Unity of Opposites

It’s come to my attention recently that the 19th century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel offered a theory of historical progression that seems somehow appropriate to our contemporary times. The general rule that history will follow, Hegel thought, is that any thesis will face its contradiction, after which a synthesis of the two will occur.

Now, I’m no scholar mind you, but I can’t help thinking about this in relation to our current political upheaval. For some time now it has seemed to me humankind was making significant humanistic strides toward pluralistic understanding and acceptance. Appreciation for cultural variety, tolerance for the other and compassion toward the less fortunate not to mention a sound scientific understanding of the threats to our natural environment seemed to be reaching consensus levels.

But suddenly the very antithesis of these ideals has reared its ugly head. We have found ourselves face to face with our most base instincts; hatred and fear of the Other, isolationist divisiveness, blatant disregard for unpopular scientific research and an anti-intellectual disinclination toward thoughtful dialogue.

So, Hegel would have us believe this dichotomous situation will work itself out, some sort of middle ground will stabilize things, compromises will be arrived at.  I must admit I’m having a hard time visualizing what that peaceful compromise might look like.

Moral Entitlement

I’ve been reading, lately, about the idea of moral entitlement: how some people assume privileges others are denied. Or, to put it another way: some individuals and groups feel themselves morally entitled to take advantage of those they consider lesser or inferior.

I have no doubt such situations have existed, probably, for as long as man has walked the earth. A sense of superiority on the part of some accompanied by the complementary assumption of inferiority by others is pretty well embedded in our psyches. This idea has perpetuated social class and sectarian divisions that continues to account for dissonance and conflict.

One can argue the moral illegitimacy of such stratification, I suppose, but what I find more curious and annoying is the ego driven individuals who assume unjustified advantage. I suspect such people and/or groups will realize the idealistic beliefs that have led to their divorce from mankind must be tempered in the interests of everyone’s basic social needs. One can hope so, anyway.

Story Lines

I’ve been thinking, lately, about the multiple story lines that can be thought of as true regarding one and the same experience. That is, a single experience can be explained by emergent explanations, closed systems within themselves. (That have nothing to do, I might add, with political ulterior motives.)

For instance, the object and actors in any experience are composed of basically the same kinds of atomic particles, the movements of which are a complete story or explanation of the event. One could refer to this idea as the Atomic explanation of the occurrence. Then, we can consider the experience in a biological context, how the natural order will lead the actors to predictable behaviors and interactions related to basic physical survival instincts. This, too, provides a complete story in itself.

A psychological story line would focus on relationships and feelings. How actor #1 responds to actor #2’s need for acceptance by the group and, maybe, how the groups’ social dynamic will thereby be affected. On the metaphysical plane, a supernatural agency will oversee events and will ultimately figure in the experiential outcomes. Faith and belief will be required by the actors who wish to tap into the god’s benevolence for no other means are available to affect their destinies.

I guess it’s pretty clear why conflict is so prevalent these days. It seems to be human nature to seek out those of like perspectives, exacerbating divisiveness. Thankfully there are those who can move between these closed story lines and find and promote understanding of differing views, offering hope of finding some sort of common ground. I’m thinking our very existence may depend on it.

rite of spring 3

 

 

Opposing Views

I’ve been reading about the dichotomous philosophical views held by the French in the 19th century. One perspective held the great classical civilizations of Greece and Rome were beyond compare and, therefore, a sound basis upon which to guide one’s life. The views of these Neo-Classicists held to staid ideals of beauty and truth exemplified by the ancients, the message being the past holds the principles by which to live.

The other view extolled the virtues of man’s passions. The spirit of life was seen in the serendipitous nature of human existence. These Romanticists championed the flow and flux living presented to the man truly alive. Living fully in the present was pretty clearly the message here.

Interestingly, these opposing views were manifested in the arts of the time. The Neo-Classicists looked to linear emphasis in the imagery on Greek pottery and to the subdued color they found in the art of the ancients they saw on their pilgrimages to Rome. Their more immediate champion was Nicholas Poussin. The Romanticists relished the baroque twists and turns they saw in the paintings of Peter Paul Rubens. Their preferred palette contained the bright colors they found in the exotic cultures of the Near East.

These op positional views fed off of each other; the first staunchly absolutist and rational the second spirited and life-affirming. The first extolled their virtues against the decadence of the second; the second, their flexibility and pluralism against a rigid didactic ism. A lot of great art was created in 19th century France and I’ll bet a big part of the immense creative output was the result of these tensions.

So, I wonder, if everyone everywhere suddenly witnessed an unmistakable ‘Ultimate Truth’, undeniable in any way, so remarkable that all doubt was erased from every mind, what would be the result? It seems to me, even the idea of peace would be meaningless; without opposition there would be nothing to believe.

I can only hope that sort of truth will never become known.

Elvis in memphis

 

 

Totalitarianism

I’ve been thinking about totalitarianism lately. This, in part I guess, because I’ve been reading about the philosopher Hannah Arendt who escaped Nazi Germany in the 1940’s and, as a Jew, gave considerable thought to the subject.

Ms. Arendt determined that a successful totalitarian regime is able to establish a commitment to certain idealisms, such as racial purity or nationalistic solidarity, at the expense of basic human rights. By creating and enforcing with a heavy hand certain rules and laws focused on idealisms, plurality and individuality are undermined and an undifferentiated populace is championed. Faced with being ‘for us or against us’ the individual trying to go about his business taking care of family, putting food on the table and such will understandably become fearful. The fear of being perceived as an outsider tends to push ordinary citizens to embrace and participate in the extreme right wing political agenda. And, before long, most everyone is on board except, of course, those chosen as scapegoats to represent all that is evil and in opposition to the selected ideal truths.

As I think about it, it seems to me most all political structures, even those that declare democratic rule, have a bit of an inclination to push idealisms and demonize an opposition. Hopefully, individual strength and perseverance will hold such totalitarian impulses at bay. One must be careful, thought, not to take individual freedoms for granted, I think.

shriners3

In Groups/Out Groups

I’ve been reading, lately, how evolutionary theory offers insights into human behavior. Apparently, deeply ingrained within our genetic make-up, we survivors have certain inherent inclinations that, despite how desperately we may want to rationalize them away will always be with us. Our ultimate evolutionary need to pass on our genes has embedded within our psyches the drive toward group membership: like-minded individuals to share values and reciprocal support and the presupposition of a supernatural agency. I guess what happens over (a long, long, long) time is that the group establishes an identity: cultural, moral, spiritual, that separates it from other groups.

So, what this must mean is that we all will forever be divided into in-groups and out-groups. In the best of times, I suppose, toleration will reign, there will be peaceful co-existence. But even when such periods exist, the Ins will know that they are the trustworthy ones who recognize the true supernature, which means that there will always be a sort of tension between Ins and Outs that could, and sometimes does, fester and erupt into violence. And such a situation will be more likely to happen, I further suppose, when one group feels its existence is threatened if political power becomes imbalanced. And, as much as one might like to disassociate oneself from this ridiculous op positional stance, you really can’t since you wouldn’t be here to even think about it all if your ancestors hadn’t passed on the necessary survival genes.

I guess this evolutionary perspective explains a lot about the nature of the world today. I will try to remember that as evolution continues to slowly and erratically move along, in some distant future perhaps it will catch up to an intellectual enlightenment.

born-again-3.jpg

What it means to be an Intellectual

It has occurred to me recently that people who identify themselves as being intellectual, or are thought of in that way, are often considered arrogant. There seems to be an elitist connotation associated with intellectualism. The image, I guess, is one of out of touch academic ideologue lacking a pragmatic real world outlook.

And this, despite the fact that intellectualism is really nothing more than an attitude of exploration and investigation; an open perspective to ideas and positions of all sorts. Questioning is the essence of the intellectual stance, which, when healthy, stops short of blanket skepticism to arrive at the best possible answers at the moment, aware, always, that better answers may certainly appear in the future.

According to Richard Hofstadter, former Pulitzer Prize winner and history professor at Columbia, anti-intellectualism has probably always been with us but was exacerbated in America by frontier expansion which left behind the social structures of education, religion and government resulting in social regression. The early pioneers found themselves in a more primitive social situation where rule of law was replaced by retributive payback and moral relativism replaced trusting reciprocity between neighbors. By the time religion finally caught up to the westward expansion the unlettered populace responded to a revivalist approach that undermined education in favor of pure passionate religious response.

What makes all this so fascinating to me is the fact anti-education, anti-intellectual sensibilities have not only not dissipated but, judging by current political occurrences gained strength, at least in some quarters. I wish I knew what it would take to get more people to think things through a little better. I don’t think one has to be an intellectual to do that.

root people 3

Contributing to the Social Good

I’ve been thinking it may be time for me to step up and do a little more for those around me. I have for some time been the recipient of a very favorable social environment which has enabled me to live my quite serene life of artistic endeavor and contemplation. But, lately it seems to me that simply offering my unassuming, benevolent countenance is maybe a bit lacking; I could, perhaps, do something more for my neighbors. I don’t think I’m a good candidate for public office of any sort and policing or firefighting is beyond my abilities but it sure seems I should be able to find some way to be of service.

A friend suggested, when I put the dilemma to him, that the best thing I could do for mankind is simply stand aside-just stay out of the way, by which I assume he meant I should let those with energy and capabilities make the things that need to happen, happen.

I still think there must be something, some small skill I could share that might be beneficial. I do like to read, so perhaps I could build a little free library. Then I could fill it with philosophy books. It seems to me it would certainly be a good thing if I were able to turn my neighbors into enlightened liberal thinkers.

 

High Comedy

As abrasive, ugly and, I guess, pretty comical  public debate has become these days (although it’s probably always been such, visibility being exacerbated by our competitive media outlets) maybe it’s time to extol the virtues of the high energy levels our contentious philosophical exchanges generate. However distasteful, things are certainly better than the situations censorious political structures in other parts of the world impose on their populations.

Still, I have to question motivations sometimes. I’m afraid rather than championing fairness and what’s best for all, it appears, often, the primary concerns center on me and mine, my own situation and how it measures up to what I see around me; seems like arrested development sometimes; a perpetual adolescence.

The 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill reminds us that in any debate, both positions will contain a certain degree of truth; issues are never simply black and white. So, it’s up to us all, I guess, to try to make reasonable sense of the oppositional view rather than mindlessly rely on logical fallacies, strawman simplifications and ad hominem put-downs to bind us with our allies and reinforce what we wish to be the right and only view.

As I contemplate these ideas I’m fully aware of my own complicity, my own inclination to jump on my preferred band wagon, you know, thumb my nose at the opposition. But, at least it gets my blood pumping, raises the old energy level; better than wasting away in lethargy ville I suppose.

ship of fools

 

An Aversion to Heat

I’ve found myself, lately, inextricably rooted in a mindset of cynicism that I think may be due to being in the heat of these southern climes where I am temporarily residing.

Cynicism is not foreign to my nature by any means but it seems to have assumed a stronger grip on my thought processes these days as I endure temperatures in the 80’s and 90’s. For example, when I see all the elderly individuals down here, plodding along on their walkers or holding up traffic in their golf carts, rather than commiserate, I am drawn to thinking that their migration to these sunny climes is but preparation for their soon to experience date with the crematory oven.

And then there’s the ubiquitous border patrol’s insidious presence on the roadways seeking to intercept any illicit Hispanic migrants who might be crossing the border looking for honest work. And this is not to mention the legions of homeless individuals on bicycles, pulling wagons containing all of their worldly belongings, sleeping in the parks while being ignored by a government adverse to social provision of any sort.

Anyway, I’m thinking it may just be the heat that has me so off-center; it may be time to proceed north to cooler climes and a more compassionate perspective.

meditationdevice11