A similar argument against a flat tax. On the surface, a flat tax sounds fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. We could make it even "fairer" by exempting those below a certain income threshold, but such exemptions create their own problems. The first question is, of course, what should a flat tax be? I will leave it to the budget experts to determine just how much the public would need to pay to cover the expenses of, say, our war on terror, but we can assume that it would be set to "balance the books" another rallying cry of the "fiscal conservative." We could even imagine an itemized spread sheet letting us know where our tax dollars are being spent, so much for the military, so much for medicaid, so much for NASA, so on and so forth.
For the sake of argument, and to keep the arithmetic simple, let us just assume a flat tax of say 20%. Again, for the sake of argument, let us again consider the impact on a median income of $50K and a substantial income of $1,000K. A flat tax of 20% on the median income would, of course, be $10K, which leaves the median income person with $40K in net income. The flat tax on a million dollar income would, likewise, be $200K. Yes, that is considerably more, and at first blush it would appear that they are bearing a greater share of the tax burden, but the key word in that is "burden." Even at a $200K tax bill, the millionaire is left with $800K in net income. So what? No doubt they earned it.
Let's consider the savings issue again. Let us say the $40K net income person is extremely frugal and saves 10% of their income or $2K. At 3% interest, there would be $60 in interest. Most of that $60 is eaten away by inflation, so both to keep the math simple and to account for the effects of inflation, we'll assume current prices and only the principle saved. When we start to consider the shocks of day to day life, we come up with a picture. How many years would it take for this person to save up sufficient capital to purchase a home? Of course, he is not going to buy a million dollar home, but a modest home, in a reasonable neighborhood, at say $150K. Assuming his credit is good, and all is right with the world, he would need to save 20% of $150K or $30K for the down payment. With savings of $2K a year, it would, of course, take 15 years to save enough money for the down payment. In the meantime, the median income person must live somewhere, and so he pays rent.
True story: in the last months of my employment at Salt Lake Community College as the provost, Lora and I had decided that she would move closer to our kids and grandchild in Idaho, while I remained behind in Salt Lake. We put the house up for sale, and I moved into a smallish, two-bedroom apartment for which I paid around $700 a month in rent. Because we had put a substantial amount down on our $250K home, I was actually paying more in rent than we paid on our mortgage. Of course, on the mortgage, I was accumulating "capital" and we did receive some "capital gains" on our property, which we used, in turn, to pay "cash" for our place in Mountain Home. The rent we paid on the six month lease, went into what for us and for most was a black hole. I moved on, but most of working class residents of the apartment complex were simply stuck. Short of a windfall, they were where they were going to be. The mortgage payment on a $150K home, after the down payment, would be $608 per month at the current interest rates of 4.5%. All the residents of that apartment complex are paying more in rent than they would pay for the mortgage being discussed.
Back on track, assume the millionaire saves the same percentage amount from his net income or 10% of $800K or $80K. It would take him about five months to save the down payment on the $150K home. Let us say he purchases the home. not for his personal residence, of course, but as an "investment." He pays the standard mortgage payment of $608 at the current mortgage rate of 4.5%. He wants to make a modest 5% over and above his costs to own and rent the home, so he charges $635 in rent to our median income person.
Here again, the rentier is accumulating capital while the renter is paying for it. The argument, I realize, is simplistic, not because the general pattern is misleading, but because no millionaire would actually purchase and manage the rent on a $150K home. He would "invest" in a financial instrument, stock in a management company or a number of management companies, which actually buy and manage the properties. Just as the iPhone required a network for its production and distribution, real estate too requires a network for its management. Everyone in the network expects a 5% return on their investment, so altogether, the rent is likely to be more $635 to cover the costs (and profit margins) associated with that network.
In other words, our median income person is going to send about $9,600 or about 25% of his net annual income into the black hole of rent for a property that he would pay $7,296 to own, should he be patient and frugal enough to save for it over the 15 year period. That assumes, of course, that there are not shocks to the system, like an unexpected job loss, health care costs, et cetera.
Of course, the millionaire will want to live in a million dollar home while he collects his rent from the median income person. Along the lines of the same argument, it will take the millionaire 2.5 years, not 15 years, to save enough for the down payment million dollar home. The mortgage rate would be about $60K per year or about 7.5% of an annual net income of $800K. My point is simply this: 20% of $50K is much more significant, in terms of the life that it allows one lead, than 20% of one million. It virtually guarantees that the median income person stagnates, while the millionaire accumulates more and more capital.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Get rid of the Government, Part III
If fiscal conservatism were all, would anyone vote for the Republican party? I had a conversation with one of the customers at our small shop who came out in support of the demagogue Trump, and I made the comment that any who made less than $250K a year, who voted for the Republican party, were voting against their own fiscal self-interests. They would be doing so, not because they are self-less -- that would be something -- but because they are distracted by the issues associated with social conservatism. He is an evangelical christian, and couldn't imagine voting for anyone who might be labeled a secularist. He is also applying for disability, but because he had a motorcycle accident some years ago and it left him with a back injury that prevents him from working. On a casual basis, you would not guess that he's disabled, and I doubt frankly that he is in fact significantly disabled, but he's likely to get the benefit because he is a constant user of the prescribed drug oxycodone. His use of an optiate does, likely, disqualify him for most jobs, and so in that sense he is disabled, though he lacks the sense of irony to know that fiscal conservatism of the sort that would pare away the social welfare state leaving only its regalian functions, beginning with welfare proper, then social security, then medicaid and medicare, then ... would very likely pare away the "disability benefit." He said, "oh, I do think some government spending should go away!" The key word being "some," and clearly not those disability benefits to which he feels an entitlement, though others, including me, would question that same entitlement, given the existing rules.
Ostensibly, US social welfare programs are for the poor and needy, but need based programs invite various forms of scamming, and the moral approbation that goes along with scamming, both of which would simply disappear if the social welfare programs were universal. They are not, and the various tests for poverty and need are cumbersome and ineffectual. Having said that, social welfare programs regardless come with costs and those costs are paid with taxes. It is not surprising that "fiscal conservatives" tend to focus, not on the actual need, but on the scamming, when they cry to eliminate such programs. Although resentment is not one of our higher emotions, those who pay do resent those who, so to speak, milk the system as though it were a cash cow, but even so, resentment is only one reason to attack the programs. A deeper reason, of course, is greed at the other end of the scale.
I have been reading Picketty and I find his arguments deeply academic, but persuasive. The so-called "fiscal conservatives," whether intentionally or by default, do tend to aim at policies that would consolidate and maximize the returns on capital, leaving them, for the most part, untaxed. As a consequence their wealth, at the high end of the scale, grows geometrically. I cannot begin to recapitulate Picketty's argument here (in part because I am not qualified to do so) but it is available to those who choose to pursue it, but here's a simplistic way of thinking about it:
Suppose you have an income of, say, $50K, the approximate median income of the US households meaning half are below that, half above. If you "save" 10% of that income per annum, you would have $5K in the bank drawing an interest of approximately 3% or $150. Saving 10% of ones income at the $50K level, of course, begs the question, and I doubt that many Americans do save 10% because the unexpected day to day shocks of life intervene, but for the sake of argument, let just say that at the end of the year one would have had a disposable income of $45K and $5,150 in the bank as savings. What can one do with that? How long would one's savings last in the face of a significant set back, say job loss, a medical issue, or the like? How long would it take to accumulate enough to make a significant "investment" in, say, a home where 20% is required as a down payment? Tomorrow I will touch on the day to day shocks of life, but for the moment, let's get the lay of the land.
OK, same argument at the one million income mark. If you save 10% of that income per annum, you would have $100K in the bank drawing an interest of the same 3% or 3K. Saving 10% of one's income at the one million mark begs the question a bit less, in part because one has a disposable income of $900K left to spend, which would seem to be sufficient to buffer the day to day shocks of life. It is easy enough to see why wealth is divergent. Just using the simple math of savings, the median income person would have $25K with an insignificant amount of compounded interest, the one million income person would have $500K with compounded interest. At the five year mark, the 3% interest alone on the savings of $500K or $15K, exceeds by a factor of three the annual savings of the median income person. Beyond that, it is more likely that the one million income person could live modestly on $800K per annum and "save" 20% or 30%
I have focused on savings, in part because it mimics the real behavior of the rich. I strongly suspect that it is disposable income, not saved income, that contributes to a vibrant economy. Here's the thing. My wife and I live well, but very modestly. What that means, of course, is that we are consumers -- we consume groceries, we consume commodities like gasoline, et cetera -- but we do not consume beyond our means. Our consumption creates jobs for those who produce and those who distribute the goods and services we consume. Less consumption overall means fewer jobs. Again, a simplistic example. Take the iPhone. Let us say it retails for $100 to keep the math simplistic as well. A certain percentage of that cost is materiel costs, the actual stuff that goes into producing the phone as a physical object, which itself requires production. Beyond that, there is the labor associated with its manufacture and its distribution. Manufacture is easier to imagine. It's the line of people working in a factory. Distribution of course is more complex and, well, distributed. It includes all the packing material, the warehousing and shipping, and the retailer costs associated with putting the iPhone in the hands of someone like me, all of which require its own production and distribution. It is a complex web, shifting and dynamic, but simply put the more iPhones sold, the more people are employed throughout the web of its manufacture and distribution, the fewer iPhones sold, the fewer people employed throughout the web of its manufacture and distribution.
Of course, it's not quite that simple, but it serves as a way of visualizing. The actual production of consumer goods creates "work." The wealth kept in savings does not, or not nearly to the same degree. There are, of course, the bankers, but for the most part wealth in savings just sits there. Here's the consumer question. How many iPhones does a median income person need or want? How many iPhones does a wealthy person need or want? The answer is likely to be "1" in each case. The answer might be different for automobiles. The rich person might want and purchase more than "1" automobile, but still there are per person limits to consumption. The rich person will still buy only a finite number of automobiles and not nearly enough to sustain an automobile industry. For that, one needs mass consumption and distribution. Even the likes of Jay Leno owned a finite number of cars, most of them produced in the past. Likewise for food. How much food can a rich person consume? They might eat differently and better than the median income person, and spend more money to do so, but still there are limits to how much they can eat. and it is not nearly enough to sustain an agricultural industry. Likewise for shelter. They might own several homes, and those homes are likely to be more lavish than those owned by the median income person, but the number of owned homes is still finite and not nearly enough to sustain a construction industry.
Of course too, one might say, the wealthy do not just "save" their accumulating wealth, they "invest" it in enterprises of one sort or another. This is not actually true, but assume for the moment that it is true. The wealthy want to invest their "savings" though stocks in enterprises where there is a certain expected return on that investment -- say 5%. The return on their investment turns out to be dependent on the same complex web. If the "enterprise" is, say, Apple computer, then after all is said and done, Apple computer needs to return 5% in profit to its stockholders, and it generates those "profits" through consumer sales. No sales, no returns, no continued investment. There is a certain amount of risk involved in those "investments," but the risk can be spread across several "investment opportunities" and mitigated, and the wealthy tend to "invest" as though they were "saving." Contrary to their own rhetoric, they rarely create enterprises and the jobs associated with them, but simply capitalize on those that already exist, and the rate of return is closer to 10%, not 5%, but either is an improvement on what the normal "saver" can expect to achieve at the branch office of the big bank in a savings account.
So, consider, in the second year of savings, the median income person will have accumulated $150 in interest. The second year interest of 3% on that will be $4.50. The compounded interest is insignificant. For the million dollar investor, however, who can not only "invest" more income and expect greater rates of return, the compounded interest quickly becomes significant. Even at $100K in savings, at 5%, the interest already equals that of the median income savings, and the compounded geometric growth, even with a "modest" fortune of one million, becomes significant. Insofar as it takes considerably less self-discipline, considerably less sacrifice, to save $100K from an income of one million, than to save $5K from an income of $50K, it is not surprising that the rich grown richer and the median income people are at best stagnating.
Ostensibly, US social welfare programs are for the poor and needy, but need based programs invite various forms of scamming, and the moral approbation that goes along with scamming, both of which would simply disappear if the social welfare programs were universal. They are not, and the various tests for poverty and need are cumbersome and ineffectual. Having said that, social welfare programs regardless come with costs and those costs are paid with taxes. It is not surprising that "fiscal conservatives" tend to focus, not on the actual need, but on the scamming, when they cry to eliminate such programs. Although resentment is not one of our higher emotions, those who pay do resent those who, so to speak, milk the system as though it were a cash cow, but even so, resentment is only one reason to attack the programs. A deeper reason, of course, is greed at the other end of the scale.
I have been reading Picketty and I find his arguments deeply academic, but persuasive. The so-called "fiscal conservatives," whether intentionally or by default, do tend to aim at policies that would consolidate and maximize the returns on capital, leaving them, for the most part, untaxed. As a consequence their wealth, at the high end of the scale, grows geometrically. I cannot begin to recapitulate Picketty's argument here (in part because I am not qualified to do so) but it is available to those who choose to pursue it, but here's a simplistic way of thinking about it:
Suppose you have an income of, say, $50K, the approximate median income of the US households meaning half are below that, half above. If you "save" 10% of that income per annum, you would have $5K in the bank drawing an interest of approximately 3% or $150. Saving 10% of ones income at the $50K level, of course, begs the question, and I doubt that many Americans do save 10% because the unexpected day to day shocks of life intervene, but for the sake of argument, let just say that at the end of the year one would have had a disposable income of $45K and $5,150 in the bank as savings. What can one do with that? How long would one's savings last in the face of a significant set back, say job loss, a medical issue, or the like? How long would it take to accumulate enough to make a significant "investment" in, say, a home where 20% is required as a down payment? Tomorrow I will touch on the day to day shocks of life, but for the moment, let's get the lay of the land.
OK, same argument at the one million income mark. If you save 10% of that income per annum, you would have $100K in the bank drawing an interest of the same 3% or 3K. Saving 10% of one's income at the one million mark begs the question a bit less, in part because one has a disposable income of $900K left to spend, which would seem to be sufficient to buffer the day to day shocks of life. It is easy enough to see why wealth is divergent. Just using the simple math of savings, the median income person would have $25K with an insignificant amount of compounded interest, the one million income person would have $500K with compounded interest. At the five year mark, the 3% interest alone on the savings of $500K or $15K, exceeds by a factor of three the annual savings of the median income person. Beyond that, it is more likely that the one million income person could live modestly on $800K per annum and "save" 20% or 30%
I have focused on savings, in part because it mimics the real behavior of the rich. I strongly suspect that it is disposable income, not saved income, that contributes to a vibrant economy. Here's the thing. My wife and I live well, but very modestly. What that means, of course, is that we are consumers -- we consume groceries, we consume commodities like gasoline, et cetera -- but we do not consume beyond our means. Our consumption creates jobs for those who produce and those who distribute the goods and services we consume. Less consumption overall means fewer jobs. Again, a simplistic example. Take the iPhone. Let us say it retails for $100 to keep the math simplistic as well. A certain percentage of that cost is materiel costs, the actual stuff that goes into producing the phone as a physical object, which itself requires production. Beyond that, there is the labor associated with its manufacture and its distribution. Manufacture is easier to imagine. It's the line of people working in a factory. Distribution of course is more complex and, well, distributed. It includes all the packing material, the warehousing and shipping, and the retailer costs associated with putting the iPhone in the hands of someone like me, all of which require its own production and distribution. It is a complex web, shifting and dynamic, but simply put the more iPhones sold, the more people are employed throughout the web of its manufacture and distribution, the fewer iPhones sold, the fewer people employed throughout the web of its manufacture and distribution.
Of course, it's not quite that simple, but it serves as a way of visualizing. The actual production of consumer goods creates "work." The wealth kept in savings does not, or not nearly to the same degree. There are, of course, the bankers, but for the most part wealth in savings just sits there. Here's the consumer question. How many iPhones does a median income person need or want? How many iPhones does a wealthy person need or want? The answer is likely to be "1" in each case. The answer might be different for automobiles. The rich person might want and purchase more than "1" automobile, but still there are per person limits to consumption. The rich person will still buy only a finite number of automobiles and not nearly enough to sustain an automobile industry. For that, one needs mass consumption and distribution. Even the likes of Jay Leno owned a finite number of cars, most of them produced in the past. Likewise for food. How much food can a rich person consume? They might eat differently and better than the median income person, and spend more money to do so, but still there are limits to how much they can eat. and it is not nearly enough to sustain an agricultural industry. Likewise for shelter. They might own several homes, and those homes are likely to be more lavish than those owned by the median income person, but the number of owned homes is still finite and not nearly enough to sustain a construction industry.
Of course too, one might say, the wealthy do not just "save" their accumulating wealth, they "invest" it in enterprises of one sort or another. This is not actually true, but assume for the moment that it is true. The wealthy want to invest their "savings" though stocks in enterprises where there is a certain expected return on that investment -- say 5%. The return on their investment turns out to be dependent on the same complex web. If the "enterprise" is, say, Apple computer, then after all is said and done, Apple computer needs to return 5% in profit to its stockholders, and it generates those "profits" through consumer sales. No sales, no returns, no continued investment. There is a certain amount of risk involved in those "investments," but the risk can be spread across several "investment opportunities" and mitigated, and the wealthy tend to "invest" as though they were "saving." Contrary to their own rhetoric, they rarely create enterprises and the jobs associated with them, but simply capitalize on those that already exist, and the rate of return is closer to 10%, not 5%, but either is an improvement on what the normal "saver" can expect to achieve at the branch office of the big bank in a savings account.
So, consider, in the second year of savings, the median income person will have accumulated $150 in interest. The second year interest of 3% on that will be $4.50. The compounded interest is insignificant. For the million dollar investor, however, who can not only "invest" more income and expect greater rates of return, the compounded interest quickly becomes significant. Even at $100K in savings, at 5%, the interest already equals that of the median income savings, and the compounded geometric growth, even with a "modest" fortune of one million, becomes significant. Insofar as it takes considerably less self-discipline, considerably less sacrifice, to save $100K from an income of one million, than to save $5K from an income of $50K, it is not surprising that the rich grown richer and the median income people are at best stagnating.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Get Rid of the Government, Part II
We aggrandize our desire for revenge, our desire to mitigate a humiliating sense of victimization whether perpetrated by a malign nature, an unpunished other, or a malignant leadership into a universal justice exacted by god at the judgment day. They will get theirs. I will get mine. Judgment day brings reward for obedience, the punishment for disobedience, both universalized into eternity.
A continuation:
Why wait for judgment day? It strikes me that the rhetoric of evangelical christianity absolutely depends upon the moral superiority afforded to victims, a moral superiority infused throughout christianity. I would need to do all the research to come up with the appropriate quotations, but the general structure of the argument is this:
First, and foremost, we live in a corrupt and corrupting world. The stance against gay marriage, the stance against abortion, for example, are both versions of the same argument. I won't go into all the particulars, but the democratic party, and Obama in particular, are of the devil's party because they fail to condemn those practices which give wider range to sexual expression. (The stance against abortion, I suspect, has less to do with any perceived infanticide, more to do with the sexual expression it allows women. Men are held to the consequences of the sexual act for the most part only socially. Women are held to the consequences of the sex act both socially and biologically -- if, that is, one does not sanction abortion. They can no longer erase, as it were, the principal biological consequence of the sexual act.)
Second, the bulwark against the corruption and corrupting world are those, like us, who stand against the corrupt and corrupting world. The words, "stand against," are, of course, loaded -- and I mean that both figuratively and literally. Those who live principally in a secular state are somewhat puzzled by the fervor of their stance. No one is forcing men to engage in homosexual activity, nor are they forcing men into marriage with one another, any more than they are forcing women into abortions. Our constitution gives you the right to believe that gay marriage and abortion are evil, and gives you the right to forego such practices if you have that belief. In regard to those issues, in a world free from specific prohibitions against gay marriage or abortion, one is perfectly free to live one's life as one chooses, whether for or against.
A world in which one is free to practice homosexuality or get an abortion, however, is not a world which is free from, in their view, corrupt and corrupting influences. Ditto abortion. If one considers the likes of Winthrop and Edwards the true founding fathers of our country, those who wished to make of America a beacon on the hill, the desire for freedom to practice their religion was the desire to create actively a social order free from the corrupt and corrupting influences. Anything that inhibits their freedom to create a social order free from the corrupt and corrupting influences, in their view, curtails their freedom in general. The secular state itself, a state in which legal sanctions protect one's freedom to practice homosexuality, one's freedom to get an abortion, the state exemplified by those who elect an Obama, curtails the evangelical's freedom to create a social order free from those self same corrupt and corrupting influences. At a personal level, it might be true that they are free to practice their religion as they choose, and of course they do, of vociferously, but at a social level, it is not true that they are free to practice their religion, because their religion absolutely demands a social order in which homosexuality and female sexuality are sins publicly punishable -- a social order based on biblical values.
Consequently, the evangelical feels victimized in much the same way that the radical islamist feels victimized. It is a humiliating sense of victimization by a malign nature -- one infused with original sin, one in which the argument "I was born this way" holds no sway because we were all born to be tempted by natural impulses and the strength of one's faith, one's purity, is measured by one's ability to resist those impulses. By an unpunished other -- particularly those who seem perfectly happy in their corruption, and who are, in the pursuit of their particular happiness, an affront to those same values. By a malignant leadership, particularly a secular leadership -- one that condones the corruption, one who seeks actively to protect the "rights" of the corrupt to practice their corruption, one that actively curtails their ability to create a social order based on their biblical or koranic values, one that reinforces the individual's resistance to natural impulses with the threat of punishment, and maintains social order with actual punishment for those who succumb. We should be clear about what an evangelical wants when he or she says "the government is the problem." It is not a Jeffersonian belief that the best government is the least possible government, but secular government in particular. Not unlike Winthrop or Edwards or others, they want to displace the secular government with a theistic government -- one in which the evangelical is free to create a social order that frees them from corrupt and corrupting influences.
Next: the unholy alliance ...
A continuation:
Why wait for judgment day? It strikes me that the rhetoric of evangelical christianity absolutely depends upon the moral superiority afforded to victims, a moral superiority infused throughout christianity. I would need to do all the research to come up with the appropriate quotations, but the general structure of the argument is this:
First, and foremost, we live in a corrupt and corrupting world. The stance against gay marriage, the stance against abortion, for example, are both versions of the same argument. I won't go into all the particulars, but the democratic party, and Obama in particular, are of the devil's party because they fail to condemn those practices which give wider range to sexual expression. (The stance against abortion, I suspect, has less to do with any perceived infanticide, more to do with the sexual expression it allows women. Men are held to the consequences of the sexual act for the most part only socially. Women are held to the consequences of the sex act both socially and biologically -- if, that is, one does not sanction abortion. They can no longer erase, as it were, the principal biological consequence of the sexual act.)
Second, the bulwark against the corruption and corrupting world are those, like us, who stand against the corrupt and corrupting world. The words, "stand against," are, of course, loaded -- and I mean that both figuratively and literally. Those who live principally in a secular state are somewhat puzzled by the fervor of their stance. No one is forcing men to engage in homosexual activity, nor are they forcing men into marriage with one another, any more than they are forcing women into abortions. Our constitution gives you the right to believe that gay marriage and abortion are evil, and gives you the right to forego such practices if you have that belief. In regard to those issues, in a world free from specific prohibitions against gay marriage or abortion, one is perfectly free to live one's life as one chooses, whether for or against.
A world in which one is free to practice homosexuality or get an abortion, however, is not a world which is free from, in their view, corrupt and corrupting influences. Ditto abortion. If one considers the likes of Winthrop and Edwards the true founding fathers of our country, those who wished to make of America a beacon on the hill, the desire for freedom to practice their religion was the desire to create actively a social order free from the corrupt and corrupting influences. Anything that inhibits their freedom to create a social order free from the corrupt and corrupting influences, in their view, curtails their freedom in general. The secular state itself, a state in which legal sanctions protect one's freedom to practice homosexuality, one's freedom to get an abortion, the state exemplified by those who elect an Obama, curtails the evangelical's freedom to create a social order free from those self same corrupt and corrupting influences. At a personal level, it might be true that they are free to practice their religion as they choose, and of course they do, of vociferously, but at a social level, it is not true that they are free to practice their religion, because their religion absolutely demands a social order in which homosexuality and female sexuality are sins publicly punishable -- a social order based on biblical values.
Consequently, the evangelical feels victimized in much the same way that the radical islamist feels victimized. It is a humiliating sense of victimization by a malign nature -- one infused with original sin, one in which the argument "I was born this way" holds no sway because we were all born to be tempted by natural impulses and the strength of one's faith, one's purity, is measured by one's ability to resist those impulses. By an unpunished other -- particularly those who seem perfectly happy in their corruption, and who are, in the pursuit of their particular happiness, an affront to those same values. By a malignant leadership, particularly a secular leadership -- one that condones the corruption, one who seeks actively to protect the "rights" of the corrupt to practice their corruption, one that actively curtails their ability to create a social order based on their biblical or koranic values, one that reinforces the individual's resistance to natural impulses with the threat of punishment, and maintains social order with actual punishment for those who succumb. We should be clear about what an evangelical wants when he or she says "the government is the problem." It is not a Jeffersonian belief that the best government is the least possible government, but secular government in particular. Not unlike Winthrop or Edwards or others, they want to displace the secular government with a theistic government -- one in which the evangelical is free to create a social order that frees them from corrupt and corrupting influences.
Next: the unholy alliance ...
Monday, March 7, 2016
Get Rid of the Government
When people have difficulty imagining a "moral society" without God, they are not drawing on God for moral inspiration. They are drawing on God for ultimate moral enforcement in the face of weak temporal enforcement.
A minor amplification:
If you need a god for moral inspiration, then something is wrong with you. I don't doubt that there are those who lack, if not simple empathy -- the ability to imagine that, in similar circumstances, the other feels what I feel -- then the ability or the willingness to extend that empathy and modify our behavior toward others, particularly when self-interest is involved. In extreme cases, we call that evil. In less extreme cases, we call it human fallibility. Regardless, we don't need god for moral inspiration, nor do we need god to provide the basis for a moral society. We can draw on ourselves for moral inspiration, thank you very much.
Having said that, what exactly do I mean by "weak temporal enforcement?" First, let us imagine a completely free world. I am referring to positive freedom. Imagine a world where each one of us does exactly what we please. If you lack sufficient imagination, then think of any post apocalyptic science fiction saga -- say, the popular walking dead. People have been freed from all bonds of civil society by the virus, and they are consequently free to do whatever they must or will. Several things are not surprising, and seem pretty accurate.
First, nature is no longer benign. Perhaps it never was, but in the fiction, the hordes of zombies stand in for ever present menace of the new natural world. Hunting and gathering, and even scraping out a subsistence living, is challenged by the invading threat of the predator zombie, the stand-in for a malignant nature.
Second, human nature is no longer benign. It would make rational sense for the remaining humans to stop fighting between themselves and band together, not only to resist the new natural, but to rely on combined strength. There IS some banding, but in the new world order the people revert to kinship and tribal bonds. The dictates of conscience apply within, but not outside, the tribal membership. Although there are characters that want to universalize the dictates of conscience, they repeatedly fail when other tribes do not obey the same universal sentiment. Good is within. Evil lurks without, not only in the forces of nature, but in the presence of others who are not of our "kind" and to whom no "kindness" is due.
Third, order is maintained by "power." As the fiction makes clear, simple brute strength the willingness to use it might be necessary, but it is never quite sufficient for the intermediate haul. He is some combination of Achilles and Odysseus -- brute strength and cleverness. The central character of Rick, the leader, is relatively benign. He is troubled by conscience again and again, and the fiction portrays this as a form of humanizing weakness in his leadership. As the fiction makes perfectly clear, however, Rick's weakness is his desire to draw into his own group others and the existing leadership of others who are anything but benign, whether from excess of brutality or sociopathic cleverness or simple suspicion. Rick, to overcome his weakness, must often overcome his conscience, particularly as it struggles to extend itself and include others beyond his immediate tribe.
So, by "weak temporal enforcement" I am referring to two more or less contradictory weaknesses. On the one hand, there is what might be called "the weakness of the government relative to the people" -- its inability to extend its power of enforcement universally. On the other hand, there is "the weakness of the people relative to the government" -- their inability to seek, as it were, redress against the power that does exist. We invoke a god to mitigate the two.
On the one hand, as I've implied in a previous post, we invoke an omnipotent god to universalize enforcement and the punishment that goes with infraction. As a benign leader, Rick cannot be everywhere at all times to enforce the dictates of conscience, even the single dictates of his own benign conscience, against others and against victimizing kindred tempted by self-interest to ignore them. In a religious scheme, even if Rick doesn't see, god will see, and exact punishment, if not in this life, then in the next. It is the dictates of our own conscience aggrandized into the eye of god upon us, and we abstain if tempted, or at the very least suffer guilt and anxiety as a result of failing to abstain.
On the other hand, if one is not lucky enough to have benign leadership, if one is powerless against a brutally self-interested leadership, then we invoke god as a balm. If one is Jew enslaved within brutal and extractive leadership of the Roman Empire, then naturally one imagines a day when one gets, not only one's due, but one's revenge in the next life when the malignant others, those who do not believe as we believe, are consigned to eternal damnation. We aggrandize our desire for revenge, our desire to mitigate a humiliating sense of victimization whether perpetrated by a malign nature, an unpunished other, or a malignant leadership into a universal justice exacted by god at the judgment day. They will get theirs. I will get mine. Judgment day brings reward for obedience, the punishment for disobedience, both universalized into eternity.
A minor amplification:
If you need a god for moral inspiration, then something is wrong with you. I don't doubt that there are those who lack, if not simple empathy -- the ability to imagine that, in similar circumstances, the other feels what I feel -- then the ability or the willingness to extend that empathy and modify our behavior toward others, particularly when self-interest is involved. In extreme cases, we call that evil. In less extreme cases, we call it human fallibility. Regardless, we don't need god for moral inspiration, nor do we need god to provide the basis for a moral society. We can draw on ourselves for moral inspiration, thank you very much.
Having said that, what exactly do I mean by "weak temporal enforcement?" First, let us imagine a completely free world. I am referring to positive freedom. Imagine a world where each one of us does exactly what we please. If you lack sufficient imagination, then think of any post apocalyptic science fiction saga -- say, the popular walking dead. People have been freed from all bonds of civil society by the virus, and they are consequently free to do whatever they must or will. Several things are not surprising, and seem pretty accurate.
First, nature is no longer benign. Perhaps it never was, but in the fiction, the hordes of zombies stand in for ever present menace of the new natural world. Hunting and gathering, and even scraping out a subsistence living, is challenged by the invading threat of the predator zombie, the stand-in for a malignant nature.
Second, human nature is no longer benign. It would make rational sense for the remaining humans to stop fighting between themselves and band together, not only to resist the new natural, but to rely on combined strength. There IS some banding, but in the new world order the people revert to kinship and tribal bonds. The dictates of conscience apply within, but not outside, the tribal membership. Although there are characters that want to universalize the dictates of conscience, they repeatedly fail when other tribes do not obey the same universal sentiment. Good is within. Evil lurks without, not only in the forces of nature, but in the presence of others who are not of our "kind" and to whom no "kindness" is due.
Third, order is maintained by "power." As the fiction makes clear, simple brute strength the willingness to use it might be necessary, but it is never quite sufficient for the intermediate haul. He is some combination of Achilles and Odysseus -- brute strength and cleverness. The central character of Rick, the leader, is relatively benign. He is troubled by conscience again and again, and the fiction portrays this as a form of humanizing weakness in his leadership. As the fiction makes perfectly clear, however, Rick's weakness is his desire to draw into his own group others and the existing leadership of others who are anything but benign, whether from excess of brutality or sociopathic cleverness or simple suspicion. Rick, to overcome his weakness, must often overcome his conscience, particularly as it struggles to extend itself and include others beyond his immediate tribe.
So, by "weak temporal enforcement" I am referring to two more or less contradictory weaknesses. On the one hand, there is what might be called "the weakness of the government relative to the people" -- its inability to extend its power of enforcement universally. On the other hand, there is "the weakness of the people relative to the government" -- their inability to seek, as it were, redress against the power that does exist. We invoke a god to mitigate the two.
On the one hand, as I've implied in a previous post, we invoke an omnipotent god to universalize enforcement and the punishment that goes with infraction. As a benign leader, Rick cannot be everywhere at all times to enforce the dictates of conscience, even the single dictates of his own benign conscience, against others and against victimizing kindred tempted by self-interest to ignore them. In a religious scheme, even if Rick doesn't see, god will see, and exact punishment, if not in this life, then in the next. It is the dictates of our own conscience aggrandized into the eye of god upon us, and we abstain if tempted, or at the very least suffer guilt and anxiety as a result of failing to abstain.
On the other hand, if one is not lucky enough to have benign leadership, if one is powerless against a brutally self-interested leadership, then we invoke god as a balm. If one is Jew enslaved within brutal and extractive leadership of the Roman Empire, then naturally one imagines a day when one gets, not only one's due, but one's revenge in the next life when the malignant others, those who do not believe as we believe, are consigned to eternal damnation. We aggrandize our desire for revenge, our desire to mitigate a humiliating sense of victimization whether perpetrated by a malign nature, an unpunished other, or a malignant leadership into a universal justice exacted by god at the judgment day. They will get theirs. I will get mine. Judgment day brings reward for obedience, the punishment for disobedience, both universalized into eternity.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Ted Cruz for President -- NOT
I wrote:
Again, if we draw the veil of ignorance over a group of more less rational human beings, and ask, "if there is absolutely no danger of being discovered, should one break the law and steal?" the consensus is still likely to be "no, one still should not steal." The absence of enforcement, for whatever reason, is not a mitigating factor. Moreover, the absence of enforcement is not a guarantee that conscience will fail, but it does magnify the temptation. As I've indicated elsewhere, I have a rather low, rather Hobbesian opinion of mankind in general, and it doesn't take much in the way of magnification to make a temptation against the dictates of conscience to great to resist.
A minor amplification:
Religion sneaks into the picture here. One might respond, there is always and ever the danger of being discovered. If temporal power is not watching, the omnipotent god is nevertheless watching, and while one might escape the coercive power of the state in the here and now, one will not escape the omnipotent god's justice. This, by way of saying, we do not need god's dictate to become a moral individual. The so-called golden rule is sufficient to invoke most of what we might consider moral behavior. Because temporal power is insufficient to be on watch at all time and in all places, however, we do need God to be the enforcement of last resort. Whether or not this helps to keep a populace in line is questionable. I suspect not, but when people have difficulty imagining a "moral society" without God, they are not drawing on God for moral inspiration. They are drawing on God for ultimate moral enforcement in the face of weak temporal enforcement.
To borrow Hitchen's phrase, this is where "religion poisons everything." The ten commandments, in part, might be considered simply a codification of conscience. It is not surprising that we find, for example, "you shall not murder" as one of the commandments. I do not want to be murdered, and as a consequence I have a duty not to murder others. Ditto the commandments against stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness. I do not need the commandments to know, with some certainty, that murder, stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness are moral injunctions worthy of codification. So far so good.
The difficulty begins with the first commandment. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other Gods before me." Here I need to make the sophomoric point that, if truly omnipotent, this commandment seems, well, unnecessary, but we can take it as a residue of poly-theistic times when there were many gods to be worshipped. Ditto the injunction against idols. If I am a sovereign, however, who wishes to maintain control over "his" people, it would be extraordinarily convenient to have god on my side, to claim power on the special mandate of god and to speak, if not as a god, then with the one true god's authority, to say "you shall have no other Gods before me" in a way akin to saying "you shall have no other sovereigns before me." I suspect, in other words, that the first injunction is altogether too convenient for Moses, though it does set the stage for a sovereign to say, not that you have challenged or disobeyed me in my temporal role, but that you have disobeyed god. I suspect, too, that the first injunction was altogether too convenient for a whole succession of Kings and the occasional queen, not to mention a whole succession of popes, who wielded temporal power, who did so in the name of god, and who did so in ways that beggared even the most liberal dictates of a normal conscience.
Imagine, for example, someone like Ted Cruz as president. Here's a sample of what he has to say:
Nothing is more important in the next 18 months than that the body of Christ rise up and that Christians stand up, that pastors stand up and lead,” Cruz said. “In this last election, 54 million evangelical Christians stayed home. If we can simply bring Christians to the polls – is it any wonder we have the government we have – we have the leaders we have if believers stay home and leave electing our leaders to unbelievers. We get exactly what we deserve and nothing is more important that having people of faith stand up and just vote our values, vote biblical values and that’s how we turn the country around.”
Of course, one wonders just what "biblical values" might be in practice and what might be justified, once the voting is done and he has been given the coercive power of the state, if those same "biblical values" are violated? I am sure that Ted Cruz is following the dictates of the first commandment, that he would place no other god before his god. His rants against Muslims help substantiate that point. I also suspect that, if elected, Ted Cruz would see it, not as a mandate from we the people, but as additional and convincing evidence of his special mandate from god, and would find it difficult to separate his own will from that of god . Indeed there would be no difference insofar as he has subjected his own free will to that of God -- and as sovereign, as "leader," the people should subject their free will to him just as they did with Moses.
Again, if we draw the veil of ignorance over a group of more less rational human beings, and ask, "if there is absolutely no danger of being discovered, should one break the law and steal?" the consensus is still likely to be "no, one still should not steal." The absence of enforcement, for whatever reason, is not a mitigating factor. Moreover, the absence of enforcement is not a guarantee that conscience will fail, but it does magnify the temptation. As I've indicated elsewhere, I have a rather low, rather Hobbesian opinion of mankind in general, and it doesn't take much in the way of magnification to make a temptation against the dictates of conscience to great to resist.
A minor amplification:
Religion sneaks into the picture here. One might respond, there is always and ever the danger of being discovered. If temporal power is not watching, the omnipotent god is nevertheless watching, and while one might escape the coercive power of the state in the here and now, one will not escape the omnipotent god's justice. This, by way of saying, we do not need god's dictate to become a moral individual. The so-called golden rule is sufficient to invoke most of what we might consider moral behavior. Because temporal power is insufficient to be on watch at all time and in all places, however, we do need God to be the enforcement of last resort. Whether or not this helps to keep a populace in line is questionable. I suspect not, but when people have difficulty imagining a "moral society" without God, they are not drawing on God for moral inspiration. They are drawing on God for ultimate moral enforcement in the face of weak temporal enforcement.
To borrow Hitchen's phrase, this is where "religion poisons everything." The ten commandments, in part, might be considered simply a codification of conscience. It is not surprising that we find, for example, "you shall not murder" as one of the commandments. I do not want to be murdered, and as a consequence I have a duty not to murder others. Ditto the commandments against stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness. I do not need the commandments to know, with some certainty, that murder, stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness are moral injunctions worthy of codification. So far so good.
The difficulty begins with the first commandment. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other Gods before me." Here I need to make the sophomoric point that, if truly omnipotent, this commandment seems, well, unnecessary, but we can take it as a residue of poly-theistic times when there were many gods to be worshipped. Ditto the injunction against idols. If I am a sovereign, however, who wishes to maintain control over "his" people, it would be extraordinarily convenient to have god on my side, to claim power on the special mandate of god and to speak, if not as a god, then with the one true god's authority, to say "you shall have no other Gods before me" in a way akin to saying "you shall have no other sovereigns before me." I suspect, in other words, that the first injunction is altogether too convenient for Moses, though it does set the stage for a sovereign to say, not that you have challenged or disobeyed me in my temporal role, but that you have disobeyed god. I suspect, too, that the first injunction was altogether too convenient for a whole succession of Kings and the occasional queen, not to mention a whole succession of popes, who wielded temporal power, who did so in the name of god, and who did so in ways that beggared even the most liberal dictates of a normal conscience.
Imagine, for example, someone like Ted Cruz as president. Here's a sample of what he has to say:
Nothing is more important in the next 18 months than that the body of Christ rise up and that Christians stand up, that pastors stand up and lead,” Cruz said. “In this last election, 54 million evangelical Christians stayed home. If we can simply bring Christians to the polls – is it any wonder we have the government we have – we have the leaders we have if believers stay home and leave electing our leaders to unbelievers. We get exactly what we deserve and nothing is more important that having people of faith stand up and just vote our values, vote biblical values and that’s how we turn the country around.”
Of course, one wonders just what "biblical values" might be in practice and what might be justified, once the voting is done and he has been given the coercive power of the state, if those same "biblical values" are violated? I am sure that Ted Cruz is following the dictates of the first commandment, that he would place no other god before his god. His rants against Muslims help substantiate that point. I also suspect that, if elected, Ted Cruz would see it, not as a mandate from we the people, but as additional and convincing evidence of his special mandate from god, and would find it difficult to separate his own will from that of god . Indeed there would be no difference insofar as he has subjected his own free will to that of God -- and as sovereign, as "leader," the people should subject their free will to him just as they did with Moses.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
The Golden Rule Revisited
Let me return to a topic that I have discussed in the past -- the so-called golden rule. It goes something along this line: "treat others as you would want to be treated." I won't go so far as to say it is a universal, but when we speak of a conscience, and behaving conscientiously, we have something like it in mind. My conscience, for example, wouldn't allow me to rob and steal from others because I can easily enough imagine what it would be for them to rob and steal from me. This is not a guarantee that conscience will prevail, and the temptation to steal may be altogether too great to resist, and I may go through some mental machinations to "justify" the theft to myself, but at fundament, because I have simple empathy, I will know that I have treated another badly because I wouldn't want them to treat me in the same way.
From there, it might make some sense to call the basic social contract, as it were, an extended codification of the golden rule. If we draw a veil of ignorance (in Rawl's sense) over a group of more or less rational human beings, and ask, "Should we have laws against "theft?" the answer is likely to be "yes" because few would want to be the prey of thieves. From there, we develop the coercive power of the collective or state. Laws without enforcement are, of course, empty, and so too the basic social contract always implies some coercive power for its enforcement. If the law against theft is broken, we put people in jail. We might mitigate those penalties based on the perpetrator or severity of the crime (an adolescent shoplifting a pack of gum) or extenuating circumstances (stealing food for a hungry child) but the consensus would still likely be a "wrong more or less excused."
From there, it might make some sense to talk about our "duty" to the social contract as a duty to conscience. If we enjoy the protection of the state against thievery, then we have a reciprocal duty or obligation to avoid thieving ourselves. This duty and obligation exist independently of the coercive power. Again, if we draw the veil of ignorance over a group of more less rational human beings, and ask, "if there is absolutely no danger of being discovered, should one break the law and steal?" the consensus is still likely to be "no, one still should not steal." The absence of enforcement, for whatever reason, is not a mitigating factor. The absence of enforcement is not a guarantee that conscience will fail, but it does magnify the temptation. As I've indicated elsewhere, I have a rather low, rather Hobbesian opinion of mankind in general, and it doesn't take much in the way of magnification to make a temptation against the dictates of conscience to great to resist.
If we enjoy the protection of the state against thievery, we also have a duty or obligation in another sense as well. We must, as it were, pay our taxes to provide the state with the means to provide that protection. The "justice system," as it were, does not come free. The codification of the golden rule, so to speak, always exacts a corresponding tax for its enforcement. A tax, without the coercive power of its collection, is likewise empty. And so on ...
So there you have it. Well, almost. From there, of course, it grows almost infinitely more complex. The first level of complication is the notion of freedom. There are, of course, two types of freedom -- the positive "freedom to" and the negative "freedom from." The social contract, as it is described above, is the abnegation of positive freedom. We give up, to one extent or another, our freedom to commit thievery and subject ourselves to the coercive power of the state in order to achieve a freedom from the fear of thievery. At the one extreme, absolute positive freedom, giving up none of one's freedom to act, is the war of all against all. Assuming that, in the war of all against all, the strongest will prevail, the vast majority will want nothing more than negative freedom -- that is to say, freedom from the coercive power of the strongest. At the other extreme, there are enough dystopian novels to suggest that absolute negative freedom, the complete abnegation of positive freedom in order to free one's self from everything, is death.
From there, it might make some sense to call the basic social contract, as it were, an extended codification of the golden rule. If we draw a veil of ignorance (in Rawl's sense) over a group of more or less rational human beings, and ask, "Should we have laws against "theft?" the answer is likely to be "yes" because few would want to be the prey of thieves. From there, we develop the coercive power of the collective or state. Laws without enforcement are, of course, empty, and so too the basic social contract always implies some coercive power for its enforcement. If the law against theft is broken, we put people in jail. We might mitigate those penalties based on the perpetrator or severity of the crime (an adolescent shoplifting a pack of gum) or extenuating circumstances (stealing food for a hungry child) but the consensus would still likely be a "wrong more or less excused."
From there, it might make some sense to talk about our "duty" to the social contract as a duty to conscience. If we enjoy the protection of the state against thievery, then we have a reciprocal duty or obligation to avoid thieving ourselves. This duty and obligation exist independently of the coercive power. Again, if we draw the veil of ignorance over a group of more less rational human beings, and ask, "if there is absolutely no danger of being discovered, should one break the law and steal?" the consensus is still likely to be "no, one still should not steal." The absence of enforcement, for whatever reason, is not a mitigating factor. The absence of enforcement is not a guarantee that conscience will fail, but it does magnify the temptation. As I've indicated elsewhere, I have a rather low, rather Hobbesian opinion of mankind in general, and it doesn't take much in the way of magnification to make a temptation against the dictates of conscience to great to resist.
If we enjoy the protection of the state against thievery, we also have a duty or obligation in another sense as well. We must, as it were, pay our taxes to provide the state with the means to provide that protection. The "justice system," as it were, does not come free. The codification of the golden rule, so to speak, always exacts a corresponding tax for its enforcement. A tax, without the coercive power of its collection, is likewise empty. And so on ...
So there you have it. Well, almost. From there, of course, it grows almost infinitely more complex. The first level of complication is the notion of freedom. There are, of course, two types of freedom -- the positive "freedom to" and the negative "freedom from." The social contract, as it is described above, is the abnegation of positive freedom. We give up, to one extent or another, our freedom to commit thievery and subject ourselves to the coercive power of the state in order to achieve a freedom from the fear of thievery. At the one extreme, absolute positive freedom, giving up none of one's freedom to act, is the war of all against all. Assuming that, in the war of all against all, the strongest will prevail, the vast majority will want nothing more than negative freedom -- that is to say, freedom from the coercive power of the strongest. At the other extreme, there are enough dystopian novels to suggest that absolute negative freedom, the complete abnegation of positive freedom in order to free one's self from everything, is death.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Systemic Wholes
As I've implied in previous posts, there is localized "purpose" or "intentionality," but it is always, in principle, limited to a particular "systemic whole." More on this tomorrow ... it's tomorrow, so let me begin again.
Let me add a caveat right from the outset. When I write "systemic whole," there are a number of things that are implicit in that statement that need to be unpacked. Although I do not believe that nature, as a whole, is teleological -- is designed and aimed at some purpose in the way that, say, my cell phone is designed and aimed at some purpose -- I do, however, believe that nature, as whole, is causally interconnected. In the broadest sense, to do something here and now, often has an unanticipated effects later. To a certain extent, we can trace these causal links looking backward, and can make predictions looking forward, but our understanding will always and forever be imperfect. The so-called butterfly-effect -- the flapping of a butterfly wing here causes a hurricane there -- states the case if we leave it at that.
There is a sort of religious awe associated with the statements above, but a couple of cautions. I am happy with images like that of Indra's web, which also states the case, but but to assign within it personal Karmic significance to it overstates the case. There is nothing "personal" about it, either for good or for ill, and the butterfly flapping his wings is not to "blame" and will not face karmic retribution for the hurricane. Also, to say our understanding will always and forever be imperfect is more a capitulation to Heisenberg's physics than the complementary implication that there is (or must be) some being whose understanding of the whole is always and forever perfect. It is a feature of our language that one thing always implies its opposite, but the implication need not necessarily be true. There need not necessarily be a thing with a perfect understanding. There need not be anyone with a perfect understanding. And there likely isn't.
Having said that, when I speak of a "systemic whole," by definition, I am referencing, not the "whole" in the cosmicomic sense, but the whole of a limited system around which there are discernible or definable boundaries. The slipperiness in the "and" between "discernible" or "definable" boundaries is intentional and I will come back to it, but for the moment, let me just play with the idea of a "systemic whole" a bit.
We might think of ourselves, for example, as a "systemic whole." When I say, "I am ..." there are an almost infinite variety of things which "I am not ..." but mostly, for the present discussion, "I am not you." Simple empathy allows me to think of "you" as another "systemic whole," but clearly I have my consciousness, you have your consciousness, and others yet have their consciousness. We have discernible boundaries, and clearly there are inter-dependent parts within those boundaries, many of which might also be thought of as "systemic wholes." When I said "I am ..." I probably didn't have in mind the bacteria that inhabit my gullet, but there they are, a multitude of more or less independent individuals which are part and parcel of my larger systemic whole. When I said "I am ..." I probably didn't have in mind the part I play within a larger systemic whole as a social creature, but here I am, say, administering a college. I might wonder if there is a larger, more enveloping "college or meta consciousness," a sort of hive consciousness, but if there is, it is not a consciousness that I can inhabit. If there is, it likely takes no more mind of "me" than I take of the bacteria in my stomach.
To think about the meta-conciousness, and how on might merge into it, however, slips into mysticism, and for the moment at least I want to avoid such slip sliding away. I can speak of the "College" as a "systemic whole" in part because it does have teleology. It has, as an entity, a discernible and definable social intentionality. It can be described, or set out, in the so-called "mission statement," and most public colleges and universities have a legislated purpose. There is no need to wax mystical and assume a "college consciousness," or "general will," or anything of the sort, but clearly there are those elements of my behavior, as an administrator, which are of and for the college, which serve a purpose and help the college serve its purpose. I play a role within the college, as a systemic whole, and I am, or I was, paid for that role. I am not, however, bound by the college in the same way that I am, metaphorically speaking, bound by my skin, and of course I play other roles.
I can speak of myself as a "systemic whole" in part because I do have discernible and definable teleologies. I have, as an entity, discernible and definable purposes, the most basic of which is, of course, simple survival. Beyond that, my life has "intentionality," not in some grand design of a creator to which I am no more privy than I am to a "college" consciousness, but in my concatenated social roles. I sometimes play a fill in the blank game with students to develop a sense asking them to complete the sentence "I am ..." in as many ways as they can. They more or less enumerate the "purposes" or intentionality's they have in life. For example, I could write "I am a man, a husband, a scholar, a college administrator, a citizen" et cetera. The list concerns mostly the social games, so to speak, in which I participate. I will come back to that, but suffice it to say at the moment, that I serve my purposes within an encompassing whole, and consequently have an effect on this larger whole. My actions instrumental to these purposes change things within the more encompassing environment, sometimes (well, almost always) in ways that are unpredictable.
So when I say, there are almost innumerable actors, each acting in ways that change the larger whole about them, I can say that the world about me is in a constant state of flux, is "evolving," but not necessarily to my ends or anyone in particular's ends. We exist in an evolving universe, but it is simply evolving, changing, in flux. Actions here concatenate with actions there, but it is not necessarily the case, and most likely isn't the case, that it is evolving to any discernible or definable end.
Let me add a caveat right from the outset. When I write "systemic whole," there are a number of things that are implicit in that statement that need to be unpacked. Although I do not believe that nature, as a whole, is teleological -- is designed and aimed at some purpose in the way that, say, my cell phone is designed and aimed at some purpose -- I do, however, believe that nature, as whole, is causally interconnected. In the broadest sense, to do something here and now, often has an unanticipated effects later. To a certain extent, we can trace these causal links looking backward, and can make predictions looking forward, but our understanding will always and forever be imperfect. The so-called butterfly-effect -- the flapping of a butterfly wing here causes a hurricane there -- states the case if we leave it at that.
There is a sort of religious awe associated with the statements above, but a couple of cautions. I am happy with images like that of Indra's web, which also states the case, but but to assign within it personal Karmic significance to it overstates the case. There is nothing "personal" about it, either for good or for ill, and the butterfly flapping his wings is not to "blame" and will not face karmic retribution for the hurricane. Also, to say our understanding will always and forever be imperfect is more a capitulation to Heisenberg's physics than the complementary implication that there is (or must be) some being whose understanding of the whole is always and forever perfect. It is a feature of our language that one thing always implies its opposite, but the implication need not necessarily be true. There need not necessarily be a thing with a perfect understanding. There need not be anyone with a perfect understanding. And there likely isn't.
Having said that, when I speak of a "systemic whole," by definition, I am referencing, not the "whole" in the cosmicomic sense, but the whole of a limited system around which there are discernible or definable boundaries. The slipperiness in the "and" between "discernible" or "definable" boundaries is intentional and I will come back to it, but for the moment, let me just play with the idea of a "systemic whole" a bit.
We might think of ourselves, for example, as a "systemic whole." When I say, "I am ..." there are an almost infinite variety of things which "I am not ..." but mostly, for the present discussion, "I am not you." Simple empathy allows me to think of "you" as another "systemic whole," but clearly I have my consciousness, you have your consciousness, and others yet have their consciousness. We have discernible boundaries, and clearly there are inter-dependent parts within those boundaries, many of which might also be thought of as "systemic wholes." When I said "I am ..." I probably didn't have in mind the bacteria that inhabit my gullet, but there they are, a multitude of more or less independent individuals which are part and parcel of my larger systemic whole. When I said "I am ..." I probably didn't have in mind the part I play within a larger systemic whole as a social creature, but here I am, say, administering a college. I might wonder if there is a larger, more enveloping "college or meta consciousness," a sort of hive consciousness, but if there is, it is not a consciousness that I can inhabit. If there is, it likely takes no more mind of "me" than I take of the bacteria in my stomach.
To think about the meta-conciousness, and how on might merge into it, however, slips into mysticism, and for the moment at least I want to avoid such slip sliding away. I can speak of the "College" as a "systemic whole" in part because it does have teleology. It has, as an entity, a discernible and definable social intentionality. It can be described, or set out, in the so-called "mission statement," and most public colleges and universities have a legislated purpose. There is no need to wax mystical and assume a "college consciousness," or "general will," or anything of the sort, but clearly there are those elements of my behavior, as an administrator, which are of and for the college, which serve a purpose and help the college serve its purpose. I play a role within the college, as a systemic whole, and I am, or I was, paid for that role. I am not, however, bound by the college in the same way that I am, metaphorically speaking, bound by my skin, and of course I play other roles.
I can speak of myself as a "systemic whole" in part because I do have discernible and definable teleologies. I have, as an entity, discernible and definable purposes, the most basic of which is, of course, simple survival. Beyond that, my life has "intentionality," not in some grand design of a creator to which I am no more privy than I am to a "college" consciousness, but in my concatenated social roles. I sometimes play a fill in the blank game with students to develop a sense asking them to complete the sentence "I am ..." in as many ways as they can. They more or less enumerate the "purposes" or intentionality's they have in life. For example, I could write "I am a man, a husband, a scholar, a college administrator, a citizen" et cetera. The list concerns mostly the social games, so to speak, in which I participate. I will come back to that, but suffice it to say at the moment, that I serve my purposes within an encompassing whole, and consequently have an effect on this larger whole. My actions instrumental to these purposes change things within the more encompassing environment, sometimes (well, almost always) in ways that are unpredictable.
So when I say, there are almost innumerable actors, each acting in ways that change the larger whole about them, I can say that the world about me is in a constant state of flux, is "evolving," but not necessarily to my ends or anyone in particular's ends. We exist in an evolving universe, but it is simply evolving, changing, in flux. Actions here concatenate with actions there, but it is not necessarily the case, and most likely isn't the case, that it is evolving to any discernible or definable end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)