a terrorist is interrogated for information and is not forthcoming he wouldn't have to be tortured. Instead, the interrogators will just tap in his DNA - no fuss, no muss.

Sustainability

Sustainability, whether economic or environmental, has been one of the dominant issues of our time. As The New York Times explained it, sustainability - aka sustainable development, is about “strategies for meshing human activity with the limits of the planet and the needs of future generations”.

Back in 1996 the environmental writer Bill McKibben wrote an OP-ED piece in the NYT calling sustainability a "buzzless buzzword", mere jargon. He found the idea repulsive and a waste of time; a hollow sentiment. He thought the philosophy behind it wouldn't necessary discourage anyone from consuming more or from further exploiting the Earth's limited resources. He disdained the terminology because it was usually coupled with the imperatives of 'growth' and 'development', such as 'sustainable growth' or 'sustainable development'. For McKibben growth and development were incompatible with sustainability, a contradiction in terms. He wrote, "Sustainability is doomed, because it does not refer to anything familiar." To his way of thinking adopting the idea would lead to the opposite - unsustainability.

Well, the idea of sustainability is not dead but alive and well, judging by its constant mention and usage. I am often coming across articles on the subject, one of the latest being in National Geographic. The idea of sustainability (adopted as policy by the UN in the mid 1980s) didn't implode as McKibben imagined. That's because there is something about it that captures the human imagination. There is something inherent and practical about the idea. It captures and articulates the complex, dual situation we find ourselves in today, in a world that is pulling in two different direction, of expansion so as to maintain a life style while trying to protect the environment for the future. And it does sound familiar, contrary to what Mckibben said, because humans have been involved in it for a long time, just not that aware of it.

McKibben believes the term sustainability was meant to obfuscate the issue of human activity's impact on the environment, to postpone the day of reckoning, as he put it. He favors another term - "mature", thinking that we are all or should be mature enough to see the writing on the wall, so to restrain ourselves from developing and growing anymore. His idea is that in our maturity we should learn to live within our needs and stop growing physically. Instead, he says, we should focus on our moral, spiritual and cultural development. He thinks "maturity", not sustainability, is the buzzword that will truly motivate us to be environmentally prudent, as though we are all mature enough to comprehend the issue. However, the reason his choice of mature hasn't taken off is because the concept is dull. 'Mature' sounds stodgy. It lacks dynamism, while "sustainability" has a ring of optimism and opportunity.

The buzzword 'mature' is meant to appeal to our sense of Reason. The reasoning behind it is that we ought to be mature enough, especially in the developed world, to realize that for the sake of the environment and the planet's wellbeing we can't continue to grow and develop our economies as we have or else there will be nothing left. However, we don't live in the rational, mature world McKibben envisions. For one thing, the growing and developing economies of the world haven't reached that point yet. They are not yet ready or willing to be mature in the manner we in the developed world can afford to be. The developing world wants to catch up with the rest. For them maturity be dammed. They feel it's their right to grow and develop like we have. Imposing maturity on the developing world, like father knows best, would imply that they scale back on their economic ambitions, most likely making them resentful and hostile towards the rest of us. At least with the idea of sustainability there is the likelihood of a cooperation and working together, to find solutions so as to maintain a livable and workable environment.

Perhaps, them, it was McKibben who was delusional in thinking that "mature" would win the day and become the buzzword in persuading us to become better stewards of our environment. Perhaps someday we may all be so mature and enlightened. But in the interim the idea of sustainability make more sense. It is pragmatic term emblematic of both our consumer and conservation instincts that will encourage the development of systems that both protect and replace the resources we are certainly not going stop needing so that we survive and continue.

I wonder what kind of strategies 'mature' would devise for meshing human activity with the limits of the planet? It doesn't sound very engaging to me. Of the two buzzwords "sustainability" sounds more sophisticated and energetic. It pushes the boundaries and explores new frontiers. It forces use to be inventive and remain active. "Mature" conjures the idea of downsizing, that one is ready to quite or retire.

I often think about what the optimistic economist Julian Simon believed. To quote one of his colleague: “He believed that the world needs problems because they make us better. Problems make us better off than if they had never occurred”. And our meshing with environment has give us a heap of problems.

And that is what I think about the act of sustainability. It works with problems. It makes us look further than we generally would, to seek solutions and alternatives, to reinvent ourselves, activities that keep us from atrophying and withering away.

Crooked Timber

Kant wrote, Out of the crooked timber of mankind, nothing straight was ever made.

He may not have gotten that idea all by himself. He may have been inspired by a passage in the Bible, from the book of Ecclesiastes where it is written "That which is crooked cannot be made straight" [1:15]. On discovering that Kant probably applied it to his philosophy, to reconcile the perversion and absurdity he saw around him.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin interpreted the Crooked Timber of Humankind metaphor as an admonishment against dogma and perfection. He believed that if a system of human governance set itself up deliberately to straighten out human flaws it would inevitably amount to totalitarianism. This is what he saw the utopian vision of communism trying to do, as endeavoring to straighten out that crooked timber of humankind, which as we know ended in absolute failure.

Another interesting passage from Ecclesiastes is hedonistic, which its preacher, narrator shares with us, invoked, no doubt, by the meaningless and drudgery he saw in life: "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun" [8:15]. That passage could have inspired the passage in the American Declaration of Independence that encourages the 'pursuit of happiness', as an elixir to the drudgery of life.

Nietzsche and other existentialist may have also been influence by Ecclesiastes and the absurdity and meaningless it attaches to live. Nietzsche, it was written, "is one of the first to recognize the absurdity of human existence as the necessary basis for creative life and to stress the importance of irrational and illusional factors in shaping human behavior". Perhaps he was thinking about religion when he observed that.

I was reading the autobiography by psychotherapist Viktor Frankl in which he mentioned another existentialist, Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard once said, to quote Frankl, " anyone who offered a corrective had to be biased, thoroughly biased". Frankl was thinking of his own bias, of the corrective in psychotherapy he offered his patients.

Frankl was a surviver of the Holocaust. It was probably his existentialism that afforded his survival. Had he not been one he may not have survived. His existentialism gave him a certain strength and outlook on live, which balanced life's absurdities against its more admirable ones, and reconciled humanity's crooked timbers with its straighter ones.

Milton Friedman

A lot of people think the economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) was a god. In his lifetime he was viewed as the god of the free market. His economic theories were adopted by, to name a few, Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Those economies, like may others, found new life with some of his suggestions, like those of monetary policy, tax cuts and privatization.

What first brought Friedman to prominence, and won him the Nobel Prize in Economics (1976), was his theory in monetary policy. He believed that the proper control of the money supply was the fundamental key to a healthy economy and a stable world. Good monetary policy was the key to keeping down inflation, an occurrence that has in the past caused great hardship and instability in many nations. Friedman's fame grew from his theory that if the U.S. had controlled its currency better during the Great Depression that event may not have happened. Likewise, it is believed that if Germany after WW1 had not printed money like crazy in order to fulfill the financial demands put on it by its vanquishers, it wouldn’t have descended into the economic abyss it did, making it ripe for a despotism like Hitler.

My thoughts are that we learn from experience. So I think one should take Friedman's idea, that the Great Depression could have been prevented if the U.S. had only managed its currency better, with caution and skepticism. What Friedman suggested is that the U.S. and others, in the 1920's and 30's, had the wherewithal to be good monetarists, but failed to act so. However, I think they had no such wherewithal in those days because people back then were still inexperienced in such matters, as in prudent monetary policies. Nevertheless, people still insist on transposing the knowledge we have today on a less sophisticated world of the past. I mean, sure, with the knowledge we have today we probably could have prevented WW1 or WW2. But that was a different world, absent of the knowledge and the dynamics we have today.

Friedman's policies have railed against socialism. Now, I am no socialist but I have socialist tendencies, like the belief in universal and state run health systems. Such coverage can lift an anxiety of people’s shoulders which potentially can free people to function better. And by what I see in the countries that do have it, for the most part, the practice of medicine works better than in the US and the costs are lower, and life expectancy is longer. I thus believe in a mixed economy in which aspects of capitalism and socialism are mixed and balanced off against each other. And this type of governance is what is spreading around the world, including in the U.S., albeit kicking and screaming all the way. After all, universal health care is one way to help balance the inequalities that the broader economy generates.

I appreciate and believe in some of Milton Friedman's ideas. And they would probably all work if conditions were perfect. One thing he did believe is that if you have a free and open market the facts and information about it should also be free and accessible. This is something that did not occur during the 'subprime market' in mortgages of the past decade. The information and facts surrounding subprime loans and their derivatives were not open to scrutiny and were dishonest. Many of the facts and realities about the subprime market and their 'toxic assets' were manipulated and hidden by Wall Street. This was the major reason for the financial calamity we have today, chiefly due to a lack of transparencies in the mortgage lending practices of the last decade.

Friedman realized that a measure of regulations and consumer protections had to be in place to keep markets honest, fluid and mutually beneficial. He knew that unfettered market on their own were not the 'hole grail' because of their potential for human abuses. This is something the Bush administration failed to see in its unquestioning acceptance of laissez faire, unfettered markets. As a consequence that unquestioning acceptance seriously destabilized the US economy due to the administration's blind faith that the free market on its own, with as little interference from government as possible, can solve society's major problems. (So blinded by faith was George W. Bush that he really didn't understand what went wrong.)

Milton Friedman's fundamental policies in the wrong hands have incurred a naive and reckless approach to economic activity. They have also encouraged abuses. But he would be the first to recognize that's what comes with the territory due the natural capacity to do wrong and get things wrong. Oh, if only we could hear from him today.

Parsimony

In his article "Parsimony (In as few words as possible)", issue 81 of Philosophy Now, Toni Vogel Carey, wonders if nature loves simplicity. I'm sure it does, like any enterprise does, especially at the beginning when it's essential.

In business, particularly at the beginning, it is essential to be parsimonious. It helps keep one in business. There is an axiom we've all heard: If you take care of the pennies the dollars (pounds) will look after themselves. In other words, parsimony and taking care of the nominal stuff is an initial, important step in business.

There is a saying, Don't sweat the details. But that would be like not being parsimonious or taking care of the nominal stuff. Before one can have the luxury of not sweating the details one has to first make sure the details are looked after and are in place. After a business has taken off and started to succeed then one can stop sweating the details and pennies, but never take your eye of the ball, as the saying goes.

However, there is a balance involved. For instance, if one remains too parsimonious and frugal in business, as Adam Smith cautioned against, one will stifle development and growth. So one has to learn how to keep parsimony in the background while learning to spend and take risks so that the business grows. Nevertheless, parsimony should remain a core issue.

If one examine any entity, whether in nature or in business, there is always a simple, parsimonious beginning. But there is a paradox. The option is not to remain simple and parsimonious. In order to survive and continue we must become complex and create intricate systems.

The opposite to parsimony is excess. Ironically, parsimony can has its own excess. For example, a simplistic, parsimonious mindset can lead to the excesses of fundamentalism and extremism, as we've seen with religions.

"Economics Does Not Lie"

There's an intriguing thought: Economics doesn't lie.

Such was the topic of an article written by economist Guy Sorman in the summer of 2008 in “City Journal”, a conservative quarterly magazine about urban affairs. It was written prior to the financial crisis that began to unfold later that year. Was it a coincidence that it was written just before the crisis or was it meant to be a warning about what was to come?

I’d say it was more a coincidence because it didn’t foretell anything about the looming crisis. In fact, it ignored and even praised many of the economic, laissez faire activities that were responsible for the greatest recession America has experienced since the Great Depression. So it got me thinking, how did economics not lie in this instance?

I'm not saying that the discipline of economics lies. On the contrary: basically it tells the truth. It’s built on natural law and reason. I know, for instance, that free market economics is far more truthful than the planned economics of communism and totalitarian states, which are easily manipulated. However, people can still make a liar out of the free market just by not telling the truth about what’s going on. It’s made a liar when it isn’t transparent, such as happened with the opaque transactions that led to the crash of 2008. It lies when it isn’t held accountable, when the rules and regulations are deliberately flouted and ignored. Those lies gave us the greatest economic turmoil in memory. Eventually, though, the chickens came home to roost. In the end market economics freed itself from those lies and told us the truth, that the crisis was a consequence of many questionable and unethical practices. Economics teaches us to be thrifty and good managers. Sadly, though, those prerequisites and truths were lost on many who should have known better, like the bankers and politicians.

One of Sorman’s heroes is Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate in economics who truly believed in the free market. But Friedman believed that if a free market was going to function optimally and truthfully information about business had to be transparent and up front. If business dealings are not open to scrutiny, cheating and lying are more likely to take place. Nevertheless, that’s what happen during the years building up to the financial/economic crisis of 2008. Information was withheld from investors, information that could have prevented or at least tempered the crash. Information was withheld was about ‘toxic’ assets pertaining to questionable financing. Duplicitous assets were hidden in derivatives that were then sold to unsuspecting investors. To further compound the lies, those dubious investments were approved by the very rating agencies that were meant to keep tabs on the financial industry. If Friedman were alive today he would be appalled at the breaches of trust and lies told to unsuspecting investors.

Though it was due to a combination of events, the ‘housing bubble’ was the chief culprit of the economic crisis of 2008, the economics of which represented a catastrophic lie. The bursting of the housing bubble had a devastating ripple effect on all sectors of the economy, leaving banking, the core of an economy, especially vulnerable. And there were plenty of lies to go around, encouraged by fees, greed and poor monitary policy. People deceived themselves in thinking that the price of houses would keep going up indefinitely. Mortgage brokers lied when they made loans to people they knew couldn’t afford them. Ironically the loans were nicknamed ‘liar loans’ because they were based on, what else, lies. The mortgage brokers lied when falsifying documents about the credit worthiness of borrowers. Many borrowers lied about their incomes, as to whether they could afford the monthly payments or not. Each party suspected that the other was lying but the practice continued. And to further compound the lies, these liar loans were deliberately camouflaged and bundled up with healthier securities by Wall St. brokerage houses in the form of derivatives and then sold to unsuspecting investors. To add insult to injury, and more lies, these derivates were given AAA rates by supposedly independent credit agencies like Standard & Poor and Moody’s, companies that were literally working both sides of the street. Their behavior amounted to crony capitalism, which constituted another massive lie and a major threat to the free market.

The Attorney Generals of all fifty US states tried to put an end to the lies. They knew about the liar loans and their potentiality for economic disaster. They wanted to protect consumers from the predatory loans that were being made by mortgage companies and banks knowingly for the profits they generated. But the Bush administration blocked them from implementing such laws because it interfered with a major Bush agenda, an agenda to expand the ownership of homes. It was a veiled, clumsy attempt to enrich the middle class as it had done for the rich with a tax cuts. For all its good intentions, Bush’s dreams for an expanded ‘ownership society’ was predicated on a political ideology equivalent to a house built on sand. Oh, there were economists who warned about this policy but were roundly dismissed as killjoys.

In his article Sorman says that economics is no longer just theory but is now an actual science. (Being a science should have made it more truthful.) As he explained, we have learnt so much from past economic experience that the world can now depend on and ensure itself reasonable economic stability. Economists have developed models and equations that show precisely how the fundamentals work, that there is a certainty in economic outcomes. So what happened that we are now facing one of the greatest economic crises to hit modern civilization? What happened to the science we were supposed to have learned from, the science that was supposed to offset the lies?

What happened is that even though economics may not lie, humans still do. Humans still cheat and cut corners. Human are fallible and that fallibility can negatively impact economic outcomes if not kept in check. That’s why over the years, having gained a lot of experience about our weaknesses and less than truthful natures, we have formulated regulations and backup system to minimize and fend off economic disasters like the one we are experiencing today. Experience gave economics its status of science. But along the way, somehow, mostly due to political ideology, faith and hubris, the science and experience that we learned over the time was discarded in a matter of years, giving the world the economic crisis of 2008, the likes it hasn’t seen in some time.

Chicago -Toronto

Chicago-Toronto

I took a walk around the neighborhood this morning. It was a gloriously rich morning with not a cloud in the shy. I walked through the University of Toronto campus. It remained me of a walk I had through the University of Chicago campus last year. One could say that the Chicago campus is more beautiful. But it is miles away from the center of the city. Toronto’s campus is right in the middle of the city. It is more accessible to city folk like me. To get to the U of C from the city center one either needs a car or has to take the train. One, though, could walk the distance, as I did one hot Sunday we were there, the day of the Chicago Marathon on October 8, I believe. That was a long, hot walk.

Toronto has the distinction of being the condominium (condo) capital of North America. Buildings have been going up like crazy. As I walked around the neighborhood this morning I pasted three condo projects in the works. That was within a small radius. If I expanded my radius just a bit more I would have included four more projects. And within the last couple of years at least another five new condos had been completed in the vicinity. One of the developments almost nearing completion is the Four Season Hotel/Condominiums, a fifty-two story elegant glass skyscraper. Its penthouse recently sold for an astonishing 28 million dollars. Another project just about ready to get under way is a 70 story building at the main intersection of Yonge and Bloor. This development was originally slated to start in 2008 but was canceled because of the global financial crisis of that year. That project was financed by Lehman Brothers, an investment bank that when belly up in September 2008.

In contrast, Chicago has not faired so well in its building projects due to the financial crisis. Another reason could be is that it had already been over built. One notable project that was canceled was the Spire, a 2000 feet skyscraper on the waterfront. When there I remember seeing the huge hole that was to be its foundation. Recently, though, the Trump Tower in Chicago was complete. It is now the second tallest building in the city, at 90 stories. Toronto too will soon have its own completed hotel/condo Trump Tower at about 57 stories high, located in the financial district.

We visited Millennium Park in Chicago. A major attraction in the park is a steel sphere-like sculpture, which you can walk inside and under. It is intriguing because once inside it you can see yours and everybody else’s reflection on its shiny metal ceiling. Looking at it from outside it looked like a helmet. It reminded me of Darth Vader’s helmet in the Star War movies. Millennium Park is built on reclaimed land, reclaimed from railroad lands and parking lots. The railroad and the station are now beneath it. It has really revitalized the area and the city. Toronto has a similar revitalization going on with the reclaiming of old railway lands near Lake Ontario for development of condominiums, parks and entertainment facilities.

I decided to walk the distance from Millennium Park to the University in the south Chicago. Walking the distance was an eye opener. I started it just as the marathon was winding down. The Park was inundated with runners who had just finished the race. In my walk I went through multiple neighborhoods. One of the most dramatic things I saw was the convention center, McCormick Place, the largest convention center in the United States and surely North America. Its size was unbelievable. I also went through some well-to-do districts and some not so well-to-do districts. The contrasts in neighborhoods is something we don’t see in Toronto.

I reached Hyde Park, the area in which the U of C is situated, about two and a half hours later. We were staying with a friend who had located there from Toronto. We were spending our Canadian Thanksgiving weekend with her. The other day I was walking through the Annex area of Toronto, which is situated quite near the U of T, and I had memories of Hype Park in Chicago. Both areas are similar, well manicured and inhabited by intellectuals and professionals.

Chicago and Toronto are similar in may ways. Both names are derived from native Indian words. They are both Great Lake cities. They both lost in their bids to host the Olympics. They both had Great Fires that destroyed much of their city centers. Both are major transportation hubs for air and rail traffic. Because of their railroads both are large, pivotal freight distribution centers. Apart from being two great university towns they are both great cultural centers. Both cities at one time had the similar moniker of ‘hog town’.

Chicago has one thing Toronto never had, a famous gangster, Al Capone. Chicago is famous and notorious around the world because of Capone, probably the most famous gangster in the world. I don’t think Toronto has anything to match that notoriety. However, one area Toronto beats Chicago in is theater. Toronto is the third largest theater production center in the world, next to New York and London. And Toronto does have the famous CN Tower and a sports arena with a retractible roof, build side-by-side on former railway land.

Frankenstein

I started reading Mary Shelley’s gothic classic Frankenstein for the first time on a cruise ship we boarded in Barcelona. At the time we were bound for Tenerife in the Canary Islands. In a wine museum on the island I discovered that Mary’s future husband, poet Percy Shelley, had visited there. I was aroused by the connection and wondered how many others there might be.

Mary Shelley was the daughter of Mary Wollestonecraft, a famous philosopher  and feminist who advocated women’s equality late in the 18th century, a person I had read and written something about.

In the introduction to this edition of the novel Wendy Lesser explains that the name Frankenstein may have been derived from two German words, frank — which in English means giving currency to, and stein - which means stone. So the name, I am thinking, comes from the idea of giving life to an inanimate object with a galvanizing currency of electricity. (The ‘en’ was probably added to make the pronunciation easier.) As Lesser added, Shelley was fascinated with lightening storms. But that doesn’t explain how Shelley herself came upon this name. Perhaps she was influenced by the knowledge that Benjamin Franklin at the time was experimenting with electricity. Perhaps the first draft of the title might have been ‘Franklinstein’. Subsequently, though, I discovered from a Google search that Frankenstein was the name of an aristocratic German family whose ruined castle Shelly used to pass on her way home. The name literally means stones of the Franks, people who had settled in Germany after the decline of the Roman Empire.

The electricity/stone explanation reminded me of something I had learned earlier, an idea that the physicist Niels Bohr introduced, the complementarity principle. My first introduction to this principle was furnished by none other than a stone and someone explaining that when a stone becomes other than an inanimate objected and useful, like a door stop or a weapon, it’s due to a complementarity or supplementary action. In the case of the motionless mass that Frankenstein’s monster was, it  was given life and currency by the complementarity of an electric current.

It’s not easy to understand what motivated Mary Shelley to write a book about a monster. Lord Byron, a close friend, suggested she write a ghost story. She said she was inspired by a dream. But perhaps it had to do more with the times, a time in which science's progression was outstripping human knowledge and wisdom to handle it, a lack that at times ended up with disastrous consequences. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that a nineteen year old girl, when she started it, could have image and written such a story. (Somewhere it is said that Byron ran out of the room screaming when he read it.)

The science Mary Shelley had Victor Frankenstein preform in her novel would today be called pseudo-science or junk science. It was science fiction  (the first of its kind), because it was impossible and could not achieve reality or sustainability. However, it did have a legitimacy about it. In a sense it laid out a dangerous scenario for humankind if it continued to tinker with things and combination of things ( playing God) it had no understanding or mastery of . Since then civilization has witnessed many instances of Frankenstein-like human constructs that have had disastrous consequences, both abstract and physical.

It was pointed out that Frankenstein is a novel devoid of strong women. That is especially interesting in the fact that it was written by the daughter of an important feminist. All the women in it are passive. Like sometimes happens a quirky thought came to mind: Perhaps there was a hidden meaning here, portent to the future, about the monstrous consequences to the world’s order if feminism were to flourish. (Conversely, if equality were denied women no doubt it would be a more monstrous world.)

From the outset the word Frankenstein became a metaphor for freaky occurrences and jarring changes to the order of things. Today we talk about things like Frankenfood, which is genetically modified food, a modification not unlike Frankenstein’s monster. Metaphysical events that have defied explanation and rationalization, like the attacks on 9/11, often summoned Frankenstein type explanations. The financial crises the world experienced in 2008 was a product of weird Frankenstein-like financial derivations.

I was coincidentally remained by a friend of an architectural style known as Brutalism, a subcategory of Modernism that came into prominence in the 1960s and 70s. Today architects and observers alike are running away from this style because it doesn’t bowed well with today’s sensibilities about design. Its appearance conveys an architecture of bigness, large proportions and brutality. I was struck by a similarity with the monster I was reading about, that people are shunning architectural brutalism today in the same way that they were shunning and running away from the brutalism of Frankenstein’s monster. 

Frankenstein is a novel with many story lines. That’s probably what made it the sensation it became, because it offered many overlapping narratives of life. One of them, often hidden, is about the paradoxical nature of life — its simultaneous beauty and ugliness, good and evil, meaningfulness and meaninglessness. The monster was sensitive to both, simultaneously experiencing the creative and destructive aspects of life, which he saw in himself and had difficulty reconciling . The monster’s predicament is emblematic of life and the world. Perhaps Shelley was genetically disposed to understand the paradox  because of her mother’s situation in which she was a feminist but couldn’t live independently of a man because she needed one to survive. 

I imagine that Shelley also wrote this book to show  what she had learned from reading science and the world’s great literary works. But she may also have written it the way she did to provoke empathy, her point being, even though one is disfigured or different from others, like the monster was, that doesn’t mean one doesn’t have feelings or shouldn’t be treated with respect and dignity. The “Hunchback of Notre Dame” was another novel that elicited empathy in much the same way. 

Since I found and read this book onboard ship I thought I should make a connection between the two. It’s not an aesthetically pleasing one but neither was the appearance of Frankenstein’s monster. Nor is it a very kind one. Nevertheless, here goes: As I looked around the ship I saw people that looked disfigured and moved awkwardly like the monster did, mostly because of their age. I thought about the modified bodies many of the passengers had, like Frankenstein’s monster, with alien parts like artificial hips, refurbished knees and transplanted organs. 

I am surprised that Shelly didn’t give the monster a name. That explains why all these years it has been erroneously called Frankenstein. I also pondered a subject Shelley omitted that I thought might have made the monster a little more human. She never mentioned his bodily functions.

King

January 18 is Martin Luther King Day in the US. That observance prompted an admirer to say that he is perhaps one of the greatest philosopher of our time.

I never thought of Martin Luther King as a philosopher but I guess he is, even though he is not listed in any philosophy dictionary. Nevertheless, his philosophy transformed America, and as a result, the world. His philosophy was aimed at ending segregation and racism in America, and improving human rights. To paraphrase the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, circumstances determined King’s philosophy and in turn his philosophy determined circumstances. He is what is known as an operational philosopher, an advocate who put his philosophical beliefs to work. Other operational philosophers who advocated and advanced the human condition were Freud (psychoanalysis) and Benjamin Spock (child rearing).

It was probably the inability of the US Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to achieve desegregate in schools that provoked King to do battle against segregation and racism. Even though the Court’s ruling was unanimous (9-0) on it own it had little power or influence to improve race relations in America. It was a start. But many jurisdictions, especially in the south, ignored and fought that ruling. And there still existed a cultural stubbornness and a lack of will in the country that had to be addressed before the old folkways on race would change. As an abstraction the Court’s dictate was insufficient to change cultural attitudes and norms. Real social reform would have to come from beneath, not through court rulings, but through peaceful activism and the process of appealing to people’s better instincts. It was the mechanism of King’s philosophical conviction about America doing right by its people, and not the law per se, that started to turn things around and began transforming America racially for the better.

But would his philosophy have resonated as well in another time as it did in the 1950-60s? Would people have listened to his message 20 years earlier, before WWII? My feeling is that earlier Americans wouldn’t have been so receptive to his call for social and racial justice because they were preoccupied with other issues. But the era of the 1950-60s was different. His message was in tune with the times, with people thinking more about the future and wanting change. His philosophical outlook alined itself perfectly with the demographics and sociopolitical sensibilities of the day.

What made his philosophy especially poignant and powerful was not just that he was a great orator but that America and the world was ready for it. Prior to King the world was engrossed in other issues, like wars and economic recovery. Moreover, the technology to distribute his poignant message to a wider audiance did not exist yet. It was television that created the mass audience that made the difference. Without television I don't thing enough people would have visualized or appreciated what King was talking about, that race relations in America were scandalous. The people who counted and could make a difference saw on television for the first time the injustices perpetrated by Americans on other Americans. People were horrified and motivated by what they saw on TV, scenes of racial injustice and brutality, and they demanded reform. Hearing King's speeches on TV gave the situation all the more gravitas and urgency.

The world at the time of King was changing dramatically. Human rights had come to the forefront because of what happened during WWII and the Holocaust. People had become more aware of the ill treatment many people around the world were receiving, because of the growth of information and communications, such as that from television. King was the point man in changing attitudes towards race in America, changes that would eventually resonate around the world.

What gave King’s call for racial equality further traction was the generation he was speaking to. This generation was the so-called baby boomers, whose huge presence began emerging at the close of WWII. After the war the birth rate shot up dramatically as soldiers returned from the front and as the world began to feel more optimistic. It was a generation like no other, in numbers and sensibilities. As Leonard Steinhorn wrote in his book, “The Greater Generation: In Defense Of The Baby Boomer Legacy”, it was a generation that was not blindly going to accept the status quo set by the previous generation, of social intolerance and unquestionable deference to authority. This generation of boomers was in sync and exceptionally empathetic towards Martin Luther King’s fight for social justice. It was a generation determined to hold America to its founding ideals of equality for all under the law. Without this reform-minded generation King’s philosophy may have fallen on deaf ears and not led to the social transformation America needed so that it could be the exceptional nation it trumpeted itself to be.

King’s influence was also in the fact that he drew attention to America’s Achilles heel at a critical time in its history. During the Cold War, America, touting its democratic values and superiority, was in competition with communism for the hearts and minds of the world. America had to show the world that it was truly the land of justice and opportunity for all, as advertised. But King, in drawing attention to its social inequality, embarrassed America in its propaganda war with communism. King's pursuit for racial justice and equality for all forced America to reexamine itself and work to end its segregationist policies against African-Americans if it hoped to win the propaganda war against communism.

King was America’s savior. At the time America was a country sitting on a tinderbox of race relations. A significant portion of America’s population felt alienated in their own country because of their color. What heighten tensions more is that many African-American’s had become more educated and conscious of the injustices perpetrated against them. They wanted the same rights that were accorded their white counterparts. African-Americans who had recently returned home from wars, defending America and democracy in WWII and Korea, expected equality and recognition for their contributions. These people wanted their due rights as citizens, especially if they were expected to help defend and build the nation. Although there were race riots during King’s tenure, his peaceful marches raised awareness that helped defuse a situation that potentially could have gotten worse and ripped the country apart even further.

King's philosophical legacy helped empowered millions of people economically and politically. He also fought for workers rights. His fight for emancipation provoked legislation that gave the vote to millions of African-Americans, who, because of their race, had been deliberately denied that right. Because of his efforts the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pasted, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in history. Perhaps King's greatest political legacy is the election of America's first black president, Barack Obama, which couldn’t have occurred if it wasn’t for the struggle he led.

Machiavelli wrote: “The human tragedy is that circumstances change, but man does not.” We humans still don’t like change. But if Americans had not heeded King’s advocacy for social change in order to combat racial discrimination that would have been a bigger tragedy.

Why we live in a postmodern world

Postmodern and postindustrial are synonymous. They both evoke a past era by symbolizing the present.

Postmodernism has not only changed the sensibilities and lifestyles of society on the whole but also between the sexes. The Atlantic magazine recently did an article on "The End Of Men: How Women Are Taking Control - Of Everything". As the article points out, The Great Recession in the US has caused more unemployment among men because the traditional jobs they hold in construction and manufacturing have been the hardest hit. Also, the economy is changing from a basically industrial one to a service one in which women are favoured. For the first time more women are employed than men. Also, more women are graduating from universities and more parents are choosing to have girls, even in societies that once favoured boys. This situation has upended the modern world which was more industrial, patriarchal and controlled by men. With these changes women are bring a new perspective to the world, something postmodernism is all about.

In His book “Consilience” Edward O. Wilson writes, “Postmodernism is the ultimate polar antithesis of the Enlightenment”. He is referring to the academic side of postmodernism. It was The Enlightenment that gave us modernism and the idea that there is truth and progress in human endeavour. Enlightenment thinkers believed that science would advance the world. And it has. However, an element of postmodernism particular to academia, and generally resentful of the powers that be, have preached antiscience, that science is arbitrary, depending on who is in control.

The Enlightenment also gave us democracy, which begs the question, is postmodernism anti-democratic?

Not exactly, but Fredrick Nietzsche (1844-1900), considered one of the first postmodernists, disliked modernity because it espoused democracy. He saw democracy as empowering the masses, something he despised because he felt that mass culture would smother individual achievement. Individual exceptionalism wouldn't survive in a sea of mass equality, he believed. However, Nietzsche must have been thinking of the illiberal version of democracy offered by Marxism rather than the liberal democracy of today's open societies where individual exceptionalism flourishes.

It is in academia that postmodernism has been most polemic and problematic, teaching things like science is an ideology and not necessarily ‘science‘, but one truth among many. In other words, there are other ways of knowing about nature and the universe. In this respect postmodernism did a disservice by effecting people's ability to comprehend reality.

It is said that postmodernism is dead because those who most promulgated it are dead, like Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Perhaps in academia it is but not in the real world or in retailing, as The Economist pointed out in its article "Post-modernism is the new black", the new cool. The Economist used the London department store Selfridges as an example. In the early 1990s Selfridges was near collapse, following the fate of many other department stores. Its merchandizing style had grown stale and unappealing to shoppers. Niche marketing was become the norm. Selfridges wisely adopted the niche merchandizing style where retail departments within its store became independent from each other. Under the old management system departments stores were run from a central office and as a result lost touch with changing tastes. By decentralizing itself and giving its departments the freedom to make decisions, Selfridges remade itself, becoming the toast of the department store world, so much so that its postmodern formate was adopted universally as a means of retailing survival.

What modernists believed, to their detriment, was that once the world had adopted the rational of The Enlightenment things would fall into place. It hasn't quite worked out that way because modernists didn't take into account that their ideas wouldn't satisfy everybody. They hadn't considered that humans would still be unruly and behave independently, having their own ideas about how to lead their lives. For instance, modernists believed the world would be structured in a hierarchal manner, run by men, ‘white’ men. Modernists believed in maintaining the status quo. It was more about colonization and uniformity. The backlash that mounted against this mindset in the 1960s is what helped pave the way to the postmodernism of today. Today it's about globalization while maintaining diversity and flexibility.

Perhaps this simple narrative might help explain why we live in a postmodern world and why it will remain so: An aspect of postmodernism had been to constantly deconstruct (Derrida) systems and centres of power to examine and find fault with them. If in the process a system is found wanting but has sufficiently redeeming qualities, it is reconstructed, with improvements, and put back into service. With this in mind, let’s compare liberal democracy's governing style and to its opposite — communism, which has ostensibly collapsed. Simply put, liberal democracy has survived as a governing system because when deconstructed and examined it was found at its core worthy of something to built on. In comparison, when communism was deconstructed and examined it was found rotten at its core and thus discarded.

Foucault would have agreed that postmodernism is basically about decentralizing authority and emancipating the individual, helpfully enabled by technologies like the iPod and the Internet.

Writer, Reader and Humpty Dumpty

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in "Through The Looking Glass", it meant exactly what I want it to mean. If he said so, that is what it meant.

I am reading David Markson's "This Is Not A Novel" in which he refers to himself as Writer. (I'll refer to myself as Reader, although I am also writing). In it he mentions the abstract artist Robert Rauschenberg who said about one of his paintings: "This is a portrait of Iris Clert [ Paris gallery owner] if I say so". Markson also writes, "This is a novel if Writer or Robert Rauschenberg say so". Later he writes, "This is even a poem, if Writer says so". And then, " This is even an epic poem, if the Writer says so".

Markson was considered an experimental writer.

I have come across people who don't like looking up the meaning of words in the dictionary because it ruins it for them. It's as though the dictionary is telling them how to think. They want to discover the meaning of words for themselves. The dictionary, they think, is telling them how to think. But unlike some, I don't think Humpty was bothered by the fact that a meaning of a word was defined prior to his using it. Humpty was into pragmatics, where the meaning of a word could take on different meanings depending on the context. He knew he was dealing with the English language, a democratic language open to interpretation and flexibility, not like other languages that remained inflexible and their usage policed by some central committee.

Speaking of being told how to think, I had an acquittance who said she didn't like reading the editorials in the newspaper because she felt that they were telling her how to think. Imagine feeling so easily influenced and so insecure about one's convictions.

I was hoping Markson might have made reference to Humpty Dumpty in his not-a-novel for my sake, since I had been thinking about him. His book is peppered with blurbs about notable people throughout history, e.g., Freud suffered from chronic constipation. But nowhere did I find even mention of Lewis Carroll (a.k.a Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) who employed Humpty as one of Alice's foils.

In his book "Voltaire's Bastards" John Ralston Saul evoked Humpty Dumpty to express his annoyance with the hijacking of 'capitalism' , that the term is often used to mean nothing of the kind.

Reader is wrong. Markson did mention Lewis Carroll, that he wrote standing up. Donald Rumsfeld, Bush’s inept Secretary of Defense, worked standing up. “Truman Capote wrote lying down.”

Howard Kainz wrote that Marx's dialectic was eclectic.

According to a Dutch physicist, the theory of everything may be found in thermodynamics, which I supposed. Erik Verlinde believes ‘that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics’.

Markson writes, "Lavoisier was guillotined in the Reign of Terror". Reader discovered Lavoisier was a French scientist known for his study in, what was at the time, the young field of thermodynamics. He demonstrated that the shift of matter from one state to another happens without loss or gain. Matter that is destroyed emerges as something else, in the same amount, though different. Jean-Paul Marat, Lavoisier's denouncer and a French revolutionist, may have understood this principle and also wanted to demonstrate it, so felt no qualms about authoring Lavoisier’s death.

One of Reader's favorite saying is 'Litigation creates Civilization'. (Reader doesn't know whether he made up that phrase or he read it somewhere.) Reader doesn't just mean the litigation that occurs in court rooms, between lawyers or clients, but the litigation that occurs on a daily bases between people and institutions. Reader is reading a book on orchestra conductors and he is thinking about the litigation and proceedings that occur between them and the musicians they conduct. The back and forth that transpires between these two parties does have a creative effect in that it results in a civilizing, harmonious development. In fact, the discourse and clashing that occurs between notes in music is a form of litigation, which also results in creation.

The litigation or argument that occurs between the conductor and musicians, like that which occurs between the notes of a score, can create glorious music if ultimately they come together in harmony. Humpty Dumpty may have called such a happening a 'glory' if he found the outcome satisfying and refreshing. In fact that is what he and Alice were discussing. He used the word glory to mean a "nice knock-down argument". Alice questioned and objected to that usage, prompting Humpty's famous line, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.

Sad as the French Revolution was for all, the litigation that occurred during it eventually helped lead to the civility we see today in Europe and throughout the world.

Today Reader learned that the elegant, Australian conductor Charles Mackerras died at 84, July 14, 2010. As a young man Mackerras found himself bowled over by the music of Janacek, the Czech composer.

Humpty Dumpty

For some reason I thought of Humpty Dumpty. I know why, because of the word 'postmodernism'.

I read what I thought was a rogue interpretation of postmodernism by Arthur Berger. He sees it as a term meaning an old idea becoming fresh. For instance, he considers shuffling music and the randomly playing of it on an iPod as being a postmodern activity. As he explained, "Listening to music in the shuffle form contributes to postmodern sensibilities and lifestyles". So for him postmodernism means something new out of something old, a remodeling of sorts, a game changer.

Humpty Dumpty came to mind when I read Berger’s definition. His definition didn’t seem to fit the general understanding of postmodern. Humpty explains to Alice in “Through The Looking-Glass” that when he uses a word it means just what he chooses it to mean. Thus, I felt Berger had chosen postmodern to mean what he wanted it to mean.

In some quarters postmodernism is looked upon unfavorably. As it is defined, postmodernism literally means after 'modernism'. Modernism is the philosophical view that the world will unfold in a logical, homogeneous manner, where people gravitate and conform to a prescribed lifestyle. In contrast, the philosophy of postmodernism means that the order isn’t necessarily ideal or good. Why this idea so upsets people is because it gives the impression that anything goes, especially when it comes to lifestyle and values. Detractor of postmodernism view it as a chaotic and dangerous philosophy - a threat to achieving and maintaining a cohesive, civil society.

Multiculturalism is considered postmodern. Under modernism people coming together from different cultures were expected to assimilate into a single culture. But in the postmodern world people retain their own cultures while learning to coexist in the larger context, hence the idea of multiculturalism. Modernism is a much simpler lifestyle than postmodernism, which brings with it more complexity, variations and choices. The modern world was easier to govern, whereas the postmodern world is more demanding and harder to balance in its multiplicity.

Perhaps the meaning Berger gave postmodern isn’t so far off. The shuffle form of listening to music does seems to go up against an established norm of listening to music. It does seem to ruffle some old sensibilities about how music should be listened to. Moreover, his meaning sounds compatible with the general idea of postmodernism, that things don’t necessarily have to be of a certain pattern or order, socially or otherwise, for things to remain intact or meaningful. Berger’s postmodernism is definitely disruptive of the old order, breaking down the centers of control and offering alternatives.

The other day I learned of a postmodern novelist, David Markson, who died at 82. He was considered an experimental novelist. He didn’t always follow the traditional norms of writing. I guess that is why he was considered postmodern and experimental. One thing that made him different is that his storytelling lacked the usual structure of plot and characters. He would inject his narrative with random, unconnected thoughts, like mentioning something unrelated. Perhaps that is what made him postmodern, that he broke with tradition. I can imagine how his style might have infuriate some. Nevertheless, it didn’t seem to matter much because he had quite a following that succumbed to his style. Somebody described his writing like a person thinking. He might be writing about a visit to the Louvre and then switch gears and write, to use my example, The industrialized world represented modernism. The service industry that's followed represents postmodernism or, if you will, postindustrialism. In his book “This Is Not A Novel”(A Review: "It is ironic that what we call a "novel" is bound up in a relatively stable set of conventions which belie the novelty or newness its namesake suggests. It is this tension that makes David Markson's This Is Not a Novel an ambitious and compelling postmodern work that makes one think about the process of reading itself.") he writes in the form of tweets, analogous of that postmodern sensibility experienced on Twitter.

I wonder if Markson blurbed or tweeted anything about Humpty Dumpty?

to be continued....

Freud and Einstein

In Jeffrey Gordon's article 'Is War Inevitable?' in Philosophy Now 66, I read Freud's assertion to Einstein that man is driven by two powerful instincts, one of creation and one of destruction. In other word, man has an inherent urge to create and then destroy. Freud was knowledgeable in the perversion of man.

Even though Freud was not optimistic that man would or could ever stop making war, Einstein seemed encouraged by Freud's instinctive explanation, perhaps because Einstein focused more on man's creative aspect than on the destructive. Perhaps Einstein thought that as man got more creative in his ability to destroy himself he would eventually lose a desire for war and use reason instead. And in a sense that is what happened, with the help of none other than Einstein himself. Ironically, his discoveries allowed the creation of the atomic bomb, which would stymie future wars. Because of its destructive power it became a deterrent instead of a weapon. Nations have not gone to war with each other as they once did.

I also thought of the economist Joseph Schumpeter, who labeled capitalism 'creative destruction'. After WW2 and with the advent of atomic weapons, capitalism ascended around the world. Man still had his instinct for destruction, but now capitalism manifested and channeled this instinct in less harmful, more productive ways: with capitalism, man's destructive instinct combined with his creative instinct shifted to a more benign but peaceful form. Einstein's optimism for mankind still triumphs over Freud's pessimism.

The world is replete with opposites, like the two poles of electricity, the genders of male and female, up and down, day and night and the two strands of DNA. Freud made us aware of another combination, humanity's penchants for creation and destruction, opposites that are as immutable as the others.

Einstein was one that showed that the splitting of the atom in two would unleash an astonishing amount of energy.

More on pluralism

In his article in Issue 74 Stephen Anderson writes, "Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today". On the contrary. I think pluralism is one of the big things liberal democracy has going for it.

What makes liberal democracy attractive and the only expanding form of governance in the world is that it encourages and celebrates pluralism. Pluralism does make liberal democracy more complex but that complexity has made it more durable and resilient, as shown by 9/11, from which it recovered. Moreover, the competing interests of pluralism have served to make liberal democracy more sophisticate and agile. In comparison, liberal democracy's rival, communism, collapsed because it lacked the energizing push and pull of pluralism that could have helped rejuvenate and keep it relevant and legitimate. Even liberal democracy's name resonates pluralism in the fact that it is fashioned out of two contradictory theories of human governance (forming a kind of governance DNA), liberal, referring to free market competition, and democracy, based on cooperation and equality.

So ironically, pluralism has helped bolster the Golden Rule, not hinder it as Anderson seems to suggest. As history can attest, the Golden Rule has not always been that solid a rule. It is an essential good start; but on its own it is generally toothless, as was another good start, "all men are created equal". What gave that declaration meaning was that it was backed up by a constitution.

Generally, the Golden Rule has had tacit acceptance for like-minded people and of common ethnicity. But for the Golden Rule to be meaningfully binding it's had to speak to a universal mutual respect and empathy - that is, it condones pluralism. What gives the Golden Rule even more credence is the political commitment to expand human rights and eradicate tribalism. Furthermore, that political commitment has helped put people throughout the world on an equal footing, despite their opposing interests. Without such a political commitment and the added pressures of pluralism, on the whole the Golden Rule would have remained an ideal.

Contrary to what Anderson seems to imply, the Golden Rule did stand the test on 9/11, as that attack did not spark a clash of civilizations as many believed it might. That it didn't, I think is due to the depth of pluralism that had accumulated in the world between nations and peoples, which grew out of the increasing interdependence of the world and agencies like the UN and WTO which cultivated pluralism and internationalism to maintain world peace.

The Pill

This is the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, the Pill. It introduced a new kind of science, regulatory science, where products are pre-tested or recalled if they were found faulty. From this grew the science of environmental impact studies, which studies the impact of human developments on the environment before they are implimented.

 

Here is another letter of mine that was published in Philosophy Now, letter no. 12:

From reading your editorial in issue 77, "Continental Tales', I learned that I do continental philosophy, since like the continentals I tend to think in terms of the abstractions that govern humankind; that is, grand narratives.

It began with my seeking an explanation for the collapse of communism. I wondered, was there a single, overarching imperative that brought about communism's demise? And was liberal's democracy's triumph due to it addressing that imperative successfully? Hegel, the master of grand narratives, led me to what I consider the answer.

While other thinkers in Hegel's day were busy concocting grand narratives based on fixed entities like authority, religion and culture - only to see them shattered by churning world events - Hegel based his grand narrative on change itself. That to me is the main reason why communism didn't survive: because its governance was inflexible, outdated, and inherently couldn't adjust to the changing world. What I believe ultimately led to its decline, is that the world was becoming culturally and economically both more interdependent and open, while communism was predisposed to remain both closed and an isolationist society. But history and humankind had other ideas; hence it was swept aside, like other authoritarian regimes that resisted change and openness.

Hegel also saw the direction of history guided by the struggle for freedom and recognition. For him, this fundamental human desire and its subsequent accommodation causes the most profound upheavals in the world, from its organization to its governance. It also contributed to the demise of communism since it structurally obstructed this Hegelian struggle every step of the way.

Grand narratives should be taken with a grain of salt. But many a truism is found in them.

Philosophy and comics

Above is another cover of Philosophy Now (click on it to enlarge it) that gets right to the point. This is what I wrote about it:

On the cover of issue 73, Philosophy Now cleverly portrays one of its subjects, the Credit Crisis. Its comic/cartoon cover portrays the crisis for what it is, a virtual earthquake. It gets right to the point, pictorially illustrating two major causes of the crisis - crumbling banks and the panic it generated.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. PN's comic cover lives up to that adage. Moreover, its simple depiction gets right down to business, foregoing a wordy, esoteric explanation that in all likely hood would bore or confuse people. It graphically makes the situation instantly real and personal, speaking directly to the 'common man'. And in that lies a power of the comic, its egalitarianism.

The magazine's main subject, Comics & Philosophy, produces two aspects of the Credit Crisis. Though serious, it has its comical side, reminiscent of the antics of the "Keystone Cops" where nobody seemed to be in the know or in charge. It also has its philosophical nature in that it will alway remain an abstract, complex issue as to the real caused of it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The above wasn't published in Philosophy Now but the following letter by me was:

I have little interest in comics, just like I have little interest in novels. Both are a form of escapism and entertainment that I don't need. But I understand those genres preforming a social service. Both relate to and expand the commonalities of the human condition. Thus, in a subliminal way, by appealing to what people have in common - emotions needs and aspirations, they help facilitate social cohesion, which is essential if we are going to live well together. (I think that the Danish comic depictions of Allah helped, in a perverse way, to engage and defuse a lot of animosity between faiths that otherwise would have continued to fester and potentially have led to worse.)

In her book “Inventing Human Rights” Lynn Hunt writes about the role novels have played in the development of rights. Human rights could never have been established if the miming and cultivation of the common characteristics that make us human, like sympathy and empathy, hadn't occurred in novels. Hunt describes how Rousseau’s novel “Julie” (1761) was an early contributer in this process.

If the novel was instrumental in cultivating human rights. I see the comic doing the same thing, but in a different, simpler way, mainly graphically. Now we have the combination of the two, the graphic novel. Some may see this as a dumping down of the traditional novel but in its 'clipped', pictorial version its message may be reaching and influencing more readers, producing an additional venue in bringing a common understanding.

Philosophy Now

I subscribe to a magazine called Philosophy Now. Here is the cover of the latest issue, #78.

I have submitted many letters to the magazine since I first read it in 1999 and had a total of 12 published. Here is one that wasn't so I will submit it here:

I have been preoccupied with pluralism. Then I receive PN's latest issue #75 on existentialism & culture and my preoccupation shifted to existentialism, to the point of being nagged by it. I say nagged by it because it wouldn't leave me alone until I got a clearer fix on it. Perhaps, too, I forced myself to concentrate on it because of a potential link to pluralism.

With all due respect to PN, its articles on existentialism left me wanting. I had to look elsewhere to understand its relevance. But then, that may be the purpose of PN, to peak one's interest so to star one on a path of discovery.

One thing I learned is that today's existential movement grew out of Kierkegaard's counter argument to Hegel's abstract rationalism and idealism. Existentialists believe philosophical inquire should start with the individual's place in the world instead of phenomena and grand theories. It believes that nothing much in the world occurs or exists without first the action or thought of individuals. Kant thought in existential terms in that human will is what separated man from nature and contingency, making man an independent, existential agent. I also learned about its rise to prominence during the 40's and 50's as a direct response to Nazism and Fascism, dogmas where individualism was overshadowed by grand theories, inevitabilities and determinants of history.

I can understand why existentialism came to prominence during that time, because of the violations that were perpetrated against humans under fascist and totalitarian regimes. As Bertrand Russell said, our circumstances influence our philosophy. This is truly a philosophy that grew to reflect and address the circumstances of the day, a philosophy that would enhance individualism, thus putting pressure of the political system of the day to strengthen human rights so the atrocities perpetrated against humans during WWII would not occur again. The significance of existentialism was that it emanated from individuals and not the state, which historically had been a poor defender of human rights and freedoms. Without this philosophy the expansion of democracy would surely have stalled. This philosophy further empowered and extended the reach of the individual, the wellspring of democracy and social justice. (My favorite existential expression is "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups.")

As for pluralism, existentialism has expanded it, through the expansion of individualism, independent thinking and the increased competing self-interests it initiates. Those byproducts of existentialism are not just self-serving and selfish. They are the agitating dynamics that keep the persistent tendencies of authoritarianism at bay. Pairing the two also highlights a paradox of life, the contradiction and conflict that exist between the existential individualism and the pluralistic institution that is society. Both often clash and want to lead but neither can realistically live without the other if either hopes to fulfill its needs and aspirations.

Freud and Benjamin Spock were exponents of existentialism, advocating self-hood and self-realization. Both expanded the scope of human awareness and possibilities. Freud made us more aware of our proclivities and Spock our capabilities. Both made us more confident about making choices and acting on them. In making us more aware of ourselves, our passions and our potentials they expanded our social consciousness, which in turn sparked the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, which, as we know, altered the culture of the world.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As an after thought, this is International Earth Day, April 22, marking the 40th anniversary of it. If it wasn't for the forces of individualism and existentialism it would never have materialized. It was individuals in existential thought and coming together that brought it about, existential thinkers who said, perhaps selfishly but rightfully so, it is my (our) live and I (we) am not going to let polluters take it away from me by destroying my (our) Earth. This grand display of existentialism shows that mass self-interest can materialize into the common good as Adam Smith argued more than 200 years ago.

Kierkegaard is believed to be the father of existentialism. For me this is interesting, especially in the context of Philosophy Now's question. Kierkegaard's existentialism grew out of his believe that religion and belief in God should be an individual's choice and a private matter. His existentialism said the existence and nature of God shouldn't be forced on people. I believe he deplored the institutionalization of God. His kind of thinking gave strength to secularism and pluralism, materializing into today's more peaceful world where most of us have learned to tolerate other people's faiths.