Thursday, June 23, 2005

Freedom and Liberty

I would like to take a very brief moment (I am very tired right now) and make a very clear distinction:
Liberty does not neccessarily guarantee freedom, nor does freedom neccessarily guarantee liberty.
Just like we do not live in an actual democracy (look it up, its a republic - democratic in manner, but not wholy), it is not "freedom" that we are actually "allowed."
The laws and rules and regulations are no more about freedom than Rush is a left wing pundit. We are allowed liberty. Not freedom.
Freedom is something that comes from within. I grant you, with the vast liberties that we are allowed in this country, it is conceivable to clear a path to freedom - but the social, commercial (read: commerce), and other forces seem to prevent the bringing forth of that part of ourselves.
Its fine and dandy to praise America for many things - but Freedom is a gift we must personally fight for internally, as well as externally. Liberty is something we have - "freedom" of movement, ability to buy things, make certain statements, choose certain things. I'll go into it more later (I'll pull out my J.S. Mill when I do) but I wanted to make the distinction clear between the things we are actually allowed (liberty), and the things that we may not even know what they even look like yet (freedom).

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

On Freedom

On Freedom
I posted something a few days ago with a few different paths, all generally leading in the same direction: being-together-in-the-world. In nearly all my writings, that remains the underlying subject that always informs everything. I wouldn't be bold to say that in all reality, being-together-in-the-world is the underlying drive that informs nearly all of our interactions (whether positively, or negatively - but, thats yet another discussion).
One the waypoints I've identified towards a better being-together is something we proclaim loudly as a proud manifestation of our current state of being: Freedom.
So I wish to question: How are we free? Where are we free?
Are you free to make up your mind? If you say you are - how so? What types of choices are you allowed?
I'm not saying that the state of our civilization allows us more choices than many others - I am thankful for the choices I have - but can we call the ability to choose between pre-ordained possibilities "Freedom."
Is a larger menu at McDonald's freedom? I would be saddened to liken such a valuable concept that so many people died under the impression of providing to a mere multiplication of choice.
Since its late, and I must sleep soon I'll be more blunt than usual: The freedom that we fight for, sing about, and paste all over slogans is neither freedom nor is it free. And those who wish to liken my last statement to some sort of "leftist rhetoric" will be sadly disappointed in that it is neither.
What I mean is that we have come upon an age of supposed freedom in where we have reached a pinnacle of knowledge, understanding, and choice. In this, this dark enlightenment, we have dogmatized the very thing that we idolize. This is not merely problem of politic, nor of capital, but of our very social being and consciousness.
Our willingness to beat back the door of fear and conquer every unknowable has instilled a set of rules, values, and knowledge-ability that has pigeonholed us into a sense of "understanding" that neither understands nor undergoes the trials of reason that (many would argue is the only thing that differentiates us from primates).
What I really mean to ask is this: What are the conditions for the possibility of freedom? When is the time where we can have this freedom? When is the place? What kind of work must we do?
I'm tired. My best wishes of freedom, and liberty (thats another night) for all.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Opening a space

People ask me constantly “what’s the point of all this philosophy?” I’ve been posed with this question so many times I no longer want to smack the person asking it. Smack some sense into them, open their eyes a little. Pick a reason – its there. Because A is doing X to B. Because B doesn’t realize that X also causes Y to C. Every one, every thing, every reason. That’s the point.
I’ll explain.
The Ancient Greeks had this fantastically strange and progressive idea that politics was philosophy, and vice versa. It was so ahead of its time that they were eventually wiped out and pillaged by their neighbors. Side note: it is said today if the great library wasn’t burned to the ground, we’d all be driving flying cars and living in a much more utopian society right now (but that’s neither here nor there other than to illustrate the dangers of violent conquest over understanding and reason). They had forums filled with men (I didn’t say they had the equal-rights thing down all the way) that discussed the great matters of their times – love, friendship, and virtuousness; investigation of these great matters was to one great end, how to better create civilization in a manner that everyone could be happy.
Now, there are many arguments between the differing schools of thought, from the Pre-Socratics (whom I’m rather fond of myself) through Socrates and all of his inheritors, including all the great minds up to our present time. So it’s not a matter of how they went about this – it’s a matter of the end goal of their work – a civilization (or at least being-in-the-world) where we could all be together, better.
Of course, they all had their downfalls, and eventually their demise – but that doesn’t mean we can dismiss their utopian ideals on their previous “failures.” Strong in body has brutalized the strong in heart and mind throughout history (I seem to recall a fantastic man from Nazareth that was crucified for having some really keen ideas about getting along together). Learning from these ideas and piecing together these concepts might start to show us a direction in where we might start to create such utopias.
This orientation, you might call it, towards utopias is the goal of this philo-sophia, this love of wisdom. However, barbaric forces of single-mindedness are still in essence, stronger and turn the utopian orientation around constantly. We might not be doing it with brute force and outright invasion in a plain-sight expansion of empire (or we might, depending on how you see it), but instead with fixed ideals, black and white reasoning. These concepts are moved along at a feverish pace through the might of global capital, the entertainment industry, and many other transmissions of current-day conceptual drudgery.
Of course, I don’t mean to merely offend with my debasing comments about the current system. Its not the way in which things work that I am currently critiquing though, it is the types of thought processes that have been in place since, well, as far as anyone alive can remember, and are continued and spread through the systems that have sprung up from within that thinking.
I’ll attempt to backtrack here for a moment and give a brief explanation of volumes of beautiful work which should most definitely be read, because I’m sure my synopsis does them no justice.
In this state of so-called success, we are no more successful at beating back fear now as we were when we turned to shamans and priests for our shelter from the scary world. We have merely turned our attentions towards science and technology. The type of thinking that puts absolute faith into something without reason, without effort, and without a truly dissecting dialogue, is a fully dangerous one. This is the type of non-thinking that praises freedom, but utilizes none of it. This type of non-thinking fights in the name of freedom, but demands to be ruled to cast out the shadows of doubt and fear that keep them awake at night.
This is the type of (non) thinking that have created the processes in which we function on a global scale now, and it is this type of (non) thinking that is spread further and wider as a result of those processes that have spawned from it.
So how is it that we can finally get away from the barbaric, freedom-hating, empire of disorientation? Only by escaping this regime can we start to actually think about the types of things that could make us start to realize a better place for all of us.
This is why I hope to find a way to open up a space for thinking. It can be a small space to start with, but any space is larger than what we have now. This space must be free of black and white notions, of the dogmatic doctrine of “science,” as well as that of religion. By gathering in this space we might have a chance to sort out these concepts on an even playing field, without making this transcendent appeal to an irrefutable evidence. This is where we can start to think.
Imagine with me for a minute what something we could discuss there might look like – a philosophy of all. We could talk about Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed along side with Derrida, Heidegger, and Socrates. We could include Hawking in this discussion as well! Without a transcendent appeal, we would have to openly discuss the concepts of each and all in a way that we haven’t been able to before – free from the tyranny of the universal transcendent.
I’m not saying that any of these minds are right or wrong, but many of the above appealed to a transcendent that without would bring their arguments down to that to finally be discussed. Imagine what might happen if people understood these concepts and, through their understanding, started to actually embody to ways of Buddha, the ways of Jesus, etcetera. Imagine the kind of possibilities that we might open up there.
This space, I think, would be infectious, cancerous even. Radical cells that grow at extraordinary rates and start to take over neighboring spaces – expanding that space to that all can be included in the philosophy of all. Only then can utopias even be conceptualized, and possibly might have the chance of being realized.
More on utopias later. Lets start though by creating the space where we can think.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Aesthetic Education

A little Schiller for you to digest, from the Ninth Letter on the Aesthetic Education of Man. This is one of my favorite pieces ever...

If, then, a young friend of the true and of the beautiful were to ask me how, notwithstanding the resistance of the times, he can satisfy the noble longing of his heart, I should reply: Direct the world on which you act towards that which is good, and the measured and peaceful course of time will bring about the results. You have given it this direction if by your teaching you raise its thoughts towards the necessary and the eternal; if, by your acts or your creations, you make the necessary and the eternal the object of your leanings. The structure of error and of all that is arbitrary must fall, and it has already fallen, as soon as you are sure that it is tottering. But it is important that it should not only totter in the external but also in the internal man. Cherish triumphant truth in the modest sanctuary of your heart; give it an incarnate form through beauty, that it may not only be the understanding that does homage to it, but that feeling may lovingly grasp its appearance. And that you may not by any chance take from external reality the model which you yourself ought to furnish, do not venture into its dangerous society before you are assured in your own heart that you have a good escort furnished by ideal nature. Live with your age, but be not its creation; labour for your contemporaries, but do for them what they need, and not what they praise. Without having shared their faults, share their punishment with a noble resignation, and bend under the yoke which they find is as painful to dispense with as to bear. By the constancy with which you will despise their good fortune, you will prove to them that it is not through cowardice that you submit to their sufferings. See them in thought such as they ought to be when you must act upon them; but see them as they are when you are tempted to act for them. Seek to owe their suffrage to their dignity; but to make them happy keep an account of their unworthiness; thus, on the one hand, the nobleness of your heart will kindle theirs, and, on the other, your end will not be reduced to nothingness by their unworthiness. The gravity of your principles will keep them off from you, but in play they will still endure them. Their taste is purer than their heart, and it is by their taste you must lay hold of this suspicious fugitive. In vain will you combat their maxims, in vain will you condemn their actions; but you can try your moulding hand on their leisure. Drive away caprice, frivolity, and coarseness, from their pleasures, and you will banish them imperceptibly from their acts, and length from their feelings. Everywhere that you meet them, surround them with great, noble, and ingenious forms; multiply around them the symbols of perfection, till appearance triumphs over reality, and art over nature.

In essence, Schiller says to be excellent. In being excellent, you will show others to be excellent. To paraphrase another part of the Letters, be lenient towards others, and hard on yourself. Understand that they may not be where you are.

Do not treat others as you want to be treated - treat them as how they wish to be treated. And when looking at them to find out how that is, look at them how they are not how you think they are.

This brings me great difficulty, for I am well aware of the propensity towards viewing the others as an outward reflection of the self. It seems to me we will need some very good psychoanalysts to lead us in the right direction.

Either that or we will need an incredible amount of radical honesty with oneself. It is very difficult to be honest with one's self. This maybe the reason I prefer a psychologist - because it is very difficult to descipher yourself.

I admit to having problems being extraordinarily tough on myself. But I think I have the leniency with others part down... maybe not though - like I said before, its very difficult to be honest with one's self.

Moreso than anyone else sometimes.

Monday, June 13, 2005

debasing the coinage

Oh boy have things been slow lately. Its incredible the lack of minbending going on around here.
Either that or there's been an interesting conglomeration between my ability to perform my work-duties with ease and my complete and total disregard for my liver lately. Maybe thats why I'm lethargic and bored.
All in all, the last few weeks have been tumultuous. I've taken up drinking and smoking like its a sport. The problem is, my old sport - sleeping - has been going down hill at a direct proportion to that of my new sport's mastery. That, of course, has affected both my ability and willingness to utilize any higher mind functions.
Luckily, in this current state of affairs at least, you don't really truly require them. People can pretty much get by with the intelligence of a duck and still manage to live out fairly "successful" (at least by our standards) lives.
But, of all things I've lost, I miss my mind the most, so I've decided to give up on my nightly drinking rituals and stick to a basic lifestyle of simple pleasures - reading, food, music. Although, there is that cute girl working the bar at delux tonight..... hmmm..
Anyways, while my libido and superego fight it out I'll elaborate on a few conceptual thoughts I've been trying to mull about in my head for a bit that I'd appreciate some feedback on. (this IS my hobby, James)
My very good friends and I were discussing all sorts of political punditry the other night when we came to the problem that we see these days: the complicated situations of our day are never fully realized on a large voting populous scale, and situations and reasoning are constantly lost to ridiculous taglines and obtuse references. Of course, it is all of our (non-right wing conservative) issues that we see as being poorly represented. Why was this? The left writes books, whereas the right writes bumper stickers.
This is not to say that either side could or couldn't write a decent argument, this is merely to point out that somewhere down the line, it became wholly evident that defense of the status quo (this is how we do it, this is how it should be done) is made exceedingly easy by throwing a tagline at it and calling it a day.
Public relations has turned our political atmosphere inside out. Being involved in that industry, it makes me want to shoot myself when I realize how basically obvious it is: The majority of the voting public doesn't read.
Not to say they're illiterate, but to say they don't ever themselves involved in the intricacies of dissertations on global warming, etcetera. Another thing that one could say is that most people (and by this, the majority of the voting public, as well as most of our politicians) fail to read closely.
Too many times do I see an saddening sway of opinion to directly reflect whatever it is that they have recently digested - and then it will switch again the next moment.
This is not the nuanced "flip flopping" of Kerry's ever-changing moods as portrayed by the "right" during the election. But seeing Kerry's ideas as flip flopping rather than nuanced and differentiating grayscale rather than black and white is exactly my point.
People need to learn to read closely - but we are only taught the action. Never the internal reasoning that weighs evidence, finds logical fallacies, etcetera.
Of course, one could say the entire style of our education system has revolved around exactly that - learning to take a test, not to think.
But thats for other times.
For now, I'll leave with observations and questions. I don't have any answers right now. In all honesty, I don't know if answers to these types of things are at all possible. Suggestions? Maybe. Ideas? Definitely. Answers? Not in the sense that people are looking for.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Sometimes I like to sit at bars or coffee shops alone and listen. It is at one of these libationous facilities where I sit now, listening to the clamor of the surrounding, and also inherintley with, humanity of close proximal distance.
Funny enough, Robert Miles' "children" plays in the background.It is not with human nature that I am ever concerned (as if I could even feign an even shallow conceptual understanding of what that might actually be). It is, perhaps, the current condition of humanity that I find myself drawn to inquiry of.
The instance I find myself compelled to write about is one of the wholly shallow and uninteresting conversations here. It seems to me that the three females are infatuated with a recent addition to the room. Their conversation never leaves the scripted play of the primetime drama: succinct, non inspiring, and wholly without genuine substance.
My questions lie in that of friendship, what is it that makes true friend? It seems to be either escaping us in action and ability in whole, or it remains to be seen what the force that compells, and allows the ability to be a friend.
Is it such that we only know how to interact, how to relate to one another through descriptions of outward experience? How often is it that you discuss things other than your actions or other's actions. It seems to me that we discuss the phenomelogical over all other things. It is like Plato's allegory of the cave - whomever is best at naming the shapes on the wall wins. What if we are still relating in a way that is still on that level - but whenever a person comes through and tries to take it to a deeper level, they are chastized because of their seeming inability to play that game.
My suspicions are that we need another game. But thats another night, and another pint.
Ill get back to my beer now.
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Politics, polemics, philosophy, and policy

Its been a long time since I've written about anything political or philosophical in a non-academic manner. Its difficult to traverse the gap between the ideal world where people understand the nuances of your conversation and wish to improve upon it by adding and refining, to the actual world where people would rather in many cases simply cut you off at the knees to spare them another from walking.

So I guess I should explain myself, introduce myself, or whatever else needs to be done. My point in my life, my writing, my actual career, my academic career, etcetera, is towards a realization of being-together-in-this-world. It might sound a little quirky, but hear me out.

Every single person must share with every other person many things; We share water, air, space, culture, and understandings. These are compulsory, natural - we don't try to share these things, we just do. The people upstream throwing their trash in the water effect our water, and the factory sixty miles away effects our air. All human understanding is created in-between-us (a few of us know this as the intersubjective agreement) - there is no understanding within you that isn't created externally, between all of us.

I know this is a quick and dirty, so I may revisit this concept a few times. Anyways, back to the point...

Being-in-the-world-together remains a deep concern for me because I look around at the natural sharing and being-together that takes place and find that it contrasts deeply to the borderline misanthropic and severely cynical way of life that many seem to exude. I am not without guilt of this either, of course - I have had vehicles broken into, people pick fights for no reason- people lied, cheated, and stole from me just to get ahead - on many occasions. Its very easy to fall into the contemporary way of looking at things with a hardened heart.

The greeks looked at politics and philosophy as one in the same, philosophy (philo-sophia, the love of wisdom) created their policy, and this philosophy was one of a philosophy as a way of life. These days, most people view philosophy as a waste of time - all talk without any doing. This is not my intention at all. If it was, I would be the greatest hypocrite.

Philosophy should be lived, should be embodied, and therefore should influence all of our actions, including the ones involved in our political actions.

Well, enough to begin with.