Untimely Meditations: Truths are but lies we agree to recite to each other David James Pascoe
Link Blog |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading George Soros' new book on the financial crisis of 2008 and very much enjoying the content. Soros proposes a new way of looking at economics in particular, and actually most of reality, that deserves our attention. Two major elements emerge: radical uncertainty and what he calls "reflectivity." The latter is in reference to a quality found specifically in economic reality, but also generally in human endeavors, that reflect a dynamic interaction between humans particularly fed by misunderstanding. My view is that what he is talking about has been previously (Hegel) be called the dialectic. The intellectual history of that terms, particularly its association with Marx, prevents it from being useful to Soros, but that shouldn't prevent the rest of the world seeing it more clearly. If you go back to Hegel, the dialectic is thrown in to explain any number of situations that Hegel knows don't fit his otherwise rigid philosophy. It is to his credit that he acknowledges this, though it is seldom treated in this way. The dialectic refers, I believe, to that very point of dynamic misunderstanding that is bound to occur when any two people have communication. This is because the human mind is fundamentally idealistic in its structure, and profoundly subjective in its application. I have often said "truths are the lies we agree to recite to each other," and this combines both of Soros' points. We can't really agree in an objective way. Our agreement is subject to the same misunderstanding, or obfuscation, that challenges our basic epistemological reality. In English this means that even when we explicitly tell each other that we agree, we most probably don't both mean exactly the same thing. Our subjectivity presents us from total understanding, both of our own thoughts and of the others thoughts. On first blush this seems horribly negative, but should not affect us any more than our acceptance of gravity. Perhaps it is the gravity of human interaction. Ignoring it has caused a great deal of trouble. Certainty about any human interaction is indeed the ultimate danger.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
Recently I heard a discussion of the role played by industry insiders who had become part of the Obama administration. The argument went thus: the "insiders" were much more likely to not believe the testimony of the industry than were long time regulatory members. They tended to call for more stringent regulations. More seasoned (bureaucratic?) regulators tend to accept the word of the industries they regulate.
This of course stands to reason. They were after all aware of the attitudes these companies have toward regulators--they should be lied to. But it flies in the face of the recent criticisms of the Obama administration over the hiring of lobbyists. Such hiring was widely and vocally condemned. It violated his promise during the election!
The answer, their expertise was necessary, was panned as an excuse. Now we discover that quite the opposite effect is seen. These people tend to want to regulate! It is after all why they have left the private sector to join the administration. It is wrong only to concentrate on this contention however. There is a different way of dealing with these facts, and not turning all regulation over to industry insiders.
I will call this the "dialectic of regulation." My version of the dialectic comes from my imperfect reading of Hegel, who I believe used it to describe those things that failed to fit his overall system of logic. He knew that the dialectic relationships he saw and described were true, but they failed to be directly causal, directly logical. They got dumped into the dialectic and then ignored. The best way of understanding these type "things" is to understand that they fail to be properly causal. This is to say they are not linear. A doesn't interact with B to cause C in the same way that it usually happens. A and B interact and C happens, but not in a way that really makes sense. Instead of 1+1=2, 1+1=3 or 6.7 or 43.1269304.
The point here is that the regulation is not really logical and linear, but rather dialectical--more of a dance! It is wrong to simply look at the actions of the two types of regulators (this represents a fallacy of duality by the way, there are more than these two types) but to understand that you need a diversity of regulators. You need many types of backgrounds to properly regulate an industry. For those paying attention this is very much "the wisdom of the crowd"
The trick of course is to properly combine people who have come from industry, but want to help regulate, with those long time regulators already in place. The other key would be to weed out any long time regulators ready to move the other direction!
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
Watching political news these days is a bit depressing. It isn't that I am just learning these thing, but screaming at the TV just isn't working.
I have believed for a very long time that the most important element of Noam Chomsky's view of the world of politics is his very simple and straight forward view of conspiracy. He often says that it is a conspiracy of interests rather than fact. This is indeed true. If I have different view it is only that he doesn't explicitly discuss the many levels of misunderstanding of those interests that are just as active in historical causation. Yes, it is a conspiracy of interests, but often it is a conspiracy of misunderstood commonality and interests.
Nowhere is this as obvious as in that individual human historical actor: Newt.
Professor of History: We misunderstand what this means, as perhaps does he. He has a degree in Modern European History. He wrote his dissertation on Belgian Education Policy in the Congo (1945-1960). This makes him a very narrow expert. That he studied history is a good thing--I did that myself. That he has a deep historical understanding of American history is greatly in doubt. Recently he spoke of his being hired by Freddie Mac for his advice as an historian. What Belgian education policy in the Congo has to do with housing in the US is beyond me. He is an historical expert on little else, one may safely assume he has a somewhat broader understanding of European history. He has experience, political experience, in the area of housing. It is not, nor will it ever be, an historical understanding of that specific issue. While any understanding of any history will help frame certain questions, that is not to be confused with being able to advise someone as an historian. His claims are absurd not because everyone knows that he was giving political advice, but because he is not even qualified to give the advice he claiming.
Running for President: No, never, are you kidding. He is running to add to his credentials as a political hack. To sell his books and dvds. Claiming historical expertise is important for this aim. The last thing he wants to do is to get the nomination, much less run and win that office. It doesn't pay well enough. Education policy in the Congo will not really help that much if he is the President, and he knows that. He isn't stupid, just an egomaniac. Rising in the polls, and inevitably falling helps his long term goals.
Newt's conspiracy of interests are as much illusion as real. The misunderstanding here is not that he misunderstands his interests, only that he desperately wants us to misunderstand them. He is the Wizard of OZ! He is trying to pull all the levers from behind the curtain of seeking the nomination. He is pulling the levers not of statecraft, but of speaking fees and publishing.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
I have been reading several books in the new field of evolutionary psychology. There is much here that is interesting. Key idea is the notion of brain modules that developed over time and are relatively unconnected to each other. Thus we are all multiple minded people. This helps explain how we can hold disparate, if not contradicting, ideas and views. Brilliant idea, but there is a lingering problem. I can't help but think none of these writers actually understand evolution. The old obsession with sex in psychology somewhat twists their view. Everything becomes a strategy for sexual success. The problem is this isn't really what is happening with evolution. Yes, reproduction is a basic element of living creatures. It is not the driving force of evolution. It is much more indirect than that. Random genetic mutation is the driving force. Any mutation that has positive adaptive consequences enters the fray and is sorted out through the process of reproduction. The key here is that this process is very indirect and occurs over a very long period of time. This tends to be understood in the abstract by these authors, but they tend to slip into arguing that it is more actively happening at each sexual encounter. It all reminds me of the argument that specific weather events are caused by global warming. No scientist of worth makes this claim, but the qualification is often lost in the wake of modern communication. It isn't that they don't agree about the nature of global warming, it is only that they agree to state it as precisely as possible. This results in an overall appearance of uncertainty which is more accurately simply a distrust of absolute certainty. Evolution, and science generally, is far better at framing the questions and allowing practical solutions than at answering any specific question with an absolute answer. Psychology doesn't always stay on this side of the road. There is too much of a tendency to declare that this or that explains everything. It doesn't. Read the books, but don't fall for the claims of being scientific. It is still psychology.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
I spent part of the morning watching ABC's "This Week with Christiane Amanpour." Extended discussions of the constitution and immigration were pleasant if less than filling. Opportunities were missed right and left, though it wasn't the disaster that most often occurs on sunday morning. They are topics that deserves attention, if not exactly the attention it was given. Points were made and missed. George Will argued both sides of his mind. Little perspective was given, though attempted. It largely comes down to the essential problem of network television: time. It is a three month conversation attempting to be done in 15 to 30 minute segments. I am recommending James MacGregor Burns' newest book Packing the Court.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
Just finished reading Ambrose Bierce's wonderful book The Devil's Dictionary. While half of the books is quite obviously dated, the other half should be required reading before every election (or recall).
Capital, n. The seat of misgovernment.
Patriot, n. One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
I am somewhat amazed by recent events in Wisconsin. While the media overall seems to have quite dramatically misunderstood what is happening, the people of Wisconsin are not only paying attention--they seem to fully understand! The recent release of emails from the governor to state senators is a case in point. This morning I heard one group of pundits say this is evidence that the governor has always been willing to compromise. I don't read it that way. It is clear to me that these emails were and continue to be an example of the governor's unwillingness to actually compromise. They are attempts to get one or two of the Democrats back to the state so the senate can pass the bill (something he quite openly discussed in the infamous phone call to the fake Koch brother). The majority leader in the Senate has always pointed out that the bill would half to be passed as is and then amended--sheer nonsense. The assembly has passed the bill as is and it would be a slap in their face to not pass the same bill. Does he expect us to forget how they passed that bill?????? I don't think it would pass judicial review. I maintain that they have not legally passed anything, parliamentary tricks notwithstanding. What assurances are there that any additional actions would actually occur?? No, the governor thinks that lying in the defense of ideology is fine. Wisconsin disagrees.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
Found this interesting site via Digg.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
| Just finished reading Leadership and Self-Deception by The Arbinger Institute. Very interesting book. Gives a wonderful twist on the idea of "in the box." These are not new ideas, everything here is found in Knots by R.D. Laing, but they are ideas well worth repeating. Highly recomended for everyone. It is impossible not to be caught in this web, and impossible not to want to be "outside the box." Thanks to "No Bullshit Management" podcast for the recommendation. |
|
|
|
| Posted by David Pascoe at | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright . http://UNTIMELYMEDITATIONS.ZENOSOX.COM. All rights reserved. |
|
