| Fragments |
By Ronald Tower Preface This is a collection of short pieces exploring various philosophical topics.Contents Pyrrhonism Pyrrhonism Pyrrhonism was founded by the ancient Greek skeptic Pyrrho of Elis. It was a school of philosophy that was intended to provide a practical way of life as opposed to just a theoretical or academic pursuit. The most famous written expression of Pyrrhonism is Outlines of Pyrrhonism by Sextus Empiricus. This is a brief handbook that can be viewed as an attempt to provide a similar outline in the language of the early twenty first century. A Skeptical Narrative At some point in my life I began to notice that there were many different ways of viewing the world from the one that I had been raised in. There were different religions than mine, different philosophies, cultures, ways of life, obsessions than mine. This unsettled me and set me on a search. What was the one true way? I went through many different attempts to find that one true way. But always these attempts at certainty were eroded away by the awareness of other ways. Also, there were disturbing indications that my search for certainty might be unfounded. Is certainty really possible? I encountered various arguments, from diversity, relativity, assumption, vicious circle, and infinite regress, that called certainty into question. This situation left me in distress. Finally, I don't know exactly why, I just gave up for a moment. I just suspended judgement on absolutes and certainties and relied on everyday practices and practicalities. Unexpectedly, this gave me a kind of peace. I still had this itch for certainty, but in time it died down. I decided that suspending judgement on these absolutes might be the best way for me. I decided to just suspend judgement and rely on practical criteria. Types of Philosophy One way of categorizing philosophies is according to how they approach the issue of the one true way, certainty, real knowledge, absolute truth. Dogmatists believe they have found this truth. Nihilists believe there is no such truth. And skeptics suspend judgement and turn to practical criteria. Dogmatists are like skeptics in the sense that they are skeptical of something, namely, views that contradict their dogma. For example, extreme rationalists may think of themselves as skeptics because they are skeptical of religious claims or fringe science, but they are not skeptics in the pyrrhonist sense. They are just counter-dogmatists. Nihilists seem like skeptics because they deny absolute truth, but they are absolutely sure that it is true that there is no absolute truth. Thus they contradict themselves. Pyrrhonist skeptics try to avoid these contradictions by just suspending judgement on the issue of absolute truth. They do no know how to find absolute truth, so they just abandon that approach and move on to practical issues. Skeptical Arguments Skeptical arguments can be general, applied to all truth claims, or specific to one particular issue. One set of general skeptical arguments was first formulated by Agrippa, an ancient Greek skeptic. Updating the terminology a little, they are the arguments from diversity, relativity, assumption, vicious circle, and infinite regress. Suppose I want to determine whether a particular claim is true. First I may notice that there are a diversity of other contradictory claims. How can I know this is the correct claim? Also, this claim may be true relative to the claimant's social position, culture, physical condition, perspective, or other factors, but it might not be true for people in other relative positions. To address this situation, I may look for a criterion to use in proving the claim. But this criterion itself needs proof. To assume it is just an assumption. But if I need to prove it, I need other criteria. But these in turn need proof leading either to a vicious circle or to an infinite regress. Based on these skeptical arguments I do not conclude that there is no truth. I just turn away from this particular game. There does not seem to be any way to win it. Something may come up in the future. Who knows? But for now I will just suspend judgement and move on to practical issues. Practical Criteria Sextus Empiricus enumerated several rules of life or practical criteria that the skeptic can use once he or she decides to suspend judgement on absolutes. He listed such things as laws and customs, the guidance of nature, and the practice of the various practical arts. By the guidance of nature he meant our senses and our everyday reasoning abilities. By practical arts he meant such practices as farming, building, medicine, business, and many others. Updating the terminology a little, this handbook uses language, experience, and desire as the practical criteria. It seems that language, experience, and desire are the basics that we start from in everyday life and that it is very difficult to imagine going beyond them. Other aspects of life seem to be just configurations of these basics. And it seems that we can go very far with these criteria without the need for an absolute justification because we make no absolute claims about them. We just say that we find them useful. If we did try to give them an absolute warrant, we would immediately come up against the skeptical arguments. Talking About Truth Even though we as skeptics suspend judgement on absolute truth, we still need a way of talking about truth issues. Sextus Empiricus elaborated various skeptical formulas. These were ways of talking when confronted with truth claims or asked to make a statement about truth. These included phrases like "perhaps or perhaps not", "I determine nothing", "I suspend judgement", "maybe or maybe not". These are ways of talking when dealing with dogmatic statements about absolute truth. But the word "truth" can be used in various ways. It can be used in everyday conversation to express agreement: "Ain't that the truth!" It can be used to ask about experiences: "Isn't it true that you saw Mister Jones enter the store at 8 AM on April 9th?" It would not be particularly useful to say, "I determine nothing" when you did see Mister Jones and you are just reporting your own personal experience. Also, it may be awkward to preface every assertion with "it appears" or "it seems to me". Pyrrhonism was criticized as impractical by people who confused the two issues of statements of dogma and reports about personal experience. The skeptic will suspend judgement on dogma and use "perhaps" or "maybe" or "I suspend jugdgment" or simply "I don't know" about such things, but for practical discussions, the skeptic can be very comfortable saying, "That is true" when reporting experiences or expressing agreement. Practicing LED It can be convenient to refer to the practical criteria, language, experience, and desire, using the acronym LED. This can then be elaborated into a practical set of tools and terms to use for problem solving while suspending judgement on absolute truth, certainty, grand narratives, or other things that seem to be beyond our knowledge. Here is some jargon that may be useful. LED. A philosophy, religion, path, conceptual tool, and method of self improvement and problem solving. An acronym standing for language, experience, and desire. Language includes natural and artificial languages and texts. It also includes nonverbal languages and texts such as dance, body language, images, movies, etc. Experience includes passive observation as well as action, inner as well as outer experience, emotions, feelings, intimations, the whole vast realm of human experience. Desire includes the whole realm of wants, needs, likes, dislikes, goals, motives, etc. LED implies that we are limited to language, experience, and desire and also that there is no one, true configuration of language, experience, and desire. Finding the one, true configuration would be just another configuration, ad infinitum. Configuration. A particular pattern of language, experience, and desire. Life seems to be just a series of such configurations. Also, religions, cultures, societies, histories, situations, worlds, etc. seem to be such configurations. L work. Exploration, study, and just enjoyment of the whole realm of languages and texts, looking at their diversities and similarities, relationships, etc. in order to understand how language is used, what the possibilities are, and different ways of expressing things, to find coherent theories, to stimulate the imagination, and to just enjoy the play of language, of stories and songs, of patterns and structures. Performance, creation, reading, writing, conversation, inner dialog, mining unspoken assumptions and programming. LE work. Testing texts against experience. Finding texts to describe or express experience. Finding texts that predict experience or provide reliable maps. Correcting harmful inner commentary through experience testing. Exploring and mapping out new experiences. E work. Developing simple mindfulness and awareness. Letting go of descriptions and desires and just experiencing the flow. Following your breath, walking, etc. without comment or desire. Enjoying the moment. ED work. Goal directed action. Following a plan. Executing a program. Following the steps. Getting things done. LD work. Finding ways to express the whole complexity of desire. Developing a useful nomenclature. D work. Understanding your desires. Finding the contradictions and inconsistencies. Untangling the knot. Deciding which desires to keep or add and which to give up. Learning to desire things within your control. Values clarification. Goals clarification. Selecting higher desires and giving up lower desires. Simplifying your desires. Elaborating your desires. Refining your desires. Moderating your desires. LED work. Putting all the other elements together. Finding a coherence of language, experience, and desire that will work for you and bring you a reasonable degree of happiness and satisfaction. Also, more narrowly, finding a configuration for a particular situation that meets requirements. Problem solving. If you are not happy or something is not working, change the experience to conform to desire, change the desire, or change how you view the problem, or some combination of these. Skeptical Inquirers and Debunkers The term skeptic is often used today as a self-designation for a group of people who are fighting what they view as superstition, irrationality, and pseudo-science. They provide a useful service in investigating various fringe claims, but some of them also seem to be putting forward science as some sort of absolute truth and trying to limit experience to just the sort of sense experience that can be shared in public. It could be that science as a practice may choose to limit its domain to only those types of experiences, but we human beings have many experiences beyond that. There is more experience than science can pin down. It may be vague and hard to quantify, but it is still experience. From a pyrrhonist point of view, science is a useful tool for the social production of texts that have been well tested against experience and that can be used to predict future experience and to design technological artifacts, but we would have to suspend judgement on whether science is the only truth. Science is a particular set of configurations of language, experience, and desire. It is a set of social practices and texts. It may be the best tool we have for solving certain kinds of problems and should be used for that purpose, but it cannot replace religion as the source of authoritative truth. Arguments from Authority It is common practice to appeal to some authority, whether a religious prophet, a charismatic leader, some privileged text, or science, as the final source of truth, to be accepted without question. But this begs the question of how we know that authority is an authority. By what criteria do we decide? This immediately leads into skeptical arguments. It may be practical to accept some person or some text as a useful source of suggestions, practices, or information, beyond what we know ourselves, but there is a serious problem in giving unquestioned acceptance to an authority just because they have been in some way put into that position. It can also be a practical danger as shown by suicide cults and world wars. Postmodernism as Skepticism Postmodernism can be defined as skepticism about grand narratives or metanarratives. It also emphasizes diversity and relativity. It could be seen as skepticism using linguistic tools. Postmodernism does not necessarily have the same goals of providing a practical philosophy of life that pyrrhonist skepticism does, but it does share many of the same concerns and approaches. Postmodernism could be seen as providing a set of tools and arguments that skeptics can use out past the linguistic turn. On the other hand, PoMo can become a sort of dogmatism, so the skeptic must be a little wary. Pragmatism as Skepticism Pragmatism can be defined as an emphasis on using practical consequences for making judgements about texts or programs. This fits in very easily with skepticism's practical criteria approach. Also, pragmatism has emphasized pluralism and diversity. This fits in well. Skepticism will just part company when pragmatists try to say that they have the correct definition of truth in opposition to the correspondence or coherence theorists. For the skeptic, truth is first and foremost a word. It can be useful to use the word in a pragmatic, correspondence, or coherence sense depending on circumstances and goals. Pragmatists have also criticized skepticism, but this has been in the "Pyrrho falling into a ditch" vein of criticism that falls away once you understand the distinction between suspending judgement on absolutes and living everyday life using practical criteria. Skeptical Politics Pyrrhonism has been accused (like postmodernism) of implying political conservatism. This was because Sextus Empiricus suggested following the laws and customs of your country given the difficulties in coming up with an absolute standard of morality or social organization. The issue though is what "country" we are talking about. Replace "country" with "culture" or "subculture" and things open up quite a bit. You could be a member of a conservative or liberal subculture. The problem comes when we get to subcultures that require absolute submission to some dogma, such as dialectical materialism. Political movements that depend on their members towing some doctrinal line will be naturally suspicious of skeptics. But a skeptic can have their own personal reasons for wanting to promote freedom, justice, and democracy or for protecting the privileges of landlords or corporations depending on their personal history and desires. Skepticism itself does not lead to one place or the other, except that it does lead away from political subcultures that depend on dogma as opposed to just common desires. Skeptical Morality Skepticism sees the basis of morality in desire and social membership and human experience. I try to be fair because I want to be fair, because I want to be treated fairly, because fairness is needed for my society to function, and because human history has shown that a lack of fairness leads ultimately to rebellion and disorder which I also would like to avoid. I can also choose to use terms like "good", "bad", and "right" in these contexts. Where I run into a problem as a skeptic is moral absolutes. Even though I strongly desire justice, I cannot see how to provide an absolute warrant for justice. It is just something that we humans usually want to have. It becomes more murky when we get into sexual morality. If I have entered into some social contract called heterosexual marriage that involves monogamy, I feel some obligation to live up to my contract. Also, I am motivated by love for my partner. On the other hand, I can imagine other arrangements that could also work well and other ideas about gender and sexual interaction that could be desirable and safe and stable. So I had best keep an open mind. Skeptical Religion Skepticism has trouble with religious dogmatism, appeals to authority, exclusivism, and intolerance, but it does not necessarily have a problem with religious experience, rituals, stories, practices that accept the limits of language, experience, and desire. The problem with religion is dogma. Religious texts can be understood as art, rule books, meditation manuals, and expressions of religious experience without claiming to be the one and only truth. Religions are, as best we can tell, human creations. They are human subcultures that a skeptic may choose to belong to. But the skeptic will be chased away by dogmatism and authoritarianism. A skeptic may have certain mystical experiences, but he or she cannot tell if this indicates a transcendent being. It may be possible that a prophet has experienced God, but a skeptic cannot know without experiencing God for themselves and comparing notes. Even then the experience is likely to be highly ambiguous. Just accepting the prophet's statement on authority will not work. Skeptical Science Skepticism has little problem with science as the social production of texts that are well tested against publicly accessible sense experience and that are useful for tentatively predicting future publicly accessible sense experience. Science is the main source of knowledge in this sense. The problem comes in when science presumes to provide the authoritative truth about the real world. Then we fall into skeptical arguments. As long as it stays in the area of practical criteria, we love it. There also may be some benefit in expanding science into some more ambiguous areas of experience beyond publicly accessible sense experience, paranormal experiences, near death experiences, etc., as long as we don't get too carried away. Skeptical Humanism A skeptic may choose to be a humanist in the sense of wanting to promote humanist themes such as freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, science, artistic expression, and an emphasis on the human as opposed to a supernatural that is beyond human experience. A problem comes in though in that many humanists consider some form of scientific materialism or scientific naturalism to be a required doctrine of humanism. A skeptic would tend to suspend judgement on these metaphysical doctrines while making use of science as a social practice giving useful results rather than as the only source of truth. So it may be useful for skeptics who would like to move in the humanist camp to define themselves as skeptical humanists, that is, people who like the humanistic values while suspending judgement on scientific materialism as a dogma and instead using the practical criteria approach. Pyrrhonist Societies It is definitely not necessary to join a broad life style group to be a skeptic. Still there may be some benefits to joining a group that promotes and supports a particular philosophy of life. Pyrrhonist societies could be formed to teach and promote pyrrhonist skepticism and to provide a social group through gatherings for lectures, discussions, mutual aid, child education, life cycle ceremonies, and seasonal celebrations. On the other hand it may be more practical to get such social interaction on the liberal fringes of some religious group or in a humanist or ethical culture group. Then again, some skeptics may not feel the need for much social support beyond simple citizenship, family and friends, and membership in special purpose groups such as political parties, issue groups, or recreational clubs. The Real Pyrrho of Martinsburg One late summer morning I headed out on assignment for the local paper to put together a human interest piece about a local "character" who was starting to get a little outside exposure.To get the full experience, I drove north out of Newark on Martinsburg Road, a small country road curving through the small hills we have here at the start of the Appalachian plateau. Many of the fields were covered in late summer wild flowers like goldenrods and dark purple iron weed. I finally drove by a few Amish farms and into the small town of Martinsburg, a few square blocks of houses with a small restaurant, a gas station, a post office, a small Church of Christ painted white in the way of many of these rural churches, and a graveyard on the edge of town. Continuing north out of town and down a few township roads I came to a mail box with the name "Pyrrho" on it in small black letters. I turned into a wooded area of about 20 acres and down a gravel driveway to a parking area for maybe five cars under some old ash and maple trees. Close by was a poll barn type out building with a detached wood deck close by and a small trailer home a little further off close to a fairly large vegetable garden. I was greeted by a man in his late sixties in jeans and work shirt with a big grey beard who reminded me for all the world of Walt Whitman sauntering out. But his hair was short, unlike those pictures of the old Walt Whitman, and he had on metal frame glasses and wore tennis shoes. We exchanged some friendly small talk, and he gave me a tour. The out building had a small store in the front, then a work area and office behind that with some evidence of shipping materials. At the back were two bedrooms with their own entrances and small decks. We settled down on some white plastic lawn chairs on the large deck close to the out building with some bottles of iced tea from the store. Reporter: Let's start with the basics. How did you get a name like Pyrrho? Pyrrho: Well, my real name is Jacob. I started calling myself Pyrrho many years back because of some reading I was doing. Reporter: Don't people think its kind of strange and have a hard time pronouncing it? Pyrrho: Well, they may think it's strange, but they got used to it. I pronounce it PIE-ROW. Maybe they just think it's because I sell some of the Amish baked pies here sometimes to the tourists. [He winked.] Reporter: You get tourists out here? Pyrrho: Oh, a few. I do a little bed and breakfast business and I get some people who come out here for life retreats. Reporter: Life retreats? Pyrrho: To examine their lives. You know, an unexamined life is not worth living. [He smiled.] Reporter: You get people interested in that? Pyrrho: Oh, you'd be surprised. Reporter: And you're what? Socrates? Pyrrho: No, I'm Pyrrho. [Another smile.] Reporter: OK. The reason I came out is because of this Web site about you. I understand that you just turned over the rights to some of your writings. Pyrrho: Well, I thought those young folks might be able to do something with it. Reporter: But what if they make money off it? Pyrrho: Money? Off that stuff? If they can pull that off they are welcome to it. Reporter: You don't care? Pyrrho: Why should I? I'm doing OK here. We talked some more, but not much about poetry or philosophy. Mostly about his mail order business, its ups and downs. And about some problems he was having with his garden. He sent me off with a big bag of squash and zucchini. Buddhist Cool Look at the sequence of configurations of language, experience, and desire that make up your life. They are transient. You can see no permanent self behind them. Many lead to suffering. Suffering configurations lack a harmony of language, experience, and desire. So train yourself to let go of such configurations and to turn to those that reconcile language, experience, and desire. Learn to suspend language and desire at times and to rest in the simple flow of experience. Be mindful. Examine your views. Cultivate positive configurations. Let go of negative configurations. Cultivate compassion, serenity, joy. Refrain from taking life. Refrain from taking what is not given. Refrain from sexual misconduct. Refrain from false speech. Refrain from intoxicants. Walk your path calmly. Be relaxed and natural. Be practical. Do not worry about what other people think of you. Do your work without attachment. Be free from possessions and status, fortune and loss, success and failure. Do what you really want to do ethically and well. Face death without regret. Mutual Freedom
Basic freedom: Not being subjected to force or fraud. Effective freedom: Having the resources to do something. Current label: moderate independent Brights, Supers, and Heres Labels can be a real problem. On the one hand, they can be very useful little shorthand devices. Rather than having to spend a lot of time on subtle distinctions and variations, you can more quickly decide what you need to know to navigate your way in the world. They can also be nifty little tokens of group membership. Most of us want to belong somewhere, and with a short, "I am an X", we can often successfully group ourselves. This can work out fine as long as those subtle variations and distinctions don't really matter, or as long as the label doesn't have negative consequences. In some places "apostate" can be a death sentence, despite whatever reasons and distinctions there might be. In other circles, being "religious" can make people take you less seriously. Consider "atheist". By taking on such a label, people may assume you are arrogant, immoral, untrustworthy, and a royal pain. You might immediately exclude yourself from public office, or even some jobs. Some people might not want to associate with you, despite whatever other things you might have in common, like being a bluegrass fan or a bridge player. Some people might actually fear you as if you are there to steal their precious faith from them. All this, when gods are not even a concern of yours. Yet you have felt the need to label yourself in opposition to all the theists bristling about. Enter the Brights. A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural or mystical elements. At first they did not have an antonym to "brights", but now "super" is in use. They define a super as a person who does include supernatural or mystical elements in their worldview. The Brights trying to define their own label is very understandable. All the existing labels that might do have so much baggage. Many of them lead to ideological disputes that seem just besides the point. On the other hand, the Brights see that they are at a social and political disadvantage, much like gays have been. In many ways the Brights movement is not so much about ideology as rights and giving people the courage to come out of the closet about their unpopular worldview, which may not be that unpopular after all. But, as always, there is a problem (other than the unfortunate association of "brights" with "being bright" and the tendency of people to see this as a claim to superior intelligence). The problem is inherent in the whole enterprise of label making. The Brights had to choose some words to define their label, in particular, "naturalistic", "supernatural", and "mystical". Then they go on to say that everyone is either a bright or a super. (See Synopsis.) Too bad they had to come up with an antonym and then group everyone else under that antonym. They did not like to be labeled by the issue of "god", as if that were the only issue, and now they are labeling everyone according to their stand on "naturalistic", "supernatural", and "mystical". And these terms are most problematical if you really try to pin down what they mean in concrete terms. There is much that can be said about this, but let's just consider the distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism states that only the "physical world" exists. Methodological naturalism suspends judgment on the metaphysical issues and just proposes to study any phenomena using the same general approach of systematically testing texts against our experiences. If there are any agents without physical bodies, then they will be studied using these same methods. So there could be entities that the Brights are calling supernatural or mystical, but if so, then the only way we human beings can study them is from where we are in our concrete, human situation. Getting into the spirit of coining new labels, let's define a here as a person who starts from where they are, in their concrete, human situation of language, experience, and desire. We can say, "I am a Here" and talk about the Heres. Why not? So the world cannot be conveniently divided into Brights and Supers. There are also Heres. For Heres, the terms "naturalistic", "supernatural", and "mystical" are very hard to pin down and may not be that relevant as ways to distinguish people into groups. The Heres can appreciate the social situation of the Brights and wish them well in their coming out exercise. They may have much in common with Brights in the methods they think are most useful in investigating our experiences. On the other hand, they can also respect the "mystical" paths of some religious people, although they might be very uncomfortable with religious fanaticism and exclusivism since they seem to be based on very weak evidence, if any at all. There seems to be a tendency to exclude the middle in the Bright camp. Everyone who is not a Bright is in the same bucket, the Supers. This goes along with the denigration of religious moderates as being "just as bad" as the religious extremists or in some way facilitators of religious extremists because they do not go all the way over to a "naturalistic worldview, without supernatural or mystical elements". If religious moderates do give cover for religious fanatics and extremists, they should stop doing that, but it is not useful to divide the world into just two big groups, or even three. There are many more than that. Human First Whatever may be true about my beliefs, I can only approach them as a human being, in my own concrete and limited human situation. However much I may think my beliefs should be embraced by all, I must recognize that we live in a world of diverse belief systems. However dedicated I am to what I believe, I must recognize that as a human among humans I may not be seeing the whole truth and therefore a certain amount of humility is needed. We need some common ground. Basic human compassion and practicality are a good place to start. This common ground should apply to all, even people in my own group. I must have the courage to insist on at least this much. I Believe in Knowing Why I Believe Here is a belief. The belief in belief should end. That is, the belief that belief as belief has value in itself and should be protected from challenges should end. But we all have beliefs. If we didn't have beliefs we would be paralyzed and could not act. Our actions in the world are based on a set of beliefs that we carry around with us as guides for action. If we didn't have these beliefs, we would not be able to take a single step. So beliefs are necessary, but which beliefs? First, we need to clear up some issues with how the word "believe" is used. First, there are two main forms, "believe in" and "believe that". Let's take "believe that" first. When we say that we believe that something, we are making a truth claim. We are making a prediction that some kind of experience will happen. If this kind of belief is well tested against experience and for coherence with other beliefs that are well tested against experience, we may even venture to call it knowledge. But even here, it is subject to possible revision based on future experiences and challenges. When we say that we believe in something, it is a sort of endorsement. That is, we are recommending something as a guide for action. It might be an expression of desire. For example, "I believe in compassion" and "I believe in destruction" are both expressions of desire, that I would like to see compassion, or destruction. But I could also say that I believe in science or that I believe in a holy book. When I say I believe in science, I could simply be saying that I believe that science is a useful tool for predicting and controlling experience. Then the belief in science can be played out in the rough and tumble of concrete practice. When I say I believe in a holy book, I often mean that when it expresses desires (like rules and commands) I endorse those as a good guide for action and that when it states claims about experience, those claims will be shown to be true in actual experience. But my belief in the holy book could take a softer form. It could mean simply that it is good guide for action when interpreted within a community in particular ways. So believing in something is most often simply an endorsement of some desire or some guide for action. The reasons why we endorse it need to be made clear. The most common reason is because authorities such as our parents or community leaders endorse it. Or it could be because "everyone" believes in it. There are many times when accepting an endorsement from someone else who we trust makes sense. But we should have reasons to believe that they have good reasons, like personal experience or expertise in a well tested set of texts. We need to be aware that the authorities in turn may only be carrying forward an endorsement from other authorities in the past. And who knows how the chain of endorsement started. Because of this weakness, the authorities sometimes claim that the endorsement chain ends with an invisible agent, and that it would be in our best interest to accept what that invisible agent says without question. This seems to combine an unverifiable claim with a threat, but it still comes down to an endorsement, "or you will be sorry". Given this situation it is tempting to say that it is always wrong to believe anything without good evidence. We should just suspend judgment until enough evidence is in. This is a good conservative policy for minimizing errors and extreme actions. Because once we loosen the connection to justification, history has shown that people may be "guided" to some truly terrible acts. On the other hand, if we were to really suspend judgment on all beliefs until all the evidence is in, we could become paralyzed and unable to act. Sometimes we need to make working assumptions and just act. But there is danger here of doing something truly unfortunate based on just a working assumption. So here is my recommendation: Know what degree of justification your beliefs have and give greater priority to beliefs that are well justified. Beliefs that are well tested against experience and are coherent with other well tested beliefs have the highest justification. Then there are beliefs you get from others who you trust to have done the testing. Then there are beliefs that are at least plausible, that is, they are at least in line with more justified beliefs. It goes on from there on down to situations in which there is very little to go on but feelings and intuitions but you nonetheless have a real need to act and must make working assumptions. In such cases, going with beliefs that your family and community have found useful may be the way to go, if they are not contradicted by more well justified beliefs. One more type of belief needs to be fit into this recommendation, that is, those cases where "believe in" is an expression of desire, like "I believe in compassion". There is no way to test desires directly against experience. Here is where a working assumption is needed. I assume that most people want some basic things, like survival, enjoyment, and group membership. Since I also share these basic desires, I justify my desires by how well they help meet these most basic desires. This usefulness then becomes an empirical question, and I feel justified in saying that a belief in compassion is much more justified than a belief in destruction. Now how justified is this recommendation itself? That depends on goals. Why do I feel the need to make such a recommendation? I feel such a need because of the problems that belief can cause. This has become all to painfully evident recently with suicide bombers, but belief has always been a problem, preventing systematic investigation, limiting freedom, and fomenting violence. In particular, religious belief has had a very mixed record. The recommendation from such books as The End of Faith by Sam Harris, Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett, and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is to end belief that cannot be well tested. So in the range of justification I describe above, they would say that we should just do away with belief beyond some point when the justification becomes too weak. They would justify this recommendation by pointing to all the harm that such unjustified or weakly justified beliefs do. So, for example, they are critical of the so called religious moderate. I would define a religious moderate as someone who in effect takes my recommendation in that they do allow themselves some weakly justified beliefs because of their strong intuition that there is something more and a strong need to explore that something more, but they would give preference to better justified beliefs in concrete action. For example, basic human compassion and practicality would prevent them from bombing innocent people because of their beliefs. Now I may be overstating their case a little. Probably, it would be more correct to say that my recommedation would be more in line with the approach of religous liberals, but I would also claim that religous moderates operationally follow the recommendation even if they do not want to admit or recognize the weak justification their treasured religious beliefs may have. So the justification for my recommendation is a "don't throw out the baby with the bath water" justification. I largely accept the arguments of these authors for the human nature of religion and the potential harm of religious belief. But I do not think that we need to do away with religion to reduce the dangers of religion. We just need to know what we are doing when we accept beliefs that do not have good empirical justification and why we are doing it - because we want to explore and be open to the "something more" and because of the good that comes from religion. But at the same time we recognize the dangers and make sure we give preference in action to the beliefs that are better rooted and grounded in our common human experience. Postmaterialist Proverbs Beyond a basic economic foundation, consumption is optional. Success is earning our economic foundation doing what we want to do, or earning that foundation in less and less time. Success is more time to do what we want rather than more things. Time is our greatest possession. There is great freedom in not caring what other people think you should have. Buy this! I don't think so. Buy this now! I think I'll wait. Buy! Buy! Buy! I'll decide what I really want and need. Marketing can't be escaped, but it can be laughed at. Question messages. If manipulation does not work, marketers will resort to information. Literalize marketing messages. Shopping is problem solving. Thrift is rebellion. Efficiency for materials, carnival for cultures. Growth areas for the futurist: efficient technologies, quality basics, enabling tools for the masses, non-material culture. A liberal democratic market system must ultimately follow votes and demand. There is no other place to go. Other systems always devolve to control by the few. And we can't trust the few. No great revolution, many small revolutions. Not top down, bottom up. Not force, choice. Change demand and the system will follow. Assign the true total cost to products. We need to give the machine something else to crank on. Social Pragmatism We are limited to various configurations of language, experience, and desire. No one has any inherent authority over anyone else. Define basic freedom as not being subjected to force or fraud and effective freedom as having the resources to do something. Having authority then means the right to limit the basic or effective freedom of others. Since no one has any inherent authority over anyone else, no one has the right to limit the basic or effective freedom of others. On the other hand, no one has the right to demand their rights from others since rights are not inherent, but are defined within a social context. This situation naturally leads to conflict and inefficiency, so we need a social contract. Rights can be defined and protected only within the context of a social contract. Maximum basic freedom and adequate effective freedom for all seems like a reasonable compromise. However, effective freedom can reduce the basic freedom of others if it is accomplished by forcing them do something they don't want to do. Ideally, effective freedom will come if basic freedom is emphasized and people find their own ways to do what they want without interfering with others. But adequate effective freedom needs to remain in the social contract in case this does not work in some cases. Transitions to greater basic freedom need to emphasize the protection of individuals from force and fraud, especially from powerful economic interests, the creation of true free markets by eliminating corporate subsidies and providing adequate information to consumers, and cushioning the impact of the changes on the weak and the poor. Politics is finding the least objectionable practical means to implement a social contract. World Peace Peace requires at least a minimum of agreement. We must investigate our common reality without bias or imitation so hopefully we will converge on some common knowledge. We must have a strong dedication to the unity of the human family, a unity that allows for and celebrates diversity. Religion must play its central role as a force for compassion and fellowship, not conflict and hatred. Religion and science must not waste time and effort in conflict with each other. Prejudice of all kinds must be eliminated so that we can get to know each other with open minds and hearts. The rich must voluntarily help the poor, to reduce conflicts caused by greed and despair. We must assure the equality of men and women and equal rights for all people. We must have a common secondary language so that we can all understand each other. We must encourage education at all levels both as a means of wealth creation and of mutual understanding. We must have a mechanism for global collective security that can enforce peaceful conflict resolution and prevent any nation from attacking another. What I Have Learned We each find ourselves in our own concrete human situation. It seems to be various configurations of language, experience, and desire. Our life seems to be a sequence of such configurations. We find ourselves dependent on each other and on our natural environment. And yet we are free and must choose. We fear our freedom and our dependency and seek security in systems. And yet systems often fail us and seem arbitrary and absurd. So we test our systems and patch them and make them better. Or we wage war against anything that seems to endanger our favorite system. Or we make our solitary way, gaming the systems we have no say in. We need playfulness to set the wisdom of our systems free. We need tested texts that we can rely on until we get something better. We need a balance of freedom and mutual assistance. Noir Code I am trapped here. I have no control of my world. Power is an accident, but it can hurt you. I don't respect authority. I am not cowed. I am free, though forced to be free. I sympathize with the others. I respect freedom. I help the weak. I resist slavery. I deceive the slave masters. But I am alone, I can't rely on them. I am detached, ironic, self-contained. I am shaky, neurotic, eccentric. I don't care what you think of me. I offer my services. I am good at what I do. I take pride in it. I follow my own private contract. I don't explain myself. Think of me as a tool. I doubt I will be treated fairly. I prepare for trouble. I am trapped here. I have no control of my world. I plan my escape. The Casualist Conspiracy This may be the most pervasive movement you have never heard of, by design. The Casualists are conducting an "invisible revolution", at least their part in it is invisible to most of us. They don't want to stand out, or even be noticed. They are just there, hidden in plain sight. Casualists operate, like many underground movements, as a loose confederation of independent cells, with no central coordination, although their cell meetings may appear to be just dinner parties, or reading groups, or fishing trips. They rarely explain themselves. They appear to conform through a process of "conversational blending". They see much of social interaction as just linguistic practices. They play their role and don't see a need for their role to match precisely their own inner beliefs. These social rituals are to them just tokens of group membership, of friendliness toward people, most of whom they like and sympathize with. They are postmaterialist, postideological, pragmatic individualists. They value freedom for themselves and for others. They are also master manipulators of the memesphere, often operating through proxies, who are glad to make some noise while the Casualists look indulgently on, maintaining their operative stance, their ironic distance from the true believers. As postmaterialists, they are not much motivated by money or possessions. They may be rich or poor, depending on their circumstances, although most are somewhere in the middle. They see work as simply a means to an end and seek to do "just enough", although they may have their own projects and enthusiasms that happen to overlap with their work. Their origins are somewhat obscure. Some may see them as a kind of genetic subspecies, but their differences are best explained as the result of a distinct, self-replicating subculture, extending back into prehistory. They are not just a personality type, since they show evidence of group action. Neither are they a secret society, although it is believed that they may have resorted to that in some particularly difficult historical periods. In each generation, they keep watch for candidates to recruit into their cells, and within that context they pass on their goals and methods. What do they want? Just for their subculture to survive and spread to receptive candidates. As for the others, they leave them alone, intervening in the background only when needed to diffuse the most dangerous and fanatical, playing them if necessary, befriending them if possible, and hoping for everyone to just calm down and enjoy life. The Three Freedoms No one has any inherent authority over anyone else, so no one is justified in initiating force against anyone else. We are free, only limited by the freedom of others. We are free to choose whatever way of life we want as long as we don't use force on others. We are free to associate or not associate with others as long as these associations are voluntary. We are free to access the natural resources we need as long as we don't prevent others, including future generations, from accessing the resources they need. That is, we each have three basic freedoms, personal freedom, social freedom, and natural freedom. Expressed in terms of ownership, we each own our own person, life, and work, and we own what we acquire through voluntary exchanges with others, but no one owns nature, or alternatively, we all have equal ownership of nature. This seems like a reasonable theoretical starting place, but there is already a lot of history behind us that strongly influences any practical starting place. We have to find a transition that takes this into account and does not make matters worse. One compromise would be to respect current patterns of ownership while at the same time taxing the use of natural resources beyond subsistence use and using these funds to pay a basic income to each person. This compromise would be administered by an association dedicated to protecting our freedoms and managing our common natural heritage. Such an association would not require members to agree on any particular comprehensive doctrine. A pluralism of comprehensive doctrines can work as long as there is an overlap that respects the personal, social, and natural freedom of others and allows for pragmatic problem solving within a minimally common region of language, experience, and desire. But even this level of compromise will likely be a long time coming, so in the mean time it would be good to support policies that protect and expand freedom, that protect natural resources and move toward taxing their use, and that provide parts of a basic income to each person, such as health care, education, and a basic economic safety net. The Liberal Spectrum Comprehensive Liberalism - maximum personal, social, and natural freedom consistent with the same freedom for others (AKA Left Libertarianism) Egalitarian Liberalism - maximum personal and social freedom consistent with the same freedom for others and with equal opportunity and equal access to the basics of life Classical Liberalism - maximum personal and social freedom consistent with the same freedom for others and with private ownership of nature justified by theories of original appropriation (AKA Libertarianism or Right Libertarianism) Conservatism - maximum personal and social freedom consistent with the same freedom for others and with selected traditional or religious values and usually with private ownership of nature Egalitarian Authoritarianism - extensive limitations on freedom justified by the goal of maximum social and economic equality (AKA State Socialism or Communism) Comprehensive Authoritarianism - extensive to complete limitations on freedom in submission to a selected center of authority, sometimes benevolent, but often not (Fascism, Monarchy, Theocracy, etc.) Work and Freedom Work is the expenditure of energy over time. Our life is a sequence of configurations of language, experience, and desire that takes energy to sustain. So a fundamental fact of life is that we need to take in at least as much energy as we consume. Food is our energy source. Clothing, heat, and shelter help us to conserve our energy and to protect our body from damage. The simplest form of work is hunting and gathering, when we have direct access to natural resources that can be converted directly to our use for survival. We can usually save up some resources either in our body, in artifacts that we created before, or in food caches. This allows us times where we are free from the need to work. We are still expending energy over time, but we are doing what we want, so it is not work in the sense that we usually use the term. Subsistence agriculture does not change this situation much. We still have direct access to the resources that we work with to produce what we need to live. The situation begins to change as trade becomes more important. We start to exchange some of what we have produced with others. Some people become specialized and removed from the basic resources they need to survive. They only get them through exchanges with primary producers. Still, they do have the option to go "back to the farm" if they cannot survive by selling their specialized products and services. But eventually we get to the situation where the option of going back to primary production is no longer there. We are totally dependent on the market to sell our products and services. By this time the value of past production is often stored as money. Add to this a situation in which all the land is owned, that is, the use of land is the exclusive right of certain landlords, then we have to pay rent just to have the resources to survive off the land. Or we can move totally away from primary production and either become a trader, a craftsman, or a paid worker. Traders and craftsman make their money by selling something. A paid worker sells their own time. A paid worker can provide temporary services or they can enter into a longer term contract called employment. Under employment, the worker agrees to provide ongoing services to an employer that change over time such that the employer becomes the worker's "master" or "boss". This differs from simple slavery in that the employee is actually paid, is free to leave the employment, and is otherwise free from the employer on their own time. Also, the employer is the master only for certain specified employment related matters. But if the reality is that the worker has no choice but to give a large part of their life to the employer, then we enter into the territory of wage slavery. The worker does not have the option to go back to the farm. They must work in the "satanic mills" to survive. If the worker has skills that are in demand, then they have more options. Their working conditions will likely be better and they will make enough to save and perhaps have periods where they don't have to work. Maybe they can invest some of that savings or be able to use some of their own time to produce something that they own and sell. Thus they can become more free. But even for the skilled employee, employment is often just a gilded cage. They are still in fact wage slaves, however fancy their surroundings. We have always had to work to survive. It is still true unless we are retired, have inherited wealth, or get others to do our work for us. So work is a fundamental part of life. The two main problems now are the slavery of employment and the uncertainties of the market. We have to learn to be a happy wage slave, and the market conditions may be such that we don't even have that option, due to unemployment. An obvious strategy is to get skills and education so that we can be paid more and have a little more job security. The next strategy is to save and invest wisely. Finally, we need some strategies to be happy slaves, since "back to the land" is not going to work for most of us. Here are some ideas. Be in a position to walk away. It is important to have an adequate emergency fund so that you can always walk away and look for another job. This is also important to buffer involuntary periods of unemployment. It is also good to be in a position to scale back and get by on less. Position the boss as a priority setter. In fact, most bosses are just wage slaves like you. Don't accept them as a master or think of them as an authority figure you have to please. They just provide an input that you need, assignments and what order to do them in. Maintain your value. It is important to keep your skills current and to learn new skills. Also, you need to do enough so that it would be expensive, or at least a hassle, to replace you. Accept your limits. You just have to do a good enough job, not a perfect job. Realize that others who might replace you aren't perfect either. Protect your free time. Find ways to make sure that the job doesn't take over your life. Try to work normal hours, although this can get hard when there is an arms race for longer hours. Pretend you like it. Try to develop a positive attitude about the work itself. Find something you like about it. If you are lucky, you may actually love your work. Think of it as an important service to the community. Pretend you are free. Imagine that this is your last week or month, or that you are just working here for a while, but you don't have to. Just don't actually believe it. Keep your own council. There is no need to complain or spread around your ideas about work. You are there for a specific purpose. Be positive and friendly. At least you may enjoy the company of your fellow wage slaves. Comprehensive Liberalism
Non-aggression
Self-ownership
Joint ownership of nature
Joint ownership of community created resources
Pragmatism
Mixed economy Simple Liberalism Maximum freedom consistent with the same freedom for all. Private property in exchange for a social minimum for all. Mixed economy of profit driven markets and state regulation. Rule by a liberal democratic state. Justifications for Redistribution
Effective Freedom
Fair Social Contract
Rectification of Ownership
Rectification of Disadvantage
Defusing Revolution
Morality At the End of All Struggle At the end of all struggle, at the end of philosophy, at the end of history, lies the broad, bland patchwork of liberal pragmatism. To the rich: We will let you keep most of what you have. You can play the percentages. You can hire people to cloth your interests in high sounding words. But really, for whatever reason, you need to give some back. To the poor: We won't leave you to starve. You will have the basics. You will have opportunity. You won't rule, but some of you may rule or at least get rich. To the fanatics: You may be right, but you have to see that many will continue to disagree. Pursue your vision, but let others be. Live and let live. Non-aggression is the best policy. To the utopians: You can't force people. They have to come to it on their own. And you can build your alternative structures within the framework of the old. Get busy, but be peaceful. To the young rebels: You will always find something to outrage your elders. Have at it, but let others be. Don't harm anyone. They have their own paths to follow. And we will sell you the artifacts of your rebellion. To the dreamers: Go ahead and pursue your dreams, but don't expect others to give you a free ride. It's your dream. Sell them, but you can't make them believers. To the tyrants: There is even room for you. Start a company. But unfortunately you won't be able to force people to work for you. To the people: We are for you. Do what you want as long as you allow the same for others. Be practical in public problem solving, but otherwise it's all up to you. To future generations: We will get it together. We will find the technology. We will change our ways. We will leave you a decent place to live. To the liberals: We need to continue the story of freedom. We need to live up to this stuff. Otherwise, the fanatics and the tyrants will grow stronger and tear our toy house down. Our power is in co-option. Market Rules
Private Property
Common Property
Product Information
Product Alternatives
Resource Sustainability
Redistribution
Freedom Utopian Overlay
Actors
Associations of Actors
Principles
Trends
Pull the Other One The Way of the Partial Believer
Ambiguity
Motivation
Mappings
Partitioning
Tact
Evasion
Marginality The Fundamental Mystery I am a configuration of language, experience, and desire. My life is a sequence of such configurations. My experiences are represented as texts and stored in my memory. My inner life consists largely of replaying and recombining these stored texts. My outer life consists largely of taking in and reacting to new experiences. My outer life seems to be dependent on my physical body. It is not clear whether some of my inner life could be independent of my body. It is not clear if I could interact with others without my body. Life without a physical body could mean life as an energy pattern. It is not clear how such an energy pattern would persist or interact with its environment. But from my perspective as a configuration, I cannot rule it out. My experience of a body is just another experience. It could be that my life continues as an energy pattern after the death of my body. Perhaps this energy pattern operates new bodies of different types from time to time. Some people claim memories of such things, but they may be just recombining texts. Cela's Symposia "What are you thinking about now?" Cela asked. "About whether liberal pragmatism is the end of history," he said, not looking up. "No, you aren't," she corrected. "About whether markets make everything a consumer choice." "Not that either." He smiled at her warmly. "About my daughter." "You have a daughter?" "Oh, yes." And he looked down again. She left him to it. He was in one of his moods. George was frequently in one of his moods, and there was not much to do but let him be.
**
George walked down the sidewalk in front of the line of shops in the small town down town. The deli. The wine shop. The comic book store. The save-the-earth shop. On down to Holly Springs Cafe. The bell rang as he entered. He found an open table and sat down. He was a small man, round in the middle, with shaggy brown hair and old, worn cloths. "Hello there," said Molly, as she came over with a menu. "Good morning," he chimed, with a smile. Molly left him to consider his options. Cela swished by in her earth mother skirts and gave him a little wave. He nodded, and smiled. He liked this place, but it was getting just a little too jolly. He hid behind his menu, wishing he could sink down into the earth, anonymous drops of water. His persona felt fragile. His stomach churned. "Ready to order?" Molly was back and smiling. "What the hell," he thought and played his part in the ordering ritual. As he ate he looked around. Molly and Cela were talking. He knew they were roommates. Cela was recently divorced with a 15 year old son, Jason. That was an age. He shuddered at his own memories, but then smiled despite himself. The age of discovery. Molly was back, and talkative. "I'm moving back to Delaware. Kind of leaving Cela in a bind. You know of anyone looking to share a place?" She looked a little worried. "I don't know..." George said doubtfully. "Well, there's me." Molly looked at him, a shabby little man in his late fifties. She looked over at Cela, a flustered single mother in her late thirties. She leaned over and patted George on his arm. "The time's are the times," she said.
**
Cela had been doubtful at first, but George was not messy, paid his share on time, helped out with little man tasks occasionally. She didn't want to admit there were man tasks, but there were things she just didn't like doing, didn't want to learn, and didn't like paying for. George was usually absorbed in his own incomprehensible projects, most of which seemed to involve pecking away on a strange little laptop, seemingly kept together with duct tape, assembled by a friend of his from scavenged parts of various broken machines. He had his odd mannerisms and moods, thrift store wardrobe, and other peculiarities like addressing the TV as Sir Video Mouth and Keeper of the Corporate Inventory, and getting indignant at Mr. Tele's pushy responses. But he was harmless and gave her a little chuckle now and again. Which God knows she could use. Eventually he just seemed like he belonged there. Jason didn't seem to mind him, and she did need the money. Paulie didn't contribute anything not "required by law", old letter of the law Paul. But she had to admit he wasn't that bad of an absentee father, as absentee fathers went. The men in her life, while she looked for the new man in her life. Maybe a woman this time, she would sometimes think, and laugh out loud, and flush a little.
**
"Do you ever feel despair?" George asked. "Despair! I don't have time for despair!" Cela looked at him like he was nuts. He was always coming out of left field with stuff like this, like frantically clinging to the bottom edge of the middle class was some kind of intellectual adventure. But really she enjoyed it. An examined life, while watching Jason's soccer games. They sat in the stands. Jason was the goalie. Paul the good father was also there but down from them and to the right, shouting load encouragement. But there was something. When she happened to be confronted by a mirror, and saw her lapse from Mr. Tele's ideal. When she curled up in a ball with covers over her. When the amnesia of everyday necessity collapsed and she let the judgments in. But she knew it was all crap. She was fine, like most people. She looked at George, far from the ideal, but she didn't really think of him in those terms. He was what he was, and she liked him. "Sometimes," she said.
**
Cela plopped down next to a garden bed and started pulling weeds. The ground was wet, but the soil was rich with humus. It crumbled in her hands and was spongy when she squeezed. Little brown drops fell down. She lifted up a handful and squeezed again and brown rivulets ran down her arm. She rubbed her hands on her bare belly. She bent over and looked closely at the earth, taking in details, noticing small insects and hidden worms. She looked up, closed her eyes. The sun was warm on her face. She squinted and the light filtered through her eyelids. She laid back flat on the ground. She felt light, almost floating. She heard fluttering and looked over to a disorganized hedgerow. A redbird looked her way. She watched it fly away, followed it with her eyes. She felt dizzy and happy. She stood and stretched this way and that. A gust of wind swept down through the trees. Her skin tingled. She smiled broadly and bent down and looked back between her legs. George was standing at the corner of the house next to some honeysuckle bushes. He was still, his face rapt. She spun around. She reflexively shrunk in on herself, as if trying to hide. George suddenly looked horrified. His hands fluttered out, and he whispered something. He seemed to say, "I am not other people. I am not hell. I am not Medusa." Cela burst out laughing. She spun around and bowed. Her belly jiggled a little when she stopped. Then she skipped and flounced across the yard and into the back door of the house. George sat down in the grass like loose rags and was very still. The red bird returned and seemed to be looking at him, making him the object. He just looked back at it.
**
Dr. Buy Me a New Boat was blaring from his rectangular throne. He spoke with images of flawless, confident people in beautiful places indicating money, while at the same time quickly making excuses and deflecting liability. "Did you invite him?" asked George. "Uncle Tele? He fills my lonely hours." Cela turned the page of her magazine. Jason looked at them both like they were nuts, and switched channels. "This is our lot. As time just ticktocks along." "Yes, just left here." "Just thrown into the world." "Just dust in the wind." "I don't know about you, but I choose to be free." "Me too. What else can I do?" Jason gave them another dirty look, and marched off to his room. "Teenage angst," Cela observed.
**
George was telling a story. Cela and Jason listened intently as if he were telling a ghost story. They sat on the small deck behind the house looking out at the trees. The sky was turning a deeper blue. Soon it would be dark. "I find myself here. Before now I found myself in other situations. I am suspending my normal judgments and assumptions. I am experiencing. My experience is of a world. I am in the world, in this concrete human situation. I am here with others. I have an audience and this is in a sense a performance. But it is also just words, in a language I depend on, to communicate, but also to describe my world, to map it. "I do not perceive any danger. I am relaxed. I don't feel the need for fight or flight. For now I am not driven by any other desire than to tell my story. I like it right here. Although I did just get a mosquito bite. That makes me think that perhaps I will want to go in soon." George swatted at his arm and brushed away a buzzing little region of space and time. "I experience my life as a sequence of situations like this, of configurations of language, experience, and desire. This is how I find it useful to describe it. Some has been deeply disappointed by this description, when they decide that this is the only starting place they have. They fret about absurdity or meaninglessness. That may be so. I don't know. But it does get tiresome, to keep fretting like that. So I choose not to, and just take it as it comes." George stopped talking. Jason looked over at him with a sour look. "Where do you get this stuff?" "Reading and thinking, reading and thinking, my young apprentice." "I am not your apprentice!" "No, of course not. Quite right, young sir, quite right." George made a little bow. "OK. I have a story. School sucks. I hate math. Everyone treats me like crap. I am a freak. I don't know why I have to fit into this so-called world." "Your story sounds very much like mine." "You are so weird!" "It would be foolish to deny it." Cela finally spoke up. "Hang in there, Jason. It does get better." She swatted at a mosquito. Jason swatted at a mosquito. George swatted at a mosquito. And they all got up and went inside.
**
Mr. Tele felt so misunderstood. People have always told stories around the fire, by the flickering light. And there was always commerce. He just conveniently combined the two. People always imagined such sinister motives, such deep conspiracies. But he was just a locus of incentives, a tool of a system that simply tried to make people happy, to understand their desires and fulfill them. And in the interplay of these patterns cultures formed and were expressed. He knew that people liked him. See how they gathered around him. To many he was their best friend and confidant. He gave their minds something to form around. He provided the structure, and a window into the world. When they turned him off, the world seemed so silent and small. George sat close by and listened to him and watched him, a detective show, better yet, a scifi detective show. And all the products that would make sense of all those hours of work for those who make all those products. Here is your reward. They so misunderstood him.
**
Cela felt sick. Her own very special "concrete human situation" closed in on her. She felt constricted as if moving through an atmosphere of syrup. The bare, unadorned objects around her seemed scattered about like stones fallen from a temple. She felt rootless, helpless, hapless, set adrift on a chartless sea. Alone, disenchanted, stripped, a small shivering bundle in a vast heartless universe. People were just moving forms of dust, their motivations obscure, their eyes insectoid, or they were like empty shells as they declined her credit cards and did not accept her ID, looking at her with suspicion. Groups of children looked her way and then turned away, laughing among themselves. She felt numb, and her head buzzed. Vertigo, dizziness. She thrashed around and found no handhold as she fell through endless, hollow caverns with damp, mossy walls. And that was just in the last five minutes. "George," she muttered, and went busting down the hall toward his room. He jumped up with a startled look. The small laptop he had been reading fell to the bed. Then he just sat down on edge of the bed and waited. "What are you playing at?" Cela spit out. He just sat still and waited. She stared at him, breathing. Gradually her mood softened. She sat down on a chair next to the bed. It was like trying to stay mad at a puppy. "You asked for my story" he said mildly. "Like where you grew up, went to school, simple stuff," she said, with exasperation. He didn't say anything. "Don't you think that certain things are best left unsaid? Like death. We all know that it is there waiting. But we don't think about it. We have our lives to live." "Normally, people don't really hear me," he said. "Oh, I heard you." They sat in silence for some time. "It's like the stink your nose becomes acclimated to and you don't smell anymore," she said. "Or the air we breath," he said. "Or the small beauties like some grass moving beside the road. You never see it. Then some time you happen to notice. A certain slant of light, the bare fact of you there and the tall grass moving. And maybe you see yourself. It is not just the grass. It is you there in the bare moment, experiencing the grass moving. It can be unsettling at first. But it is just the beginning of the story."
**
Cela strolled slowly through the commons. It was early spring and the spring ephemerals were in bloom. She loved the spring beauties and on a hillside down in the ravine where a wide creek flowed was a huge patch of trillium in bloom. She stood looking up at them, happy for their arrival, more precious in that in a few weeks they would be gone. "I have choices," she said out loud. She tried to think it through. When stripped away of all the stories and assumptions she was like George, a bundle of desires tumbling through time. She has made her choices, but a lot was beyond her control. She couldn't control Paul and what he chose. She couldn't control that her English degree was so little appreciated by "market forces". Market forces, like a market was a force of nature. But too much anger lay that way. She didn't need that right now. And what about her biology and her socialized self, her language and the texts she knew and the practices that were so deeply trained into her? How much control did she really have there. Not much. But still, the fact was, she had choices. "Like Coke versus Pepsi," she grumbled under her breath. But no, there was more. She could push the boulder up the hill. She could think differently. She was in charge of her own self creation, if not the world in which she found herself. And she was responsible for what was within her control. She could also choose to just drift along. But she wanted to do it consciously. She continued up the path along the creek. Up above she could hear the waterfall. There was a little rock overhang with a bench underneath it. She went down the stairs to the bench, and there was George, like a bad penny, she thought. He was watching the waterfall. A small bleeding heart clinging to the rock a little further down seem to have his special interest. She went over and collapsed next to him. "No one else has a privileged position," he said, without looking at her. "We are all in the same boat. No one has any inherent authority over anyone else. That is just power relations, social practices. We can submit, but that is also a choice." Who talks like this? She looked over at him and smiled sweetly. "Have a nice walk?" she asked. "Oh yes, very nice weather, isn't it?" "Yes, beautiful." "I saw Paul and Jason by the spring," he said, finally looking over at her. "Ah." It was Paul's weekend with Jason. "They were going to head down the bike trail." She nodded. "My body's aching and my time is at hand," she sang. "We all live in a yellow submarine," he sang. "You really are weird," she said. "I'm downright spooky," he said in a low voice.
**
George stood in front of Dr. Demographics, at a little distance. Mr Tele was oblivious to George's name calling. He repeated, "You are this. You should be this. You want this." in various ways. Hardly ever directly, usually by example, by creating a situation for your imagination to place you in. "I am a unique person," George said. Mr. Tele had many laugh tracks, but he could not laugh directly. "No, you are a demographic. You live in a certain ZIP code. You are an example of a particular lifestyle cluster. I know you." "You don't know me," George said. "I am evolving. I adapt to time of day, to channel. You are watching this channel now. I know a lot about you. You selected it. I am going to give you more choices, personalized channels, direct access to content. Then I will know you even better. Everything important about you." "You are not a person," George said. Mr. Tele continued to speak his language of images and flashes and sounds and well chosen texts. Not so well chosen perhaps, George thought. He is evolving, but it is the blind evolution of survival. Mr. Tele is a system, not a conscious person with definite plans. "You are an artifact, more or less useful to me," George said.
**
George was sitting on the deck, leaning back, eyes closed, feeling the movement of air, listening to the leaves move and to birds and the chatter of squirrels. He heard someone sit down in the next chair, and looked over. Cela was looking at him reflectively. He sat up more straight in his chair. "Are you alright?" she asked, in the manner of someone beginning an intervention. "As right as can be expected," he said. She remained somber. "What are you thinking about?" he asked. "You and the TV. Is it telling you things? Things you should do?" He smiled at her and leaned back a little. "When I experience things, there are two poles, me and what I am experiencing, subject and object. Objects can have an affect on me, but they do not address me as a subject, as a person. Texts are a way for persons to communicate with each other. Some of that communication can have the intent of manipulating me, a lot of it, actually. There is a sort of Darwinian evolution of texts. They survive to the extent that they are used and passed on. But Sir Automaton is taking this to a whole new level. He is in hyper evolution. No, he is not telling me things. He is a medium for telling me things. He is not a person, but he has become like some hybrid entity that depends on all of us. Mostly I like him. After all, he tries to please me, to attract my attention." Cela relaxed. "Mr. Tele is an old friend, but I see what you mean. He can be somewhat manipulative. I know I eat up his images of what I should be. What my body should look like, what my house should look like, what electronics I should own. It's endless." "We have been making each other objects since the beginning, but he's the best at it so far." "It's hard not to see others as objects since we only see their bodies, watch what they do." "But we can feel sympathy for them, imagine how we would feel in their place. And isn't conversation convincing? Getting to know people." "Even so, it seems so easy to make them objects." Cela paused. "The worse thing is when we make ourselves objects. I have trouble with that. I don't like mirrors. When I come up to a door, I look down so I don't have to see my reflection." "You've internalized the other's gaze," George said.
**
Jason came busting around the corner of the house like a sullen hurricane, if there could be such a thing. He gave Cela a little nod and burst into the house. Paul followed at a more stolid pace. He nodded at Cela solemnly. "How are you?" "Fine." They both looked off to some distant place. "How was Jason?" she asked. "Oh, fine, he's having trouble in school, and with other kids, but I think he'll be fine." "Yes," she said. She gave Paul a little side glance. He was looking around at the yard, his previous domain. He was good man, she found herself thinking. They had met in college and started hanging out together. After a while they became a couple, almost by default. She always thought that they complimented each other. They formed a good partnership. He gave her what she needed, and she thought she gave him what he needed. They were gentle, even polite, courteous. They loved each other in the sense that they each wanted the best for the other, and there was a fair amount of physical chemistry between them. But they never got beyond a certain veil. They talked about family business, about Jason, about random things that interested them, gave each other an audience, and someone you didn't have to explain things to, retell your whole story. Cela was never one to demand that Paul tell her what he was thinking. There was always a sense of separateness and isolation between them. People talk about the marriage contract, and in a sense that was what they had. But the terms of the contract were never explicitly spoken. Maybe a woman looks to a man to make her feel safe, to be a partner in the material struggles of life, to share in child rearing, to be a partner in pleasure giving, to be an appreciative audience to her story, to validate her, to take her side, to be in her corner. But these things were implicit. Attraction involved these things, different in details for different people, but you just feel the attraction, maybe never articulating the reasons. Then time goes on. You change. He changes. Maybe you feel that some part of the "agreement" is not being met. But what agreement was ever stated beyond the broadest generalities? The ground has shifted. Maybe the contract can be amended? Did she see Paul as just party in a contract, a source of certain experiences? Did he see her that way? They knew each other well. They treated each other well for the most part. She signed. "How's work?" she asked. "Fine. We're opening a new office soon." "Ah," she said.
Ownership Ownership is the right to possess, use, or control. We each own our own life, person, actions, and labor. We all jointly own natural and community created resouces. Owners of labor and owners of resources jointly own products. Mixing labor is not enough to claim ownership of resources. Some may use more resources if they pay a fee to the others. Any such system must assure all access to the basics of life. How to Preserve Wealth and Power Coopt popular words and change their meaning. Equate self-ownership with great wealth. Equate small holdings with large holdings. Equate all kinds of ownership and make ownership sacred. Delay change by making small, low impact changes. Equate your proposals with the change proposals. Undermine any alternative power, like government or unions. Equate a change in the status quo with interference. Equate a change in the status quo with immorality. Equate freedom with preservation of the status quo. Equate profits and corporate interests with jobs. Fund the election of decision makers. Fund intellectuals to cloth your interests with nobility. If these intellectuals are true believers, so much the better. Position markets and private property as facts of nature. Coopt every youth rebellion and make it a lifestyle market. Fund media voices to redirect and harness discontent. Fund media to distract and entertain and to sell products. Delay, conflate, coopt, and, only when necessary, bully. Use Rights The right to use a resource for a specified period of time. What use can be made of the resource is specified. One use is to apply labor to the resource resulting in a product. The resource must be sustained during use. If so, the laborers have the exclusive right to the product. If not, then part of the value is due to the community as a fee. Scarce resources may also have a fee for those prevented from use. Improvements to land are considered products. Products and services can be freely exchanged. Money can be freely exchanged for products and services. All citizens have use rights adequate to acquire the basics of life. More extensive use rights can be acquired via use fees. Individuals benefit from this system based on their labor and initiative. But yet they don't have private property in resources. Scenario The ongoing struggle between liberalism and authoritarianism continues, but within the established liberal global framework. Authoritarianism continues its decline, but bides its time. Within liberalism, the struggle between right and left liberalism continues, one side pushing for absolute property rights, the other for partial property rights and a social minimum. There is a slow move toward a global center left consensus. The more radical liberals, right and left libertarians, continue to influence the intellectual debate, but do not gain in power. State socialism is out of the picture, but some socialist ideas on equality and property influence the center left consensus. China continues as a mix of political authoritarianism and economic liberalism, with a gradual increase in personal freedom. Industrial civilization continues its rapid use of non-renewable resources. This is slowed down some by resource use taxes, cap and trade regimes, regulations, changes in consumer habits, and by technological advances, buying some time. In parallel with this, local alternative economies that don't rely so much on the global market system slowly emerge. These help some, but are largely subsumed under the general category of consumer habits. At some point industrial civilization hits a crisis point, major crop failures, major water shortages, an energy system collapse, massive unemployment, no more social insurance payments, a breakdown of the supply chain, whatever it is. The very wealthy may be able to withdraw into enclaves, but the rest of us will really suffer or just die off. The people who are operating within the local alternative economies will have the best chance of continuing civilization. On the other hand, the adjustments to industrial civilization toward using sustainable resources and toward services that use little or no resources may delay the collapse just long enough for it to pull out and gradually reach a sustainable future. If so the local alternative economy sector will have contributed to this. And there are other even less savory possibilities, like a resurgence of authoritarianism or a total collapse and die off. So what are we to do? First, we need to continue the struggle against authoritarianism. If that is lost, the story of freedom may just end. The right and left liberals have common cause here. Second, we need to support moves in the global system toward the center left consensus. Even if the only morally justified attitude toward ownership of natural resources is joint ownership, the rich are just not going to let that happen. We need to push for what we can reasonably achieve. This means we can't turn our back on the state. We need to do what we can to minimize the damage and to work the bargain of partial property rights in exchange for a social minimum. Third, we need to do what we can to delay, or maybe even avoid, a collapse by adjusting our personal habits to reduce the damage that we do and hopefully help provide examples and vocabularies for a more sustainable life. Finally, we need to support the local alternative economies, even if it is only a coop or a community supported agriculture farm. Our localities may be the last chance for civilization if there is a collapse. And in any case, buying local does reduce energy costs and has many other advantages. Otsuka's Utopia We start from natural rights independent of any hypothetical contract. We each have the right to full ownership of our life, body, mind, and labor. We each have the right to acquire unowned parts of the world subject to a Lockean proviso. That is, we must leave as much and as good for others, including future generations. The best version of this proviso is equal opportunity for welfare. Disabled people get enough resources to trade for their welfare. Others get enough to achieve welfare by applying their labor. It is possible for those who work hard and are lucky to become rich. But at death whatever we own must go back to an unowned status. We have a right to self defense and to protect our property. We can voluntarily transfer some of these rights to a government. Governments require the consent of the governed. This consent requires a pluralism of political societies to choose from. Or we can secede and form our own individual monity. Members of a political society could choose an illiberal system. But it must be voluntary and children on adulthood must be able to move where they choose. The various localities will need to transfer some rights to a larger political framework. This is needed mainly to adjudicate disputes between localities. Laws and constitutions should periodically lapse to allow the true consent of the living. See Libertarianism without Inequality by Michael Otsuka. A Political Spectrum
Direct Liberalism
Basic Freedoms
Justification of Basic Freedoms
Resource Use Inventory
Resource Values
Allocation of Resources
People Are Not Resources
Products and Services
Product Values
Industrial Production
Legitimate Taxation
Basic Income
Self Government
Policies
Conservation and Correction
Revolution and Resistance Anarchism
Seek both freedom and equality
Replace property
Replace the state
Build the new within the old A Visit to a Future In many ways their world is very similar to our world. People live in houses and apartments with others or alone. They work and learn. They read, watch videos, play music. There is something like the Internet, but it just blends into the background. It is a tool like a hammer. They have parties, sports, walks in the woods. They have romances. Hearts are broken. Some people are driven to succeed. Some do just enough to get by. Just getting by is somewhat easier. Success is a somewhat harder. Just getting by is easier because natural resources are essentially free since everyone has an equal freedom to use them. It is considered a mark of great shame to use too much or not sustainably. Housing doesn't cost much. A house is passed along when people move on or die. They are mostly relatively small and built from prefab components. Some are hand made, but that is rare. Increasingly, they are grown. There are many kinds of jobs, like in our world, but people tend to work at a variety of jobs. In some ways life seems less high tech than in our time. Since wars of acquisition have become almost unheard of, the drive for new dangerous toys is not that great. There is a great deal of attention to how to make life easier and better. Nature is allowed to work for them. They know a lot and want to learn more, but as we used to say, they work smarter, not harder. People walk a lot and ride various human powered contraptions. There are high speed pods on magnetic tracks and something like balloons that get pushed along by the jet streams. There are a few space elevators, but space travel hasn't got as far as you would think. Which brings me back to their ideas about success. People have a place to live, usually pretty nice, with nature around. Everyone has their prized possessions and access to the tools of their trades or their hobbies. But beyond that they don't have much or want much. The real glory comes from personal accomplishment in whatever area they choose, in sports, art, science, engineering, hobbies. Problem solvers are especially glorified. Permaculture designers are demigods. The guy that first figured out the low labor permaculture system used in the temperate climates is almost worshiped. Social facilitators are also highly regarded. Someone who can defuse a potentially violent situation or help some coop workgroup resolve their issues is always looked up to. There is still very much of a need for such things, because people are people, despite living without anything like a state for over a hundred years. In some ways it is a culture of eccentrics. People very much go their own way and have their own, often weird, ideas and quests. But there is not much disagreement on the fundamental rudeness of interfering with someone else's life or the insanity of the old idea that nature can be divided up and owned. At most they see themselves as borrowing some part of it to live their lives. And they would feel humiliated if they were not able to leave it in good shape for the next person. An Anarchy
The Basic Needs Store
The Reciprocal Exchange
Free Association Simple Anarchism Equal freedom from interference and equal freedom to use natural resources. Replace private property with use rights and the right to our complete labor. Replace corporations with self-employment, cooperatives, and collectives. Replace the state with mutual aid and voluntary associations. Completing Liberalism Liberalism began as a movement to gain freedom from arbitrary authority and inherited privilege. It was especially embraced by merchants and artisans and by religious nonconformists, so certain freedoms were initially emphasized over others. But also from the beginning property and government were seen as special problems for freedom that needed to be explained and justified. Since then the history of liberalism has been to expand freedom into more areas and to more people. Freedom has a logic of its own that presses forward. It is now time to complete liberalism and to face up to the complete implications of freedom.
Replace unlimited property with use based property
Replace contrived money with labor based money
Replace corporations with cooperatives
Replace permission with freedom
Replace top-down with bottom-up
Replace big science with basic needs science Liberal Pragmatism Language, experience, and desire. Freedom, use, and reciprocity.
Explanation |
Copyright © 1999-2010 Ronald Tower (All rights reserved) | |||||