[FRIAM] [SPAM] Re: [[Narcissism Again]again]
Steven A Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Sun Jan 29 11:56:24 EST 2017
Eric -
I appreciate your point here. I think the problem in *all* of our
"culture wars" is not that one side is evil and the other must fight and
defeat them, but that there is a schism in "Ways of Knowing" which,
while unresolved, will lead to a schism in "Knowing" itself.
I was raised in "two cultures".
My nuclear family and community were very conservative and rural in
nature. They believed in hard work every day, self-denial (to some
extent) for the greater good, and many had one version or another of a
Bible in their house and in their place of worship, but few (if any)
carried or quoted the Bible in everyday life. One of my best friends
fathers was a lay preacher but until I went with them for him to give a
sermon to a tiny congregation an hour's drive away, I had NO idea they
were particularly religious, but his sermon was well formed, articulated
and he was charismatic. By day he was a skilled timber-scaler,
measuring mostly by eye, how much timber was going to come out of the
trees as they marked them for cutting in the forest. He was a very good
father and husband. What I suppose people like to call "salt of the
earth".
I entered middle-school (then Jr. High) in a still conservative and
extractive-industry town, but large enough to have a few (more) free
thinkers, and it WAS the end of the 60's with lots of consciousness
about war, race, gender in the air. I had been so isolated (no radio
or TV reception, very little newspapers beyond the monthly "roundup
report" and only *some* magazines (Natl Geo, Life, Reader's Digest,
Farmer's Almanac). So the "big world" landed hard on me, but mostly
in a "good way". It took me most of 10 years past that point to
reframe my world according to the *bigger* world. It helped that I was
a DJ at the local small-time radio station for several years and *had
to* listen to a LOT of network programming as a consequence. I didn't
produce any local news myself to speak of but I *did* have to read it on
air and realized that a lot of what I was "saying" was a convenient
falsehood that fit the local (small town) aesthetic. I also realized
that among the several networks we had on the wire for direct broadcast
and record/rebroadcast that there were *some* discrepancies in the
"facts", or more to the point, as you bring up, the "perspective". I
took to firing up my parent's antique Zenith "WaveMagnet" radio after
work and falling asleep to the BBC which not only had funny "voices" but
also had an entirely (to my parochial ears) different "Voice". When
they canceled draft registration a few months before I turned 18, I
decided not to leave my country of origin permanently (as planned) but
rather to take the money I'd saved up and go to a *real University*
rather than the local Community College as *most* of my fellow A/B
students had planned. The C/D students (80%) weren't even considering
higher education, and sadly none were planning any adventures in the big
world either. My 10 year reunion was very sad, to see where *most* of
them had (not) gone with their lives. I'm pretty sure most of them are
still rooting for Trump, even though his policies and attitudes are
going to hurt THEM a lot more than me.
My point, I suppose, is merely to reinforce what you said... and maybe
add, that the rhetoric of the Right is heavily invested in "Facts" and
"Truth", and even though *we* might see right through how those facts
are cherry picked and the truth distorted (from our perspective), that
doesn't mean they aren't earnest. Trump supporters are nothing if not
earnest!
- Steve
On 1/28/17 11:59 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> "2. But I read Nick as saying that The Problem, and the central
> accomplishment of the Right, has been to install this shift in
> position as a feature of the population.... That is what worries me,
> and drives a sense of urgency to fix a problem I do not know how to
> fix because I don’t understand how it can exist, much less be
> ascendent or robust. It’s not the same as losing piety or losing god
> (loss of mere cultural luxuries), to lose the sense of factual truth
> as something larger than one’s own petit ambitions or the scope of the
> tribe. "
>
> Ah, but here is the rub, isn't it? It is not the central
> accomplishment of the Right. Tough men have always had a place, and
> "might makes right" is hardly new. The assault on Truth over the past
> 70 years or so has been lead primarily by people who describe
> themselves as liberals, in the name of reducing "cultural hegemony"
> and "colonialism". In that context, the WWII rhetoric about "Jewish
> science" vs. "German science", is not easy to distinguish in effect
> from modern rhetoric about "feminist politics" vs "the patriarchy." In
> both cases it is asserted that Truth is not primary, but rather that
> Ways of Knowing are primary. What Dewey had was a method of working
> towards the truth, and as soon as we cannot agree upon a method, we're
> in trouble.
>
> Though they have some trouble with consistency, it is the Right that
> has been fighting for "truth" as a central concept much more reliably
> than the Left. They may seek it in bibles or successful businessmen,
> but their boots-on-the-ground believe Truth is out there. It would be
> hard to say the same for those on the left. Even the things they claim
> to most strongly believe, they will typically drop in an instant if
> faced with an assertion from another culture, or from someone with
> multiple "victim" traits. The "your place is to listen" rhetoric, in
> which claims regarding individual experience trump data, but only when
> those claims are made by individuals from a "marginalized" group,
> cannot possibly be compatible with Dewey's approach.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------
> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
> Supervisory Survey Statistician
> U.S. Marine Corps
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu
> <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu>> wrote:
>
> Thank you for forwarding this Owen,
>
> I didn’t receive the original.
>
> > So. Let me just share one thought. I have said a hundred times
> that I think the great achievement of the Right in my life time
> has been to problematize (Ugh!) the Deweyan consensus of the
> 1950’s One of the elements of that consensus was that there is a
> truth of most matters and if we gather inclusively, talk calmly,
> reason closely, study carefully, investigate rigorously, we will,
> together , come to it. What was, at the time of my coming of age,
> the shared foundation of argument, became over last 50 years, a
> position in the argument. The alternative to this Deweyan
> position seems to be something like, “There is no truth of the
> matter; there is only the exercise of power. He who wins the
> argument, by whatever means, wins the truth. Truth is not
> something that is arrived at; it is won.”
> >
> > So, if we are going to counter Trump, it cannot be by demonstrating that he lies. It has to be
> by demonstrating that liars don’t win.
>
> Nick, with the little clipping (done above) of what felt to me
> like a digression within this gem, it seems to me perfect. It is
> the return to a clear focus on the center of the problem that I
> have been looking for and not been able to express.
>
> The thing is (acknowledging Marcus’s replies also, and the ensuing
> discussion of the scoping of the claim):
>
> 1. Regarding trump itself, I don’t care about it except as I would
> care if someone told me a vial of Marburg virus had been spilled
> on the kitchen floor. I would feel a sense of urgency to get a
> strong disinfectant to try somehow to scrub it out. If I felt I
> couldn’t get rid of it short of cutting out and replacing a part
> of the floor, that would be within bounds of the discussion. etc.
> at that level. I care a little more about several of the craven
> rats in the congress, enough to be angry at them, but again they
> can go into the autoclave with my blessing, and not much more
> interest than that. (I believe this is what the NYT editorial
> called the dehumanizing motive of contempt, and argued is a bad
> choice; it feels to me like they have more than earned the
> category on their own.)
>
> 2. But I read Nick as saying that The Problem, and the central
> accomplishment of the Right, has been to install this shift in
> position as a feature of the population and whatever one calls the
> “culture” of this (and probably several other) nation(s). That is
> what worries me, and drives a sense of urgency to fix a problem I
> do not know how to fix because I don’t understand how it can
> exist, much less be ascendent or robust. It’s not the same as
> losing piety or losing god (loss of mere cultural luxuries), to
> lose the sense of factual truth as something larger than one’s own
> petit ambitions or the scope of the tribe. In a big and
> complicated world where people have the impact they do, losing the
> factual sense of truth is commitment to an undignified form of
> suicide (emphasis on undignified, otherwise do as you like),
> alongside a lot of other -cides that are not morally defensible in
> any terms. To have arrived at a large number of people who have
> managed to somehow get on the wrong side of this point requires a
> kind of blindness that it is hard to see how to break through. The
> “demonstration that liars don’t win” is to be a demonstration to
> them (as I read Nick), to somehow flush out the narcotic that has
> them in this bizarre non-mental state, and make room for the
> common sense they routinely use when (for instance) not sticking
> their hands into the kitchen broiler or diving head-first onto the
> back patio, to again become the driver of decisions.
>
> Any animal (that has a brain) has a part of its brain that is
> subservient to the consistency of nature that we call fact
> (filtered and processed, of course, but I claim still the point
> stands). The heavily social animals start to develop bigger
> veneers in which power starts to become a major motivator, and
> partitions tasks with those motivated by an awareness of fact.
> But even as socialized as people are, as long as they are not
> self-mutilators in a clinical sense, that part still seems no
> bigger than a veneer. Somehow it seems that cultures can, over
> decades, perform enough decadance that the scope of control of the
> veneer balloons and that pattern gets both frozen in to behavior
> and reified in a lot of constructed cultural supports. What is
> the manual for the needed task of jointly tearing out what needs
> it, and re-building what has been built wrongly?
>
> Eric
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170129/b90891db/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list