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....
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
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.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
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.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
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.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Democracy and Experts
I was arguing democracy with a conservative. We had a difference of opinion as to what democracy entails and constitutes. He told me to refer to the experts and historians about its true nature and to know when it fails. The only thing is, he didn't offer me any names of experts and historians. Are there any?
What is interesting to me is that the experts and historians there are on the subject are still learning and debating what democracy is and what makes it work.
Take for example, Larry Diamond, who teaches democracy at Stanford. He is an expert in democracy, at least he thought, until he went to Iraq to help establish it there. Not long after being in Iraq he left in frustration because of the momentous problems facing the building of democracy. One thing he realized is that if there is to be any chance for democracy, fundamentally one needs security and stability. Iraq lacked both big time. Ironically the war made it more unstable. Why didn't he know that beforehand? Other experts like Francis Fukuyama (The End of History) fell into the same trap.
Another thing Diamond and Fukuyama (considered neoconservatives) didn't consider is that democracy can't be parachuted and expected to take hold in countries that have never practiced it before, in a short period of time. In the West it has taken centuries to establish and understand. And the West is still learning. Democracy is contingent on many things accruing simultaneously, like the rule of law, free markets, a free press, dissent, pluralism and so on, just like the human body needs many organs to work properly. Those organs have taken a long time to evolve. So no wonder democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is having difficulty taking hold.
Democracies like the US and Britain seem to some to be failing. However, it is not that they are failing. They are under pressure to upgrade themselves, which all governing systems have to do if they are going to remain vital and legitimate, especially in a constantly changing world. (Communism collapsed because it remained stagnant.) Governing systems also suffer from ware and tear, and entropy, just like their counterparts in the physical world. If democracy was static it would be a different story. But there are always new circumstances entering its domain that have to be accommodated and adjusted for. If democracy failed in countries like Argentine, where it did several time, it's because they didn't have the institutions or division of power established to insure that it carry on, which isn't the case for the US or Britain.
People, most of them conservatives, often point to ancient Greece as having been a thriving democracy. But as I understand it, it was only a democracy for a limited number of white males of a certain class. And it didn't include women or minorities, like slaves. On hindsight it just looked like an experiment. But conservatives can't explain why it didn't last. Conservatives insist that since democracy failed in those days it can fail today. But democracy is far more robust and resilient today than it was then.
Democracy didn't last in ancient Greece because its existence was tiny and there weren’t enough like minded countries in the world to bolster and support it. In contrast, today we have a critical mass of people who thing democratically. There are plenty of nations practicing democratic principles, enough that if one is on the verge of losing it, it can expect assistance from others to help re-establish it. Globalization would not be possible if democratic principles, like transparency and accountability, between nations were not observed.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was knowledgeable about democracy. Except that in his day there weren't any true democracies around. What was around then was just fledging democracies, like the US and Britain. But he did have an insight, that democracies don't go to war with each other. I can't think of one fully developed democracy that has gone to war with another. Kant may have said this: "The main goal of democracy is to reduce violence". The proof is in the pudding. As democracy has expanded around the world, fewer and fewer nations have gone to war with each other. Perhaps that is the greatest legacy of democracy, that it has brought the world closer together. Kant certainly believed that would be the case.
Democracy is a messy, dissonant procedure. Perhaps that is why conservatives have a problem with it. Democracy isn't black and white. Conservatives tend to think black and white. Democracy requires nuancing. Conservatives have a problem nuancing.
What is interesting to me is that the experts and historians there are on the subject are still learning and debating what democracy is and what makes it work.
Take for example, Larry Diamond, who teaches democracy at Stanford. He is an expert in democracy, at least he thought, until he went to Iraq to help establish it there. Not long after being in Iraq he left in frustration because of the momentous problems facing the building of democracy. One thing he realized is that if there is to be any chance for democracy, fundamentally one needs security and stability. Iraq lacked both big time. Ironically the war made it more unstable. Why didn't he know that beforehand? Other experts like Francis Fukuyama (The End of History) fell into the same trap.
Another thing Diamond and Fukuyama (considered neoconservatives) didn't consider is that democracy can't be parachuted and expected to take hold in countries that have never practiced it before, in a short period of time. In the West it has taken centuries to establish and understand. And the West is still learning. Democracy is contingent on many things accruing simultaneously, like the rule of law, free markets, a free press, dissent, pluralism and so on, just like the human body needs many organs to work properly. Those organs have taken a long time to evolve. So no wonder democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is having difficulty taking hold.
Democracies like the US and Britain seem to some to be failing. However, it is not that they are failing. They are under pressure to upgrade themselves, which all governing systems have to do if they are going to remain vital and legitimate, especially in a constantly changing world. (Communism collapsed because it remained stagnant.) Governing systems also suffer from ware and tear, and entropy, just like their counterparts in the physical world. If democracy was static it would be a different story. But there are always new circumstances entering its domain that have to be accommodated and adjusted for. If democracy failed in countries like Argentine, where it did several time, it's because they didn't have the institutions or division of power established to insure that it carry on, which isn't the case for the US or Britain.
People, most of them conservatives, often point to ancient Greece as having been a thriving democracy. But as I understand it, it was only a democracy for a limited number of white males of a certain class. And it didn't include women or minorities, like slaves. On hindsight it just looked like an experiment. But conservatives can't explain why it didn't last. Conservatives insist that since democracy failed in those days it can fail today. But democracy is far more robust and resilient today than it was then.
Democracy didn't last in ancient Greece because its existence was tiny and there weren’t enough like minded countries in the world to bolster and support it. In contrast, today we have a critical mass of people who thing democratically. There are plenty of nations practicing democratic principles, enough that if one is on the verge of losing it, it can expect assistance from others to help re-establish it. Globalization would not be possible if democratic principles, like transparency and accountability, between nations were not observed.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was knowledgeable about democracy. Except that in his day there weren't any true democracies around. What was around then was just fledging democracies, like the US and Britain. But he did have an insight, that democracies don't go to war with each other. I can't think of one fully developed democracy that has gone to war with another. Kant may have said this: "The main goal of democracy is to reduce violence". The proof is in the pudding. As democracy has expanded around the world, fewer and fewer nations have gone to war with each other. Perhaps that is the greatest legacy of democracy, that it has brought the world closer together. Kant certainly believed that would be the case.
Democracy is a messy, dissonant procedure. Perhaps that is why conservatives have a problem with it. Democracy isn't black and white. Conservatives tend to think black and white. Democracy requires nuancing. Conservatives have a problem nuancing.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Las Vegas
We just got back from Las Vegas. We didn't go there to gamble since we both hate to loose money, but to see that virtual, fantasy world cut out of the desert.
In my last essay I wrote about a ‘spanner in the works’. Well, this was one of those occasions when a spanner had been thrown into the works, disrupting an entire system. It started the day before, on Christmas Day, when a terrorist tried to blow up a plane as it flew into Detroit from Amsterdam. This incident literally threw a monkey wrenched into the travel plans of many because it sparked a higher level of security at airports everywhere, causing lengthy delays. At least it wasn't due to the weather, which might have caused even longer delays. But some of the precautions that were implemented as a result seemed silly and fruitless, like not being able to watch TV on board the plane because the program included a map of our flight, like that would have made a difference.
Anyway, the flight went well and we were only two hours late. But one thing we had to do was remain in our seats the last hour of the flight because that was when the terrorist tried to blowup the plane. You see, he had gone to the washroom in that last hour for a lengthy period of time in order to prepare his explosive. Once in Las Vegas, though, everything went fine, though it was a little cool, but sunny.
The Las Vegas airport is very close to the city center, unlike Toronto where we left from. To give you an idea of how close it was the cab only cost $18 to our hotel, whereas in Toronto it cost about $60 to the airport from where we live.
We stayed at the Bellagio, overlooking Lake Como. It wasn't really Lake Como or the real Bellagio. The names were lifted from the real places in Italy, north of Milan. And that is the thing about Las Vegas, most of it is fantasy and making one feel like they might be somewhere else. For instance, across from our room on 24th floor was the Paris hotel, with a replica of the Eiffel Tower and the Paris Opera House in front. It was quite spectacular. Up the street, north on the Las Vegas Strip, was the Venetian, with its Cantabil Tower in St Mark's Square and the Rialto Bridge spanning a canal with gondolas.
We found the Venetian almost as impressive as our hotel. In side the Venetian we found canals and real gondolas in which people took rides as the gondoliers singing to them. Along the canals were building similar to ones in the real Venice, house boutiques of all kinds. The ceiling of this indoor fantasy was painted so as to look like the sky.
The Day before we had wonder in the other direction and went into the New York-New York casino. There we found streets and building modeled after those in the Soho area of New York City. Again, it was impressive. We had a pizza there, which seemed appropriate.
Prior to going to the New York-New York casino we had wonder through the brand new City Center. It has just opened the week before. The City Center is a redevelopment project literally in the center of all the casinos on the Strip. It was so impressive it even impressed the otherwise hard to impress Las Vegans. It was composed of five are six buildings, all designed by different architects. One was designed by Libeskind, the same Libeskind that designed the extension to our Royal Ontario Museum. His building is also named the Crystal, as it is in Toronto. But in Las Vegas it houses a shopping mall, a very high end one at that.
The City Center was very impressive. So was its price tag of 8.5 billion dollars. Because of the poor state of the economy it almost went bankrupted. The partnership of MGM and Dubai World built it. Dubai World in the United Emirates has also flirted with bankruptcy.
On our second evening we went to see “O”, one of the many Cirque de Soleil extravagances in Vegas, this one at the Bellagio. Visually it broke the ‘wow’ factor. But I was disappointed in the sound. It sounded canned, which it was, and mono, especially where we were sitting. You’d think that in this day and age they could make artificial sound sound more like a real orchestra.
All the hotels we visited had casinos except the Trump. The Trump looked very understated in comparison to the other hotel. But it did have a New York elegance about it that I understand Trump was wanting to achieve.
Beside the Trump, to the north, there were two hotel projects that had come to a standstill due to the poor economy. Beyond that, on the other side of the Stripe, was The Fontainebleau hotel project, which also was at a standstill. Some other hotels and projects had gone into bankruptcy.
One thing I was impressed with, and there were lots of things to be impressed with in Vegas, was how accessible most everything was. I found it a very open, democratic city, certainly very American and easy going. People from all over the world behaved like they had a lot in common. That was very satisfying to me. And the natives were especially friendly and helpful, and proud of their city.
The Flamingo casino, to the left of our hotel, had a huge poster of Donny and Marie Osmond stuck on the outside of the building, covering many of its windows. One our trip to The Grand Canyon we met a couple from The Flamingo who said they were in a room that was right in Donny Osmond's hair. That got quite a laugh.
The Grand Canyon was as impressive as Las Vegas. But we might not see the Canyon again like we might Vegas, because Vegas is so unreal.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Spanner
This post is called "spanner" because of the frustration I have experienced when writing about a complex subject. It seems like a strange connection but bear with me.
I am recalling the expression "throwing a spanner into the works", a metaphor attributed to P. G. Wodehouse. It's meant to conjure the image of a mechanism or a system being jammed by a spanner or a wrench thrown into it. It also suggest the posing of an obstacle. (On the other hand, I can see a spanner being deliberately thrown into the mechanism/system out of sheer frustration with it not working properly.)
My recent frustration with writing has come from an essay about pluralism in the sociopolitical world. It is a complex subject, quite abstract. Anyway, I came up with what I believe are good examples of pluralism to make a plausible essay on the subject. But then I discovered a new example of it, which changed the whole flow and tone of the essay, throwing it out of whack. It thus necessitated a rework, hence my sensing a spanner in the works and my being frustrated.
I just realized that pluralism itself can be a spanner in the works. Why, in the sociopolitical world pluralism can be a preverbal spanner. A spanner like pluralism and the tension it induces can upset the sociopolitical apple cart and the best laid plans for governing people. It can ruin one's metaphysical notions of the world, of absolute principles and how the world should be run. What can be irritating about pluralism in governance is that it produces alternatives in doing things and brings about the change many of us dread. It causes upheavals in society and to governing systems.
An example of pluralism throwing a spanner into the works occurred right here in Canada, between Canada's two founding cultures, the English and the French. The English, being the dominant culture, thought they were the works and could rule the country monistically, according to their ways. Then the French started flexing their muscles, demanding equal representation. The action of French literally threw a spanner in the proceedings by challenging and interfering with the core of Canadian politics. Fortunately, the power that be wisely choose to compromise, to be more inclusive and pluralistic in its construct, from the halls of government to the ways of business. Perhaps there was no choice But because of this change the country literally went through a political revolution. In this case the spanner proved to be an incremental instrument that agitated the system and then corrected a perceived injustice, which saved the country from breaking-up.
"Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today”. The person who said that I am sure sees pluralism like a big spanner in the works, as well as a threat to liberal democracy. I would venture to guess that person views pluralism as destroying the social cohesion liberal democracy needs to govern successful. For instance, pluralism encourages multiculturalism, an institution many see as divisive and ruinous to democracy because it perceivably doesn't encourage unity so that a society can live harmoniously.
Although I have railed against the spanner that has upended my essay on pluralism I am quite in favor of it when it cans to human governance. I think the spanner of pluralism in human governance is a salvation. It is the agitation that keeps governance vital and legitimate. In contrast to the opinion above I don't think pluralism is such a serious problem to liberal democracy. On the contrary. I think it is what keeps it alive and healthy.
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 and continued to expand. 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. Why, even liberal democracy's name resonates pluralism in the fact that it is constructed out of two competing theories of human governance (forming a kind of DNA of human governance), one being liberal which promotes free market competition and an inequality, and the other democracy, based more on cooperation and equally.
The spanner in the works is frustrating. It causes problems. But as an economist once said, we need problems because they make us better. The spanner as problem forces us to question, think and come up with solutions, thus expanding and enhancing us.
I am recalling the expression "throwing a spanner into the works", a metaphor attributed to P. G. Wodehouse. It's meant to conjure the image of a mechanism or a system being jammed by a spanner or a wrench thrown into it. It also suggest the posing of an obstacle. (On the other hand, I can see a spanner being deliberately thrown into the mechanism/system out of sheer frustration with it not working properly.)
My recent frustration with writing has come from an essay about pluralism in the sociopolitical world. It is a complex subject, quite abstract. Anyway, I came up with what I believe are good examples of pluralism to make a plausible essay on the subject. But then I discovered a new example of it, which changed the whole flow and tone of the essay, throwing it out of whack. It thus necessitated a rework, hence my sensing a spanner in the works and my being frustrated.
I just realized that pluralism itself can be a spanner in the works. Why, in the sociopolitical world pluralism can be a preverbal spanner. A spanner like pluralism and the tension it induces can upset the sociopolitical apple cart and the best laid plans for governing people. It can ruin one's metaphysical notions of the world, of absolute principles and how the world should be run. What can be irritating about pluralism in governance is that it produces alternatives in doing things and brings about the change many of us dread. It causes upheavals in society and to governing systems.
An example of pluralism throwing a spanner into the works occurred right here in Canada, between Canada's two founding cultures, the English and the French. The English, being the dominant culture, thought they were the works and could rule the country monistically, according to their ways. Then the French started flexing their muscles, demanding equal representation. The action of French literally threw a spanner in the proceedings by challenging and interfering with the core of Canadian politics. Fortunately, the power that be wisely choose to compromise, to be more inclusive and pluralistic in its construct, from the halls of government to the ways of business. Perhaps there was no choice But because of this change the country literally went through a political revolution. In this case the spanner proved to be an incremental instrument that agitated the system and then corrected a perceived injustice, which saved the country from breaking-up.
"Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today”. The person who said that I am sure sees pluralism like a big spanner in the works, as well as a threat to liberal democracy. I would venture to guess that person views pluralism as destroying the social cohesion liberal democracy needs to govern successful. For instance, pluralism encourages multiculturalism, an institution many see as divisive and ruinous to democracy because it perceivably doesn't encourage unity so that a society can live harmoniously.
Although I have railed against the spanner that has upended my essay on pluralism I am quite in favor of it when it cans to human governance. I think the spanner of pluralism in human governance is a salvation. It is the agitation that keeps governance vital and legitimate. In contrast to the opinion above I don't think pluralism is such a serious problem to liberal democracy. On the contrary. I think it is what keeps it alive and healthy.
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 and continued to expand. 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. Why, even liberal democracy's name resonates pluralism in the fact that it is constructed out of two competing theories of human governance (forming a kind of DNA of human governance), one being liberal which promotes free market competition and an inequality, and the other democracy, based more on cooperation and equally.
The spanner in the works is frustrating. It causes problems. But as an economist once said, we need problems because they make us better. The spanner as problem forces us to question, think and come up with solutions, thus expanding and enhancing us.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Venice
Last year we had a wonderful trip on the Queen Victoria that started in Venice. Here is a picture of that splendid city.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Are Philosophers Responsible?
Someone asked in an article, "Are Philosophers Responsible for Global Warming?"
This writer listed a few people who in the late 19th and early 20th century warned about the dangerous effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment. The writer thinks that those warnings should have been heeded earlier and concern for the environment should have been made instantly part of our cultural mindset. In other words, philosophers should have taken up the task of making the conversation about global warming sooner, like forcing the issue into the media and making it part of the educational curriculum years ago. If so, we could have avoided the environment problems we face today. The writer believes that since we didn't listen up and act earlier the environment today is suffering unnecessarily.
My response as to why the environment hadn't become an issue or a movement earlier is because humankind had other things on its mind, like still figuring out what it wanted to be, democratic or communist. Back then humankind was also still preoccupied in fighting wars. Humankind then was also too divided to come together to be concerned about the environment. Philosophers could have screamed at the top of their lungs about the problem but not enough people would have listened to make a difference. Moreover, people had not yet experienced enough about the environment to make a difference. In other words, a critical mass of concern had not yet developed back then for the environment to become a central issue.
Anyway, from that question I made up my own question. I wonder whether philosophers can be held responsible for our present economic crisis. Of course not, I say. However, perhaps they are responsible. Take, for instance, Milton Friedman. He was an economist. But he was also a philosopher. What made him a philosopher, as opposed to a scientist, is that he didn't deal with definite matter, although he liked to think so. He dealt with hypotheses, often speculating in intangibles and ideas. His hypotheses and ideas about economics became mainstream and the economic mantra of the last 30 years, a source of today's economic problems.
Friedman was very vocal about the virtues of free market and that government participation in it should be minimal. Governments all over the world took his philosophy to heart, implementing Friedman's free market principles all over the place, with major successes. His free market principles helped bring down communism, because they helped accentuated communism's failures.
However, the free market has caused us a lot of headaches recently. But was it the philosopher Friedman's fault that this crisis occurred, because actually, it can be argued, many of Friedman's ideas were manipulated and abused by others. It is a shame that he hadn't spoken up about the abuses that occurred in his name before he died in 2006. Why, his opposite number, John Galbraith, had railed for years about the excesses of the unfettered free market. But the majority of people chose not to listen to his philosophy about a possible economic catastrophe if governments didn't work to modify and temper the free market.
So every question has its dueling philosophers. Economics had Friedman and Galbraith. So in a sense you can't blame philosophers for anything. They offer us advice and possible scenarios, and try to help the rest of us figure things out. Philosophers don't make policy. Then, It is the policy makers and implementers who take philosopher's theories and ideas whom we should blame.
We are all responsible, in some way. Guilty by association!
This writer listed a few people who in the late 19th and early 20th century warned about the dangerous effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment. The writer thinks that those warnings should have been heeded earlier and concern for the environment should have been made instantly part of our cultural mindset. In other words, philosophers should have taken up the task of making the conversation about global warming sooner, like forcing the issue into the media and making it part of the educational curriculum years ago. If so, we could have avoided the environment problems we face today. The writer believes that since we didn't listen up and act earlier the environment today is suffering unnecessarily.
My response as to why the environment hadn't become an issue or a movement earlier is because humankind had other things on its mind, like still figuring out what it wanted to be, democratic or communist. Back then humankind was also still preoccupied in fighting wars. Humankind then was also too divided to come together to be concerned about the environment. Philosophers could have screamed at the top of their lungs about the problem but not enough people would have listened to make a difference. Moreover, people had not yet experienced enough about the environment to make a difference. In other words, a critical mass of concern had not yet developed back then for the environment to become a central issue.
Anyway, from that question I made up my own question. I wonder whether philosophers can be held responsible for our present economic crisis. Of course not, I say. However, perhaps they are responsible. Take, for instance, Milton Friedman. He was an economist. But he was also a philosopher. What made him a philosopher, as opposed to a scientist, is that he didn't deal with definite matter, although he liked to think so. He dealt with hypotheses, often speculating in intangibles and ideas. His hypotheses and ideas about economics became mainstream and the economic mantra of the last 30 years, a source of today's economic problems.
Friedman was very vocal about the virtues of free market and that government participation in it should be minimal. Governments all over the world took his philosophy to heart, implementing Friedman's free market principles all over the place, with major successes. His free market principles helped bring down communism, because they helped accentuated communism's failures.
However, the free market has caused us a lot of headaches recently. But was it the philosopher Friedman's fault that this crisis occurred, because actually, it can be argued, many of Friedman's ideas were manipulated and abused by others. It is a shame that he hadn't spoken up about the abuses that occurred in his name before he died in 2006. Why, his opposite number, John Galbraith, had railed for years about the excesses of the unfettered free market. But the majority of people chose not to listen to his philosophy about a possible economic catastrophe if governments didn't work to modify and temper the free market.
So every question has its dueling philosophers. Economics had Friedman and Galbraith. So in a sense you can't blame philosophers for anything. They offer us advice and possible scenarios, and try to help the rest of us figure things out. Philosophers don't make policy. Then, It is the policy makers and implementers who take philosopher's theories and ideas whom we should blame.
We are all responsible, in some way. Guilty by association!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Photograph
I am looking at what I consider a very striking and revealing photograph. Not only is it conceptually and aesthetically pleasing but it reminds me of events that caused untold financial damage. It’s a picture I took in New York City, in 1997, of two buildings that, it subsequently dawned on me, house two financial companies that are now notorious for losing billions of dollars for their clients. One of those firms is no longer in business because of the extent of its wrongdoing.
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This one certainly is because of what it also inadvertently represents. I took the picture while waiting for a bus. It's a photo of two imposing buildings juxtaposing one other, the Citigroup Center on Lexington Avenue and the so-called Lipstick Building on Third Avenue. (It was nicknamed the Lipstick because of its color and resemblance to a lipstick container.) The Citgroup building, in the foreground, stands about ten stories above the ground on four columns and a central core, creating an open space beneath it's towering fifty stories above. (In the photo I just captured two columns and the lighted underside of its fifty stories above.) The open space created by the columns acted like a window through which I could see the Lipstick Building behind. It’s really a striking composition of two contrasting architectural structures. I obviously was enamored with the view, hence my taking the picture, and for the fact that I like tall buildings. There is also a kind of irony about the picture in that it shows two very solid structures that housed two firms whose foundations later turned to sand.
As I said, what makes the photograph also noteworthy is that it captures two buildings that housed firms that were instrumental in bringing unprecedented financial turmoil, inflicting much pain on individuals and institutions that invested with them. The most notorious of the two companies is Madoff Securities which operated from the Lipstick Building. Bernie Madoff, its president, is now infamous, and in jail, for perpetrating the largest Ponzi, pyramid scheme in history. Citigroup is famous for being one of the largest participants in the subprime financial market, which contributed to an unprecedented real estate bubble that eventually exploded. What also sunk both firms is the ethos of the day, and that they got ensnared in exotic financial instruments and the extreme leveraging of capital that had been sweeping the financial markets.
In a sense I find it extraordinary and poignant that I have this picture of two of New York’s most famous and noted buildings, historically and architecturally. They are not only famous for their design and presence but for the two firms they housed, two firms that embodied much of the excesses of capitalism that eventually overwhelmed America, New York City and the world.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Traditionalism
I find it interesting that conservatives and traditionalists can accept Darwin's theory of evolution when it comes to free market economics but not when it comes to how humans and nature came to be.
But, then, there is a salient, striking hypocrisy in traditionalism. For instance, traditionalists are against abortion but then are willing to see growing children sink into an abyss because they weren't born on the 'right side of the tracks' or not onto a 'level playing field' like they were. (Basically, their thinking is that they are not one of us.) They aren't willing to help foster such children along with decent healthcare and education. To their way of thinking such children should be treated like business - survival of the fittest, which, ironically, is Darwinian logic.
Traditionalists believe in a Creator and creationism. But when it comes to free market economics they do not. But something had to create the market and nurture it along. Something had to create the environment in which it flourishes. Yes, something did, imaginative governing bodies and imaginative people. It has been a concerted, cooperative effort. But now that the economy is in crisis, traditionalists cannot abide such cooperation, insisting that government should deliberately let the market find its own level, despite the potentially universal destructive nature of the crisis. They don't want any interference from government, especially if it becomes mutually beneficial. Instead, they are willing to sacrifice everything and go back to how things were, in the 19th century, when the divide between rich and poor was providence, according to them.
These traditionalists don't think in terms of what can be beneficial to the whole. They don't understand that if you help give a leg up to society's weaker members you are enhancing the whole, as well as their own security. People who are denied a fair shake by traditionalist can become potential revolutionists and threatening, like they became in the 60's. People who felt excluded rioted and destroy cities and communities in those years, as traditionalist well remember but didn't seem to learn from.
Traditionalist, like fundamentals, would like to inject more religious dogma into government. We saw this attempted during the Bush administration. But with that imposition traditionalists would threaten the very nature of democracy. Democracy requires a bifurcation of authority, a secularism, a separation between Church and State, which even Thomas Jefferson said was essential so that no autocracy could take hold in America. Ironically, in their pressure to have more religious influence in government, traditionalist would been embarking on a road something akin to an Islamic state where there is no separation between Church and State, and no democracy. Such an attempt would push America back into a darker era.
How can traditionalists live with this kind of hypocrisy.
But, then, there is a salient, striking hypocrisy in traditionalism. For instance, traditionalists are against abortion but then are willing to see growing children sink into an abyss because they weren't born on the 'right side of the tracks' or not onto a 'level playing field' like they were. (Basically, their thinking is that they are not one of us.) They aren't willing to help foster such children along with decent healthcare and education. To their way of thinking such children should be treated like business - survival of the fittest, which, ironically, is Darwinian logic.
Traditionalists believe in a Creator and creationism. But when it comes to free market economics they do not. But something had to create the market and nurture it along. Something had to create the environment in which it flourishes. Yes, something did, imaginative governing bodies and imaginative people. It has been a concerted, cooperative effort. But now that the economy is in crisis, traditionalists cannot abide such cooperation, insisting that government should deliberately let the market find its own level, despite the potentially universal destructive nature of the crisis. They don't want any interference from government, especially if it becomes mutually beneficial. Instead, they are willing to sacrifice everything and go back to how things were, in the 19th century, when the divide between rich and poor was providence, according to them.
These traditionalists don't think in terms of what can be beneficial to the whole. They don't understand that if you help give a leg up to society's weaker members you are enhancing the whole, as well as their own security. People who are denied a fair shake by traditionalist can become potential revolutionists and threatening, like they became in the 60's. People who felt excluded rioted and destroy cities and communities in those years, as traditionalist well remember but didn't seem to learn from.
Traditionalist, like fundamentals, would like to inject more religious dogma into government. We saw this attempted during the Bush administration. But with that imposition traditionalists would threaten the very nature of democracy. Democracy requires a bifurcation of authority, a secularism, a separation between Church and State, which even Thomas Jefferson said was essential so that no autocracy could take hold in America. Ironically, in their pressure to have more religious influence in government, traditionalist would been embarking on a road something akin to an Islamic state where there is no separation between Church and State, and no democracy. Such an attempt would push America back into a darker era.
How can traditionalists live with this kind of hypocrisy.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Pragmatism
I have noticed the word pragmatic in use more often recently. Perhaps that is because I have become more aware and interested in it. But I do think its usage has increased due to the difficult economic times we live in. It has been used to convey the idea that we should be patient and practical in how we approach these difficult times, that we should endeavor to seek practical and utilitarian solutions to our economic problems and not throw the baby out with the bath-water, so to speak. For instance, we shouldn’t be too hasty or heavy handed in dealing with the banks who caused the crisis, but instead take a balanced, practical approach so that we don’t further damage the industry out some sense of injustice or wanting revenge. Pragmatism is telling us that we should be cautious and realistic in how we deal with the financial institutions that failed us because, after all, we need them for our economic recovery.
Pragmatism is from the Greek meaning 'a doing' - action. However, pragmatism in today’s usage denotes more the sense of practicality than action. So how did pragmatism come to mean practicality from the original meaning of action? I think that the idea of practicality comes from one's experience, noting that one can’t have practice or experience without action or doing first.
It is not surprising that the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in first America, because from its start America was a nation of doers and plenty of activity. And when it came to governance, America’s government was the first to be openly active and engaged with its people, getting involved in nation and social building in a big way, through an active legal system and an educational curriculum that was relevant to the people. The first true experiment of democracy America embarked on could not have transpired without a sense of pragmatism, of compromise and cooperation among its founding members. This nation building and activism the American government and its people adopted certainly reflected the spirit of what the Greeks called pragma.
In "The Sociology of Philosophies" Randell Collins writes, "Pragmatism was the product of interaction between religious Idealism and the research sciences fostered by American university reform". (The university reform was provoked and by the new and appealing evolutionary theory of Darwin.) From this one can conclude that pragmatism was born as a means of bridging the growing divide between those who chose to remain religious - traditionalists, and those who chose to believe in evolution and science - modernists. To this day America remains a divided country, where a majority still don't believe in evolution. However, America's philosophy, pragmatism, is a philosophy of compromise and reconciliation. It is a philosophy that puts theory into practice - walks the talk, becoming an operational philosophy as John Dewy believed philosophy should be. Through deeds and action, this philosophy cultivated a middle, practical ground in law and education.
If pragmatism hadn't been invented America may have been torn apart by its contradictory camps of traditionalists and modernists, as it was by the Civil War. Instead, pragmatism laid the common ground on which differences could coexist. Ironically, the philosophy of pragmatism began to take root after the Civil War, perhaps as a spirited means of healing the rift that was exposed by the war. With pragmatism America invented its own truth, that people from all walks of life and beliefs can live together - a rationale that had never been tested before in human governance. And to this day that truth still binds together people who are not always like-minded. Pragmatism, in how it traverse the divide, is what makes the illusion of equality a reality.
Pragmatism is from the Greek meaning 'a doing' - action. However, pragmatism in today’s usage denotes more the sense of practicality than action. So how did pragmatism come to mean practicality from the original meaning of action? I think that the idea of practicality comes from one's experience, noting that one can’t have practice or experience without action or doing first.
It is not surprising that the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in first America, because from its start America was a nation of doers and plenty of activity. And when it came to governance, America’s government was the first to be openly active and engaged with its people, getting involved in nation and social building in a big way, through an active legal system and an educational curriculum that was relevant to the people. The first true experiment of democracy America embarked on could not have transpired without a sense of pragmatism, of compromise and cooperation among its founding members. This nation building and activism the American government and its people adopted certainly reflected the spirit of what the Greeks called pragma.
In "The Sociology of Philosophies" Randell Collins writes, "Pragmatism was the product of interaction between religious Idealism and the research sciences fostered by American university reform". (The university reform was provoked and by the new and appealing evolutionary theory of Darwin.) From this one can conclude that pragmatism was born as a means of bridging the growing divide between those who chose to remain religious - traditionalists, and those who chose to believe in evolution and science - modernists. To this day America remains a divided country, where a majority still don't believe in evolution. However, America's philosophy, pragmatism, is a philosophy of compromise and reconciliation. It is a philosophy that puts theory into practice - walks the talk, becoming an operational philosophy as John Dewy believed philosophy should be. Through deeds and action, this philosophy cultivated a middle, practical ground in law and education.
If pragmatism hadn't been invented America may have been torn apart by its contradictory camps of traditionalists and modernists, as it was by the Civil War. Instead, pragmatism laid the common ground on which differences could coexist. Ironically, the philosophy of pragmatism began to take root after the Civil War, perhaps as a spirited means of healing the rift that was exposed by the war. With pragmatism America invented its own truth, that people from all walks of life and beliefs can live together - a rationale that had never been tested before in human governance. And to this day that truth still binds together people who are not always like-minded. Pragmatism, in how it traverse the divide, is what makes the illusion of equality a reality.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Rude awakening.
"Anyone who believes that politicians can do a better job constructing a healthy economy than the people they want to replace or manipulate in the financial world is in for a very rude awakening.”
That opinion was directed at the Obama administration, which is using government people and resources to fix the sick American economy. Our commentator also mentioned a ‘rude awakening’, which seems to be misplaced.
Today’s politicians, let alone the Obama administration, don’t and didn’t want the responsibility of constructing a healthy economy. That job belongs to the people because they are recognized as the best capable in doing it. The Obama team just wants to reestablish the environment in which ordinary people will themselves recreate a healthy economy, by bringing back trust and confidence to the system, and by reinvigorating the banking system that insiders destroyed. Throughout American history it has been government that has initially established the favorable circumstances, and common sense, in which a healthy economy can grow and flourish. There is no exception this time around and the Obama team recognizes its responsibility.
I was inspired to write this piece not only by the quote above but because of a book written by Felix Rohatyn: “Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Build Now”. Mr. Rohatyn is the former investment banker who helped rescue New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970’s, with the help of government aid. History knows that NYC recovered and paid back the government loans. From that government help, NYC went on to be better than ever. Nobody wanted to think what NYC could have become if it hadn’t gotten government assistance.
In his book Mr. Rohatyn also mentioned other great endeavors the government instigated over the years that expanded America’s economic vitality and prowess, projects that no single private corporation could have imagined or was willing to take on. There was the building of the Erie Canal, the Louisiana Purchase, the building of the Panama Canal, the government facilitation of the transcontinental railway, support for the Interstate highway system, NASA and the GI Bill. The government also laid the groundwork for today’s communication system and the Internet. In most cases the institutions the government inspired eventually were privatized. And let’s not forget the security government affords us so that we can go about doing our business.
I am thinking of Reaganomics, which virtually laid the groundwork for today’s economic fiasco, with it supply-side economics. It started the ball rolling towards the excesses that now hobble the economy. Reagan used to say, sardonically, that government was the problem. Ironically, though, he was correct because his hands-off, lax governing style, a style that gained acceptance over the years, was in part responsible for the events of today, the economic culture of imbalances and excesses that brought America to its knees. Rightly so, then, government is the problem if it neglects its governing and oversight duties.
Our commentator is right about one thing, about a rude awakening descending on us. But the rude awakening is courtesy of the last administration and not this one as suggested. This awakening, delivered via the Bush&Co, finally convinced the American people the importance of government and what negligence of duty on behalf of it can do to help destroy an economy. This rude awakening has also shown the America people that unfettered capitalism is, in the long run, a dangerous and destructive force. Now, it is only government that can pick up the pieces because it is, like most times, the savior of last resort.
It seems difficult for some people to understand that the economy is a concerted effort between two sectors, private and public. However, those sectors should remain autonomous from each other for best results. Unfortunately both sectors became a bit too chummy with each other over the years, effecting the economy’s honesty and efficiency. What the present administration is attempting to do is go back to when things worked better. However, because of the big mess the economy is in it is going to take a lot of aid and upheaval to do it, something some people are having difficulty accepting.
Capitalists always want governments to keep out of the way, especially in good times. But when things truly get rough, guess who they go to, crying cap in hand? Government! Government is the savior of last resort. And that, as Al Gore would say, is an inconvenient truth.
That opinion was directed at the Obama administration, which is using government people and resources to fix the sick American economy. Our commentator also mentioned a ‘rude awakening’, which seems to be misplaced.
Today’s politicians, let alone the Obama administration, don’t and didn’t want the responsibility of constructing a healthy economy. That job belongs to the people because they are recognized as the best capable in doing it. The Obama team just wants to reestablish the environment in which ordinary people will themselves recreate a healthy economy, by bringing back trust and confidence to the system, and by reinvigorating the banking system that insiders destroyed. Throughout American history it has been government that has initially established the favorable circumstances, and common sense, in which a healthy economy can grow and flourish. There is no exception this time around and the Obama team recognizes its responsibility.
I was inspired to write this piece not only by the quote above but because of a book written by Felix Rohatyn: “Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Build Now”. Mr. Rohatyn is the former investment banker who helped rescue New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970’s, with the help of government aid. History knows that NYC recovered and paid back the government loans. From that government help, NYC went on to be better than ever. Nobody wanted to think what NYC could have become if it hadn’t gotten government assistance.
In his book Mr. Rohatyn also mentioned other great endeavors the government instigated over the years that expanded America’s economic vitality and prowess, projects that no single private corporation could have imagined or was willing to take on. There was the building of the Erie Canal, the Louisiana Purchase, the building of the Panama Canal, the government facilitation of the transcontinental railway, support for the Interstate highway system, NASA and the GI Bill. The government also laid the groundwork for today’s communication system and the Internet. In most cases the institutions the government inspired eventually were privatized. And let’s not forget the security government affords us so that we can go about doing our business.
I am thinking of Reaganomics, which virtually laid the groundwork for today’s economic fiasco, with it supply-side economics. It started the ball rolling towards the excesses that now hobble the economy. Reagan used to say, sardonically, that government was the problem. Ironically, though, he was correct because his hands-off, lax governing style, a style that gained acceptance over the years, was in part responsible for the events of today, the economic culture of imbalances and excesses that brought America to its knees. Rightly so, then, government is the problem if it neglects its governing and oversight duties.
Our commentator is right about one thing, about a rude awakening descending on us. But the rude awakening is courtesy of the last administration and not this one as suggested. This awakening, delivered via the Bush&Co, finally convinced the American people the importance of government and what negligence of duty on behalf of it can do to help destroy an economy. This rude awakening has also shown the America people that unfettered capitalism is, in the long run, a dangerous and destructive force. Now, it is only government that can pick up the pieces because it is, like most times, the savior of last resort.
It seems difficult for some people to understand that the economy is a concerted effort between two sectors, private and public. However, those sectors should remain autonomous from each other for best results. Unfortunately both sectors became a bit too chummy with each other over the years, effecting the economy’s honesty and efficiency. What the present administration is attempting to do is go back to when things worked better. However, because of the big mess the economy is in it is going to take a lot of aid and upheaval to do it, something some people are having difficulty accepting.
Capitalists always want governments to keep out of the way, especially in good times. But when things truly get rough, guess who they go to, crying cap in hand? Government! Government is the savior of last resort. And that, as Al Gore would say, is an inconvenient truth.
Monday, March 09, 2009
"Will things get worse?"
It bothers me that people think that the economic mess we are in is fueled by negative thinking on the part of the media and consumers. It follows that if we think this way the economy will naturally get worse and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, the argument goes, if we begin to think positively things will improve. To my way of thinking nothing could be further from the truth.
Recently an article in The Toronto Star argued such a point, that it's our collective negativity that is causing economic pain and making a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its author is David Olive. Here is my response to his argument, which the paper published, edited of course:
David Olive overlooked today's precarious economic fundamentals, particularly in banking. Never have we seen such a calamity in banking caused by financial instruments that took on a life of their own. Derivatives have become contagions, so unpredictable that financial markets are frozen, continually waiting for the next shoe to drop.
Because of this there has been a lack of liquidity due to a lack of trust and confidence between financial institutions. And banks became over-leveraged to a point that became unsustainable. This was eventually exposed by the real estate bubble those financial institutions happily enabled.
Never have we seen large corporations like GM, Citigroup and GE, the backbone of the U.S. economy, in such dire straits. This alone is creating a "self-fulfilling prophecy."
At the root of the problem is excess – from over production to over capacity. There were too many stores, too many buildings, too many car producers. Eventually the economy became saturated; people could only buy and absorb so much.
Supply-side economics – "If you build it they will come" – got too far ahead of itself. Perhaps if money hadn't been so cheap this would not have happened.
Will things get worse? Most likely. But because of economic fundamentals that still need fixing, not people's misdirected psychology.
Recently an article in The Toronto Star argued such a point, that it's our collective negativity that is causing economic pain and making a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its author is David Olive. Here is my response to his argument, which the paper published, edited of course:
David Olive overlooked today's precarious economic fundamentals, particularly in banking. Never have we seen such a calamity in banking caused by financial instruments that took on a life of their own. Derivatives have become contagions, so unpredictable that financial markets are frozen, continually waiting for the next shoe to drop.
Because of this there has been a lack of liquidity due to a lack of trust and confidence between financial institutions. And banks became over-leveraged to a point that became unsustainable. This was eventually exposed by the real estate bubble those financial institutions happily enabled.
Never have we seen large corporations like GM, Citigroup and GE, the backbone of the U.S. economy, in such dire straits. This alone is creating a "self-fulfilling prophecy."
At the root of the problem is excess – from over production to over capacity. There were too many stores, too many buildings, too many car producers. Eventually the economy became saturated; people could only buy and absorb so much.
Supply-side economics – "If you build it they will come" – got too far ahead of itself. Perhaps if money hadn't been so cheap this would not have happened.
Will things get worse? Most likely. But because of economic fundamentals that still need fixing, not people's misdirected psychology.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Bush the conservative
Somebody was wondering why people insist on calling Bush a conservative when he really didn't behave like a conservative while in office. For instance, if he really were a conservative he wouldn't have increased the size of government or its budget deficit as he did. True conservatives believe in small government and manageable budgets.
Well, George Bush declared himself a conservative, a passionate conservative at that, and we took him at his word. Many of his foreign policy decisions were conservative in comparison to the previous liberal-progressive administration of Bill Clinton. Bush’s core beliefs, notwithstanding, were conservative, especially in foreign policy, social issues and labor relations. His hands-off approach to his government’s rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was a typical conservative response. Another truly conservative position he took was his laissez-faire, unfettered one to capitalism.
What also made Bush conservative, although not exclusively, was his reliance on religion, faith and ideology. He stuck to those beliefs at the expense of empiricism and pragmatism, the true ways of America. However, over the years he may have lost his conservative streak due to the quagmires he got himself into, like the war on terror and the economy, that necessitated he release himself from the yoke of conservatism. Ironically, he more than most presidents socialized the American economy due to the blunders his administration committed. For instance, at the end of his term he had to enact socialistic policies to rescue the economy.
I think the main reason why conservatives can never truly remain conservative in their policies is because the world and reality tugs in a different direction – towards liberalism. The thing is, in their attempts to remain conservative conservatives make things worse, as Bush did. If only they could learn to be more balanced and pragmatic.
Bush relied on faith at the expense of experience. There is nothing wrong with religion and prayer. However, Bush often used religion and his faith to make policy decisions, which led to bad decisions. Because of his religion and faith he ignored science and its development, which could have help the economy. Because of a religious faith he blundered in the Middle East. It is the way Bush used religion that made him conservative, with his fundamental and absolutist beliefs. He is a creationist and doesn’t believe in evolution.
Another reason I think Bush was basically conservative in his presidency is because he thought simply and narrowly, a hallmark of conservatism. He himself said he didn’t nuance. Conservatives don’t do nuance. They think in black and white. He thought and talked like that when he mentioned good and evil and ‘either you are with us or against us’. Liberals don’t talk that way. Had he done some nuancing during his tenure perhaps the economy wouldn't be in such bad shape.
A major reason, and by no means the only reason, why the American financial system is in such distress is because of the collusion that was allowed to develop between the rating and regulatory agencies, both private and public, and the industries they were supposed to monitor. A monopolistic, crony system was allowed to develop between sectors that were supposed to be autonomous. For instance, government agencies that were designed to protect the people’s economic interests were instead working to enhance corporate interests.
One thing that has made democracy and capitalism a success is the bifurcation of authority and
Well, George Bush declared himself a conservative, a passionate conservative at that, and we took him at his word. Many of his foreign policy decisions were conservative in comparison to the previous liberal-progressive administration of Bill Clinton. Bush’s core beliefs, notwithstanding, were conservative, especially in foreign policy, social issues and labor relations. His hands-off approach to his government’s rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was a typical conservative response. Another truly conservative position he took was his laissez-faire, unfettered one to capitalism.
What also made Bush conservative, although not exclusively, was his reliance on religion, faith and ideology. He stuck to those beliefs at the expense of empiricism and pragmatism, the true ways of America. However, over the years he may have lost his conservative streak due to the quagmires he got himself into, like the war on terror and the economy, that necessitated he release himself from the yoke of conservatism. Ironically, he more than most presidents socialized the American economy due to the blunders his administration committed. For instance, at the end of his term he had to enact socialistic policies to rescue the economy.
I think the main reason why conservatives can never truly remain conservative in their policies is because the world and reality tugs in a different direction – towards liberalism. The thing is, in their attempts to remain conservative conservatives make things worse, as Bush did. If only they could learn to be more balanced and pragmatic.
Bush relied on faith at the expense of experience. There is nothing wrong with religion and prayer. However, Bush often used religion and his faith to make policy decisions, which led to bad decisions. Because of his religion and faith he ignored science and its development, which could have help the economy. Because of a religious faith he blundered in the Middle East. It is the way Bush used religion that made him conservative, with his fundamental and absolutist beliefs. He is a creationist and doesn’t believe in evolution.
Another reason I think Bush was basically conservative in his presidency is because he thought simply and narrowly, a hallmark of conservatism. He himself said he didn’t nuance. Conservatives don’t do nuance. They think in black and white. He thought and talked like that when he mentioned good and evil and ‘either you are with us or against us’. Liberals don’t talk that way. Had he done some nuancing during his tenure perhaps the economy wouldn't be in such bad shape.
A major reason, and by no means the only reason, why the American financial system is in such distress is because of the collusion that was allowed to develop between the rating and regulatory agencies, both private and public, and the industries they were supposed to monitor. A monopolistic, crony system was allowed to develop between sectors that were supposed to be autonomous. For instance, government agencies that were designed to protect the people’s economic interests were instead working to enhance corporate interests.
One thing that has made democracy and capitalism a success is the bifurcation of authority and
an arms length relationships between sectors. During the Bush administration the bifurcation needed to prevent collusion and corruption was allowed to deteriorate between financial sectors, hence the economic and financial mess we are in to day. So I was thinking, America could have been in a far worst mess in its governance if conservatives like Bush were allowed to undermine the separation between Church and State as they wanted to do. That could have endangered American secularism, a stalwart of democracy. If that had occurred America might have become a theocratic state like may in the Muslim world.
On a related matter, I heard some good news. The King of Saudi Arabia has picked the first woman to be on the governing council of that Islamic nation. That is a ‘liberal’ act done by a very conservative regime. I am thinking that in doing this the King was bowing to the liberal currents that are churning in the world. And he knows that if his kingdom wants to keep up with the modern world it has to change and become more flexible and accommodating.
On a related matter, I heard some good news. The King of Saudi Arabia has picked the first woman to be on the governing council of that Islamic nation. That is a ‘liberal’ act done by a very conservative regime. I am thinking that in doing this the King was bowing to the liberal currents that are churning in the world. And he knows that if his kingdom wants to keep up with the modern world it has to change and become more flexible and accommodating.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Bush Legacy
A lot of people think that the financial crisis America faces today started before Bush, that the seeds of it were sown years ago. There is some truth to that. But really, it took on life after 9/11 when Bush told Americans to go shopping and spend, and make happy, because otherwise "the terrorists will have won". Allen Greenspan obliged by making credit as cheap as possible, enabling the subprime and the financial derivatives that are sinking America today.
The terrorists of 9/11 were hoping to disrupt and upend the American way of life, as America, in the terrorist's view, had disrupted and upended the Islamic world. Well, in a way the terrorist have won because of the financial turmoil the US is in today. With Americans heeding Bush's words after 9/11 they went out on a spending spree, jeopardizing the country with a massive debt and the worst economic crisis since the Depression. (That spending spree created unsustainable 'supply-side' economics, with too much capacity.) The terrorist couldn't have hoped for a better calamity to strike the US.
Also, the terrorists managed to draw Bush&Co. into two wars that have caused a financial burden that has put the US at further risk of loosing its status as the mainstay of the world. And it didn't helped that Bush didn't ask American's to sacrifice anything for the war effort.
But on reflection, Bush did get Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror, more than he could have imagined, by putting them and the country into hawk for years to come.
Perhaps Bush already has dementia, thinking that history will be kind to him by giving him a decent legacy.
The terrorists of 9/11 were hoping to disrupt and upend the American way of life, as America, in the terrorist's view, had disrupted and upended the Islamic world. Well, in a way the terrorist have won because of the financial turmoil the US is in today. With Americans heeding Bush's words after 9/11 they went out on a spending spree, jeopardizing the country with a massive debt and the worst economic crisis since the Depression. (That spending spree created unsustainable 'supply-side' economics, with too much capacity.) The terrorist couldn't have hoped for a better calamity to strike the US.
Also, the terrorists managed to draw Bush&Co. into two wars that have caused a financial burden that has put the US at further risk of loosing its status as the mainstay of the world. And it didn't helped that Bush didn't ask American's to sacrifice anything for the war effort.
But on reflection, Bush did get Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror, more than he could have imagined, by putting them and the country into hawk for years to come.
Perhaps Bush already has dementia, thinking that history will be kind to him by giving him a decent legacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)