[FRIAM] [SPAM] Re: [[Narcissism Again]again]

[Eric Charles]

"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
<echarles at american.edu>

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Eric Smith <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
> 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/f09df8d0/attachment-0002.html>