from stevenson and before (0.00 / 0)

the nation has always been afraid of intellectuals and gravitated toward the opposite for president except in a few instances, and in those cases there usually was an economic crisis that made that possible.

the american voter loves the every person so much they are almost angry and vile toward those that are considered thinkers and intellectual, that is a recipe for disaster for any nation but especially for a democracy.

mccain makes gwb seem level headed compared to his shooting from the gut decision making acumen. could obama get elected if all the stars weren't aligned properly, probably not, which in my opinion doesn't bode well for the future of our democracy, unless the electorate completely changes its affinity for joe the plumber types as its role model for its leaders.

---

by: pc @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM CDT

On Discontented Civilizations (0.00 / 0)

Why have the children of the Enlightenment always been so beleaguered? It's our own fault, at least in part. We unquestioningly accepted logos as an alternative to mythos, and a superior one at that. For a long time, we ignored all evidence to the contrary, so determined were we to avoid being hag-ridden by priests and superstitions -- and nearly perished as a result.

Think of the examples of our consternation:

1. Goethe looks at the young von Kleist's play; Das nenne ich Krankheit, the august gentleman says. (He wasn't exactly wrong, but....)

2. Until Levi-Strauss, no inheritor of the Enlightenment could seem to grasp the pre-literate, so-called primitive consciousness, which was clearly capable of some amazingly intricate and successful interactions with the world, without what we would recognize as rationality, and, for the most part, without any physical record of what previous generations had accomplished. (Why do they put those masks on and dance. Did it have something to do with Nietzsche?)

3. Why, oh why did those cultured, well-educated Germans suddenly go crazy, and take half the world down with them?

4. Oppenheimer makes an atomic bomb, then quotes Hindu scripture. Szilard takes up where he left off.

4. Mutually Assured Destruction. (Just relax, we know what we're doing.)

5. College students flock to Zen, or the Ramayana. (Or, give up entirely, and give their hearts to Jesus.)

6. Oliver Sacks.

7. And finally, Sarah Palin. (No, you can't come out now. It still isn't safe.)

So, Paul, when are we finaly going to come up with a clear-eyed, fully integrated model of human consciousness, and how long will it take to reach the moose-shooters? Do we have the time?

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:03:48 PM CDT

The Good News (4.00 / 1)

As I see it is that we don't need to "come up with a clear-eyed, fully integrated model of human consciousness".  We've got a good enough idea already.  What we need to do is act more consistently and resolutely based on what we already know.

Time for Enlightenment 2.0, IMHO.  Now with mythos as well as logos.

As I said, the problem is not inherently with either one of them.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm with you in Rockland, Paul.... (0.00 / 0)

Well, it's at least moderately good news, I grant you, even with that tricky word inherent lurking somewhat innocently in your formulation. On the other hand, we might yet be faced with a world consigned once again to the flames, and the likes of us hiding in latter-day scriptoria, trying to squirrel away for the future all that stuff we've learned since the last Dark Age.

Two steps forward, one step back, right?

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:37:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Canticle For Liebowitz, Indeed (0.00 / 0)

One of my favorite books as a teenager.  More big-picture than 1984, I thought.  Not to diss Orwell in any way.  Just... you know. This:

we might yet be faced with a world consigned once again to the flames,

just seemed like such an obvious eventuality if we don't stop those jerkwads.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 13:18:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Teenagers, jeez.... (0.00 / 0)

Well, I was 13 when I first read 1984. The removal of the red sash of the Junior Anti-Sex League, and what came afterward, aroused me far more than all that other stuff which somehow, despite the titillating bits, oppressed my mood for days afterward. Orwell haunted me -- one of many such hauntings which seems to have defined my adolescence.

And to think that in the middle of that odd, private, floating world, I actually went out for football. (Only in America.) In what confessional does one receive absolution for a culturally necessary schizophrenia?

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 14:16:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This Will Do (0.00 / 0)

In what confessional does one receive absolution for a culturally necessary schizophrenia?

Go and sin no more, my son.  For if you do, I'm sure as shootin' not going to help you limp home with your bum knee at our age.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 16:34:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

;-) (0.00 / 0)

Well said, commendatore, well said.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 16:44:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suppose that someone should point out here (0.00 / 0)

that one of the biggest obstacles to true left hegemony is the fact that we have problems with myth. Our great cultural heroes are human, not saints. We like our great men to be men, and hagiography is just not something that we tend to be interested in.

Examples are numerous: Jefferson and his sex life, Franklin and his sex life, FDR and not only his sex life but his allowing anti-semites to rule out direct aid to the European Jews, almost to a man the primary figures of the American Left are portrayed with some amount of balance even by those who venerate them. That's one big reason that we have as a movement had such problems with the whole idea of hagiography, whether idolizing Reagan or the war time Pope who if not actively was passively  allowing the Roman church to be used as an adjunct of the Fascist movement. The leaders of the Right are actively quelling any questioning of sainthood of these men, while we on the left are still pointing out things that our equivalents did that don't fit the image. No wonder the low info individual does engage with the idolatry of the Right. We admit that there were problems with the New Deal, they allow no questioning of the sage nature of the "Reagan Revolution" (even though those of us who survived that era remember all too well Marine colonels who made millions as go betweens on illegal arms deals, the intended dismantling of the school lunch program and social security, and a million other like "accomplishments".

I'm not sure that we as a movement are even capable of competing in the quest to beatify new secular saints. We're still pointing out Lincoln's flaws but venerating his strengths while they're declaring an idiot from Alaska the new "annointed one".

We idolize things like freedom and equality and peace. The Right throws up another in a line of "great men" who are "wronged" by a "liberal establishment".

It strikes me that the real way to improvement is through education, something that has traditionally been left to the Left but that the Right has made impressive inroads into since 1980. Teaching children to think for themselves will take care of the rest.

---

by: Silence Doesnogood @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 15:16:01 PM CDT

We Just Need A Different Sort Of Mythos (0.00 / 0)

One in which people can do great good, and still be quite flawed and human like the rest of us.

One of the most debilitating beliefs I ever encountered became quite commonplace in the early 70s.  It was that we all needed to "work on ourselves" to become purer and better if we wanted to change the world.  This was, in a sense, a form of the bipartisan mythos.  "Everyone is flawed" it said, "and so rather than place blame, we must strive to be blameless ourselves."

Of course, it's a sure-fired losing game, primarily because it takes you out of the business of making the world more just and humane and thereby leaves more room for the scoundrels.

Of course it's nice to become a better person.  But one also becomes a better person by putting oneself on the line on behalf of others.  And no one's saying you can't do yoga before you go to the demonstation, or out to walk your precincts.

Finally, one reason that I really like Buffy, The Vampire Slayer is that it's just the sort of mythos that I'm talking about.  In fact, Buffy and her friends rebel against the supposed forces of goodness and light (the "Council of Watchers") who are all about the hierarchy of good vs. evil.  And in the spin-off series Angel the big-time "good guys" there, the "Powers That Be" are even more of a bad deal than the Council of Watchers.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 16:45:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't Gellar pretty right wing? (0.00 / 0)

Just a thought.

Unfortunately, we can't duck our responsibilities, there just isn't a group of wise men running things behind the scene for the good of humanity unless you except that the world if international finance consists of wise men, and I think the past month or so pretty much gets rid of that idea.

We're on our own. Leaders are flawed, some badly (Reagan comes to mind, congenitally incapable of recognizing let along telling the truth), some badly but still capable of doing good (like LBJ, or FDR), so not so badly but not as capable (like Carter or Clinton). We're constantly faced with decisions that impact the lives of everyone, and delegating those decisions to an imbecile who thinks Noah's Ark is on top of a mountain in Turkey is criminal in addition to being dumb.

I think that a left wing American mythos may be possible, starting from something like Lincoln's secular religion where national unity was the Supreme Good. But of course, my rational side has to point to the corruption that was endemic in Lincoln's government. He may have been as honest as we remember him (although I tend to side with Herndon and imagine him drinking whiskey from the bung hole), but there is no escaping the profiteering that he turned a blind eye to, and that, left unchecked, eventually did so much damage to the country.

Seems to me that the Romans had it a bit easier, with the polytheistic worship of national emblems as well as the deified rulers. But even then they had to ignore a hell of a lot before they managed to deify Livia and Augustine, or Julius.

And there is always the old adage about it being men who capture the hearts of men, and not ideas,

So, are we going to have to make FDR into a secular saint in order to reach these voters? We can always remind them that without the Dems and FDR they still wouldn't have electricity in their homes, and chances are that if left up to the GOP the swastika might be flying over the capitol and we might be remembering President Lindbergh.

I respect what you're saying, I'm just not sure of what means would accomplish your goals.

---

by: Silence Doesnogood @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 17:18:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]