Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Do we now live in an enlightened age?
Craig Rowley is a regular Webdiarist, an esteemed moderator and a Director of Webdiary. His articles have included Everybody's talking about the bird ... but it's a very human story, Show us your true colours: An adventure into the sea of Australian humanity, and most recently (with Richard Tonkin) Follow the Big Money: Bad Business with Baghdad.
by Craig Rowley
"We should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organisation of society." - Albert Einstein (1949)
Science and technology were hailed as the new hope of humankind, as the road to wisdom and the key to happiness and freedom. Enlightenment was meant to be "man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity". That's what Immanuel Kant told us. And way back in 1784 he wrote that if asked, "Do we presently live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment."
As Peter Gay pointed out in his prize winning book The Enlightenment: An Interpretation: The Science of Freedom at the height of the Age of Enlightenment there seemed little doubt that in the struggle of man against nature the balance of power was shifting in favour of man. We went on to welcome modernisation with open arms and embrace the maelstrom of change that came with it. We placed scientific knowledge on a pedestal, knowledge to be esteemed above all others.
Most tend to equate science with technology, perhaps as a result of the constant reinforcement of a word association. Technology though, in its essence, precedes and is more fundamental than science. Technology, with origins in the Greek word technologia from techne (craft) and logia (saying), is about tools and techniques used to apply knowledge and achieve some practical result. The word ‘science’ comes from the Latin word, scientia, which means knowledge; thus the phrase scientia potentia est: knowledge is power.
Science and technology then are related, but not the same. The basic difference between science and technology, in the prodigious business thinker Peter Drucker's view, was not in the content but in the focus of the two areas. Science was a branch of philosophy, concerned with understanding. It was misuse and degradation of science to use it according to Plato's famous argument. Its object was to elevate the human mind. Technology, on the other hand, was focused on use. Its object was increase of the human capacity to do.
We’ve used science and technology to do things, like spark the growth of a new world, new forms of society, new ways of living. They produced for us great discoveries, changed our images of the universe (and our place in it), and they brought on the industrialisation of production. Now contemporary Western society is suffused with the products of scientific and technological 'progress', and hence the West has made its powerful presence felt in every corner of this small planet. So we’ve made our way out the dark ages and into modernity, but did the Enlightenment project really enlighten us?
Back in the eighteenth century Kant had said no, but asserted that there were “clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction [toward enlightenment] and that the obstacles to general enlightenment - to their release from their self-imposed immaturity - are gradually diminishing.” The standing obstacles may have been diminishing, but we are creatures handy at constructing new ones. In taking up Kant's call to "Sapere Aude!" (Dare to know!) you could think we would have done a better job with Socrates' suggestion that we heed that precept inscribed in gold letters over the portico of the temple at Delphi - gnothi seauton (know thyself).
Science was meant to be a light that would, as Francis Bacon said, “eventually disclose and bring into sight all that is most hidden and secret in the universe” and it was meant to lead the way in the battle against blind faith. Instead we founded a new religion. The vast majority of scientists believe in the inviolability of progress and they do so with the driven purity of terrorists. Is it enlightened not to question the privileged status of scientific knowledge and associated technologies?
Here is a question we might ask to test our enlightenment: Could it be, as Herbert Marcuse wrote in what some consider to be the most subversive book of the twentieth century, that as a result of technical progress "a comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization"? Has science delivered us into a new kind of slavery rather than the universal liberation promised?
Francis Bacon entertained the idea of the universe as a problem to be solved, examined, meditated upon, rather than as an eternally fixed stage, upon which man walked. It didn’t seem to dissuade him from trying to construct a new eternally fixed stage of sorts though. Way back when there were relatively few readers – yet alone enlightened readers – Bacon wrote the utopian novel The New Atlantis (published would you believe by Dr Rowley). In the Introductory note to Fishburne’s 11th edition of The New Atlantis it says that “no reader acquainted in any degree with the processes and results of modern scientific inquiry can fail to be struck by the numerous approximations made by Bacon's imagination to the actual achievements of modern times”. Bacon had imagined an ideal commonwealth; he’d depicted a society where the best and brightest citizens attended a college called Salomon's House, in which scientific experiments are conducted in Baconian method in order to understand and conquer nature, and to apply the collected knowledge to the betterment of society.
A little over two-hundred years later Aldous Huxley, member of a family that had produced a number of brilliant scientific minds, had set out his fourth novel Point Counter Point. In it his characters decry the dangers of sacrificing humanity for intellectualism, and express concern about the staggering progress of science and technology. The theme from this novel of ideas was carried through to Huxley’s fifth novel, his most famous and his first attempt at a utopian novel – Brave New World.
In between we find a history of utopia (or dystopia depending on your view) in which science is central. The widely held view of science is that scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. In the explanation of the world provided by empiricist science all knowledge is based on objectively verified sense experience and this is the way in which science was looked upon by those that set about to transform the world by scientific means.
So, given the pattern of scientists promoting their own social prescriptions, it is no surprise that in the nineteenth century, Auguste Comte, who saw himself as the Pope of Positivism, stated that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge. It was logical he would then advocate using science (as defined by empiricism) to govern human affairs. That’s why he is also known as the “grandfather of sociology” and why he penned the Plan de traveaux scientifiques nécessaires pour réorganiser la société (1822) (Plan of scientific studies necessary for the reorganization of society). It is also why he founded what you’d have to call a vehicle to the utopia he envisioned: the Religion of Humanity, a humanistic, non-theistic religion.
There are two outstanding events in Comte’s early life that help to explain the nature of his thought. The first was his attendance at the École Polytechnique, which he came to see as the model for a future society ordered and sustained by a new elite of scientists and engineers (enter the technocrat). And it was in Paris that Comte met Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, marquis de Condorcet – French philosopher, mathematician, and early political scientist. Condorcet was an optimist on social progress, believing in the ultimate "perfectibility" of humanity.
The second great event in Comte’s life took place in 1817. It was in that year that Comte became the secretary to the French utopian so-called socialist Claude Henri de Saint-Simon and you can’t properly comprehend Comte without making some sense of Saint-Simon. By any careful definition, Saint-Simon cannot be properly labelled a socialist. The idea that he was arises because so many of his follows became socialists at a later stage. He was of an ancient noble lineage, had fought alongside Lafayette and the American revolutionaries. On his return to France he had become a friend of the financiers and speculators who flourished in the Thermidorean Reaction (the revolt in the French Revolution against the excesses of Reign of Terror) and he himself did well under the Directoire. He was just the kind of person who would be detested by fellow Frenchmen who were actual utopian socialists, like François Fourier and François-Noël “Gracchus” Babeuf.
For some time, Saint-Simon appeared to be a typical liberal aristocrat, a man who spoke a language favourable to the emerging liberal and progressive bourgeoisie. Yet Saint-Simon was something consistently more than a liberal, more than a simple-minded defender of laissez-faire capitalism. As his thought became more refined he became more and more concerned with the dangers inherent in uncontrolled individualism. Saint-Simon perceived the ramifications of the new industrialism of his own time and he attempted to place his perceptions into a broad theoretical framework. He idealised productivity, organisation, efficiency, innovation and technological discovery. Sounding familiar?
Yes, Saint-Simon condemned kings, nobles and the clergy as useless and parasitical (common enough a view in his time), but while he incorporated the working classes into his vision of the future, the workers were not to play a dominant or even important position. While manual labour would be honoured and the parasites pushed away from power, what would distinguish the new system were not so much labour but labour’s reorganisation and the application of technology to it. Thus, a meritocratic elite of intelligence and creativity would assume the highest positions of prestige and authority. Arise the technocracy. Saint-Simon was undeniably elitist.
So Comte had soaked up the Saint-Simonian view and unlike those that looked to capitalist growth with a suspicious eye, Saint-Simon had welcomed it. Both men had sought a science of human behaviour, what Saint-Simon had called a physique sociale or social physics and Comte came to call sociology. And it was sociology, Comte claimed, that would give ultimate meaning to all the other sciences - it was the one science which held the others together. Once a science of society had been developed, we’d achieve a synthesis of order and progress, opinions would once again be shared, and society would be stable. Once there was true social knowledge, people would not be as willing to fight over religious or political opinions. We would achieve true freedom.
Problem is that from Comte’s point of view true freedom is a new kind of submission. To Comte and those he influenced true freedom lies in the rational submission to scientific laws. The gradual awareness and understanding of these laws is what Comte meant by the word progress. The task then for a follower of Comte was to provide in effect a new religion and a new faith (with the technocrats as the new clergy). So Comte has a crucial, but insufficiently recognised, place in the formation of modern and post-modern thought. He and his followers set about busily building a “positive science” and a new “positive religion” - a nontheistic, atheistic religion, a religion of man and society.
What of that new religion? Based on a 'demonstrable faith', but otherwise homologous with the Catholic form of Christianity it was 'destined' to replace, the religion of Humanity was to be a triple institution. Its full establishment required dogme (a doctrine), regime (a moral rule) and culte (a system of worship), all organised and coordinated through a Positivist Church. Taken as a whole, the Positivist System would provide the scientific-humanist equivalent to what systematic theology had been in the high Middle Ages: it would serve as the intellectually unifying basis of the new industrial order. A new system of education would be needed, one geared to a lifelong process of moral education.
There were prescriptions for every major institution such as the family, the sphere of production, and the broader polity (reduced to the humanly manageable scale of a small republic). Most importantly, these institutions would be ordered and directed and that overarching direction would be provided by a leadership of temporal and spiritual authorities – les patriciens, which was to consist of bankers, industrialists and engineers (in other words the technocrats) to act as temporal authorities comprised as committees, and a new class of spirituals, the scientists-philosophers-teachers-pastors (the Positivist priesthood). Under the Positivist System it would be the elites of bankers, industrialists and engineers who would control the repressive organs of the state.
Does it all sound so strange to you? In practical terms, Comte's religious project was of course judged a complete failure. But was that failure so total? Look around and listen carefully and you can just make a hint of the Comtean Positivist System now. You can hear the echo of it in certain views of the role of family in our free-market world, in talk about work ethics (could we start to hear it in discussion of WorkChoices?), and whenever a politician says “Trust us, we’re the Government” as it sets us on a certain course (without much consultation, of course).
You can hear the echo of it in almost any voice that portrays the image of science as one of certainty and authority. I heard it the other week echoed in ideas shared by another Webdiarist. In discussion of Ralf Dahrendorf’s beliefs about an ugly phenomenon of our violent times we’d tossed around a question about how to create more harmonious relationships among the peoples of the world and the 'diarist offered a view of Eugenics as a way forward. I can’t see Eugenics on the likely path to enlightenment myself, but the other ‘Diarist professed, “In one or two generations we could have heaven on earth, a perpetual love-in.” The idea he shared sounds like it shares a lot in common with an emergent philosophy – Transhumanism, the movement advocating use of new sciences and technologies to increase human physical and cognitive abilities and improve the human condition in unprecedented ways and described by its sympathisers as the "movement that epitomises the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity" and by its critics as the "the world's most dangerous idea".
Aldous Huxley’s brother Julian, a biologist, was a proponent of Eugenics as a method of bettering society. He saw Eugenics as important for removing undesirable variants from the human gene pool as a whole, but he also believed that all peoples were equal, and was an outspoken critic both of the eugenic extremism that arose in the 1930s and of the received wisdom that working classes were eugenically inferior. He was a proponent of Transhumanism and as a Transhumanist believed that humans can and should use technologies to become more than human.
Have you considered the convergence of emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science? The Transhumanists have, and they would like to use them as well as hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, mind uploading (transfer of a human mind to a computer) and cryonics to fundamentally change the nature of human beings. They speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate a quantum leap, the next significant evolutionary step for the human species by the midpoint of the 21st century. But when you shine a light on their ideas what do you see? Do we want to go where their ideas would lead us?
From the Utopian optimism of the Age of Enlightenment, in which science and technology were upheld as agents of human liberation, through modernity - with its focus on constant change, progress and the realisation of ends, through the pessimism of the postmodern, to the heaven or hell this idea of making a technology-enabled human-transformation into a posthuman condition, science and technology have been central to debating the direction society will take in future, as well as interpretation and judgement of the path it has taken in the past. So perhaps we need to bring on some enlightenment and examine these ideas of those who want to redesign the human condition and decide whether its utopia or dystopia we see on the path ahead of us.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Enlightened? Or frightened?
Craig, you ask the question, "Do we now live in an enlightened age?" I have to agree with Scott if we are talking about mankind as a whole. Even in Australia there are plenty of people whose lives are certainly not enlightened. I include our politicians (who seem bent on regressing rather than progressing, Big Brother shit) in that group as well as the homeless, those below the poverty line and those multi millions of people who are still living lives resembling the Middle Ages all over the world.
If we're talking about the Western world then again I have to say "No" as to me enlightenment means peace and cooperation and there's litle evidence of that, from the leaders down. Little has changed since the Neanderthals as far as leadership and beliefs. We just ponder more within the confines of our knowledge.
"Has science delivered us into a new kind of slavery rather than the universal liberation promised?"
I have to say clearly Yes. For the reasons another has posted below (Roger I think) in that science allows the technology to be developed but again it is those leaders who decide how new technology is used or not used. All that technology has given us is balanced by the misuse of such. People being monitored on those cell phones, cameras springing up everywhere to allow governments to collect money rather than prevent crime and similar.
I cannot imagine still why anybody would take a mobile phone with them when they leave their home or workplace. That's self enslavement as you put yourself on call 24/7 by so doing. Mobile phones are indeed a blight, not an improvement. As suggested on "Grumpy Old Men" on the ABC, if someone answers a mobile phone in public then start singing as loudly as you can.
In a broader sense money has enslaved us more than anything else. Money and what you use it for. Buying things, owning things all ensure we behave to ensure we retain what we "own". Mortgages, motor vehicles, computers, they all enslave us as we spend our lives earning to pay for them. The connection here is that as new technology appears we spend more or commit more to loans which in turn enslaves us as we "need" these new toys.
Think of the inter generational mortgages that Japan has and our banks are currently floating as an option. Talk about enslavement, all enabled by the advancement of technology and that wonderful human quality, greed.
Others have mentioned the soul. What soul? Is there any evidence of a soul? Apart from Motown music? If you think about it you are using what many refer to as the soul when you think about the soul. It's the brain, that's where everything happens. No brain and we are simply a collection of chemicals. To believe in a soul you must also believe in religion, whatever version you prefer. It's just not logical to believe there is something other than our own thoughts driving us, enabling us. Some external entity that controls our lives, excepting Mother Nature of course. Take the processing chips away from a computer and it is useless, just a comparison.
It all comes back to the brain. Some have discussed pessimism and optimism. If you don't know what is the natural state of humans and creatures of all kinds just observe the birth and growth of any species. Take humans for example, babies are eternal optimists who learn through experience that life does not always go the way you want. That is not natural, it is the result of experience. Of course there are babies born with mental or physical disabilities but mostly they too start as optimists and learn the opposite.
As to the religion issue if people must believe in such then why not immanence, "the quality or state of being." In other words what many see as a God or religion is no more than existence itself, the wonder of life. It starts and it ends. Belief in yourself and nothing more.
Finally, the freedom of the internet? Sure it allows many to communicate with others and learn much. But again there is monitoring, restricting. These issues are growing already as governments decide what sites we should be able to visit and which we are not. China is a good example but our own government has also legislated several times to restrict internet actvities. Not just for paedophiles.
Enjoy the freedom we have as it will surely shrink over coming years.
Stimulating Post Scott
Scott: “I can only catch a glimpse of your conceptualisation of time and consciousness. As much as anything else this is the product of written communication. I have an abhorrence of it, and my efforts here are usually laboured. I much prefer conversation, the dynamics of which are vastly different and misconceptions quickly resolved. Body language comes into play, tone of voice and other unnamed factors make communication so much easier. I'll guarantee that if we met we could talk long into the night. In the mean time this will have to suffice.”
Yes Scott, I agree, when posting in this thread I was well aware of the subtlety of communication, especially when dealing with concepts such as Time, Consciousness, Culture etc.
But to have to analyse every word, would make communication impossible, so I chose to just go for it, and if others are interested or curious a discussion would take place, and the deeper meanings would rise to the surface.
Scott: “Patently you have a concept of Time that is important to you. There are moments in our lives when clarity of thought reveals the nature of that which we have lived with all our lives without questioning or knowing of a need to understand.”
Yes Scott, the notion of Time fascinates me; I find it inexhaustible to contemplate. And you’re correct, the inner voice that springs from the depth is my compass, and I nurture it, because I have learnt from experience that it is not wise to disregard it, or let it become faint.
Scott: “That you (and others) should know me better let me explain. Time for me is unknowable, that is, it cannot be qualified and only quantified in terms of our experience. Consider this; if the Earth's axis of rotation was perpendicular to the direct line to the Sun and it's rotation the same as that of the Moon in it's orbit around the Earth, organisms on this planet would have a completely different idea about time. There would be no days or seasons and time would only be measured by the Moon, the slow progression of the stars and planets and the deterioration of the flesh.”
Scott, do you know the thought picture by Bishop Berkley?
I have actually never read it, but I have heard others describe it to me, so if I am wrong in my description, please someone correct me.
I sometimes post at one of the Composer news groups, in a discussion that developed, Matthew Fields, came up with a variation.
'If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does the sound exist?' He modified it to, if someone took two battery operated CD players one, with Jimi Hendrix, Foxy Lady, and the other with Mahler’s 9th Symphony and pressed play, and than drove off, if there was no human ear to hear Hendrix or Mahler would the sound exist?
Now my answer was that the tree belonged to the Universe, so therefore it does not need a human ear for its existence, where as Mahler and Hendrix exist within Cultural Time, which is if you see my description, is Consciousness’s movement within a Time – Space Continuum.
Now if there is no human ear in the forest why should the sound of the falling tree, be any different to the Sound of Hendrix or Mahler?
Your example above reminded me of the modified Bishop Berkley thought picture.
We come straight back to Consciousness, does Consciousness exist in the Universe without the human species?
In relation to the altered Time caused by the Earth’s modified rotation, we need to look at Time and Consciousness. Is there a Universe without a Consciousness, or is Human Consciousness subservient to the Universe. What is the relationship between the Universe and Consciousness and its relationship to Time.
Your example Scott is very stimulating and I need to ponder it more.
Scott: “Time becomes foreshortened as we age, easily explainable in terms of our experiences. For an eight year old, what happened four years earlier was half a lifetime ago.
"I'm guessing here. If I was to say that Cultural Time is erratic, not linear in form but non-functional wave, would that have a resonance for you?”
Yes Scott, I have thought the same thing about children as well, not sure I would say that Cultural Time is erratic, but yes, I also do not see it as being linear. But If I can give more musical examples maybe I can clarify my position.
Now in relation to children, Mozart started composing at 5 years, by 12 he had written Operas that were comparable with his contempories, by 24 he had matured fully and by 35 he was dead. Now that is not a normal relationship to Time. But his output is still comparable to Haydn who lived into his 70’s!! How was Mozart experiencing Time in relationship to other composers of his time and in fact composers in our time? That is a fascinating question to ponder.
In relation to Cultural Time, Mozart learnt from models, mastered them and than added his genius. On a number of occasions he used Haydn String Quartets as models and even dedicated a set of 6 String Quartets to him, if I had time I would quote Mozart and also quote what Joseph Haydn thought of Mozart, they were in fact very close and very affectionate towards each other even though Haydn was much older.
Now was Joseph Haydn’s and Mozart’ relationship an accident in the Universe?
I don’t believe so; we are connected in Time as social beings.
But our relationship to Consciousness determines that connection, not some linear conception devised in historic text books.
The connection is more of the deep progress kind I tried to express earlier and the synthesis of Foreground and Background in the movement of Consciousness.
Scott: "Bach’s works would have had a vastly different form had he been born in a different age but he was not a product of the age. There has and will be other Bachs, building on the work of their predecessors."
Some believe that the meaning of a work of art exists in the work itself and not dependant on the outside.
I have never understood this, and have been baffled by this view, culture to me is the essence of identity, so I have difficulty with your statement above that Bach was not a product of his age. For that would negate my notion of Cultural Time and negate all my thoughts about the nature of Time and Consciousness.
Overwhelmed
Hello Robyn, Scott, Craig, I must admit to have been so overwhelmed in the last few days, that I needed breathing space to get my thoughts together.
I read Craig’s posts once, and than just kind of free floated on what it meant to me, my first post brought up some ideas in response. I wanted to let my own thoughts gestate on those ideas, after a day and night, I woke up in the morning and just basically started to synthesise a lot of ideas I have been working with right here at Webdiary, notably, Craig's Bingo! post, this one, The Soulless Bodies etc. In the day I had to myself, I just made notes in my diary that I have kept for years; I will leave some of it here, it might help to clarify.
For example, Consciousness equals the composer's ear-mind relationship, and the germination process that is required to transcribe the sounds in the inner ear.
Cultural Dissonance equals Pivotal points within a Cultural Time Continuum.
Cultural Time equals Movement of Consciousness within a Time-Space continuum.
Consciousness can be located at an intersection between Cultural Time and Cultural Dissonance.
Cultural Dissonance intersects into a Cultural Time Continuum to Produce Human Reality.
Cultural Dissonance pivotal point in Cultural Time Continuum has a relationship to the foreground, background movement and synthesis of Consciousness.
Cultural Dissonance propels movement in time to create self.
Cultural Time equals Consciousness relative to Time-Space, as Time Dissolves, Consciousness forms a new relationship to Space, which is a key factor in what we perceive as Tradition.
Germination of composers' ear-mind happens within Cultural Time.
Authentic ear-mind relationship is consciousness located in Cultural Time.
As I said, I have been trying to synthesize a lot of past ideas, I will try to read all the posts addressed to me and give a response.
PS. Scott, your point about precision instruments was a very good one, but my intuitions were bursting with so much activity that I had to put it aside to capture what was boiling inside of me.
Kant on Time
Charles, I am still contemplating your ideas as I've sensed intuitively from the start of our conversation on the Bingo! thread that you're developing a theory worth the time to get my head around. For now then I'd just like to add some more stimulus.
Kant had something to say about time. He asserted that time is not objective reality and suggested a subtle relationship between time and mind -- that our mind structures our perceptions so that we 'know' a priori that time is like a mathematical line. He saw time as a form of conscious experience. In other words as something subjective.
"Before Kant," the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, "We were in time; now time is in us".
Wot, Charles?
It is interesting in a thread that asks about whether or not we live in an age of enlightenment to read the two posts by Charles.
Would some kind soul mind enlightening me as to exactly what Charles was trying to say.
PS. I do some composing myself. Some say that what I write is quite good, that I should take it much further.
Thus far, I have managed to do it without knowledge of Cultural Dissonance, Time Continuum, Cultural Time equals Consciousness relative to Time-Space, as Time Dissolves, and Consciousness forms a new relationship to Space, which is a key factor in what we perceive as Tradition... etc.
PPS. Should I burn my piano?
P.S.?
A possible name for the medical procedure I mentioned in my last post (see below) could be: globalisation.
P.P.S. I haven't noticed a rush of people admitting they are both good and evil. I know I am.
It seems as if I'm alone. Either that or honesty is becoming an increasingly scarce trait.
War on Evil
C'mon Daniel, don't you know that there is no such thing as evil? There is only the failure to be good, unless you happen to be hirsuit and prone to kneeling on prayer mats, in which case you are definitely evil in an "axial-not-with-us" kinda way.
Are we enlightened? Hell no. We're as dumb as shit. Just look at commercial television, Women's Day magazine and Where the Bloody Hell is my interest rate cut. Reading fancy books by Baudelaire won't help either. I've done plenty of that and I'm still as stupid as a beer fart... and so are my neighbours!
That's why I hate people more than I hate my dogs.
Taking tea and stock
Roger, in your example, 99% of businesses started by optimists failed after 5 years, but 100% of those thought about by pessimists failed before they started. You are correct in saying "Optimism is no guarantee of any sort of success" but I don't see that as an obstacle to its use.
I am not advocating a denial of reality, just taking advantage of the power of the difference between seeing the glass half full or empty where it is possible. Mostly I want to caution against what I call the "nurses' tea-room effect" (from my experience working in public hospitals). This is a group phenomenon, probably well documented and more appropriately named in the psychological literature, where negativity gets reinforced and reinforced until any good idea is stifled and all hope for change is lost. In this situation pessimism does become debilitating.
Forces for good and evil in human society operate mostly (or completely, depending on one's religious beliefs) through psychological contagion. Our attitudes are infectious, and we can reinforce hope, good ideas and positive action in each other too. Yes, our assessment of the world will need to be more accurate than Pollyanna's, but we will also need to be more active than Eeyore. To some extent, whether or not a force for good exists depends on the choice we make as individuals to start or be part of one or not.
Somebody Turned The Light On
Robyn, you make the assumption, as most do, that optimism is the naturally better psychological state. We have had that idea drummed into our heads for a long time. I don't necessarily agree with it.
Just looking at business only, I have run my own business since 1986. Statistically I am lucky to have survived. The cost has been significant with lots of stress on my relationships with wife and family continuing till today. At 60, I wonder why I did it. It would have been far preferable to have been a pessimist twenty years ago and devoted my life to my family. My wife and children would have been far better off for that.
How's that for enlightenment?
The wrong question, Craig.
Upon reflection, I think Craig's title should have been: Are we living in the Dark Ages - Mark 2?
There is more evidence to support that hypothesis than there is for trying to prove that we live in an age of enlightenment.
PS. Enlightenment for some would only occur if you installed a 1000 watt light globe inside their heads!
Science, history, and value-systems
Will Howard, you say about ethics/moral philosophy/theology that these are "areas science can't say much about". Sadly, this misreading of the (admittedly limited, yet very real) potential of science is all too common... but, also, badly mistaken. It's based upon an entirely outdated notion of science, which fails to take into account the historical sciences - which have substantially reworked their theoretical bases over the last half century and more, and now are (very belatedly) integral to any full understanding of science as such. More and more, consequently, they are directly integrated into the best work in the areas you cite and, to my mind, the resulting works are scientific, albeit not modelled on the physiochemical sciences.
Take, to choose the most fraught example, Walter Burkert's "Creation of the Sacred" - my review at New Humanities - in which perhaps the most distinguishing historian of ancient religion finds useful ideas in a (wide) variety of evolutionary work? Or, to take ethics/moral philosophy, I stand by my opinion that the most significant work of this - and, perhaps, any - period is (and probably will remain) Jane Jacobs' Systems of Survival - again, my review at New Humanities - in which she rigorously applies comparative methods to our systems of morality, only to find that we, fundamentally, have two, and that they need to be understood (and applied) in their correct context, otherwise, our current mess in this area... I might also usefully name-drop here, to say that Margo found Jacobs' arguments very useful in her understanding of our current moral malaise.
Some would insist that such works are best seen as history and philosophy, respectively, and that they have little to do with science. I beg to disagree. For Burkert is explicitly (here) in the business of using comparative history/theology and science to illuminate (and correct) one another, whilst Jacobs, to be blunt, is completely dismissive of philosophy, except as a raw source, alongside what she takes to be the much more useful materials supplied by the empirical work of historians and anthropologists. And please remember that many distinguished modern historians - starting, perhaps, with Marc Bloch - have insisted upon the close accord between their methods and those of the historical sciences such as geology, evolutionary biology, etc - a sentiment which has been reciprocated by many practitioner/theorists of same, from Ernst Mayr on...
Otherwise, Will, I agree with your critique of Craig, who was clearly drawing far, far too long a bow when he started talking about "scientists" as a group. Methinks Craig certainly doesn't seem to read very widely in the recent books by scientists for the general public, as most I read (and I do read very widely) advocate rather "steady state" approaches to economic/ecological problems, which appears to completely refute his point. I note that he has backed down from the extreme generalisation he proposed in his reply, to narrow the issue to progress. However, if there's one form of progress we can be sure of - even in the human sciences, albeit to a lesser extent - it's the progress of scientific understandings (however partial), in comparison with their forbears. So, it's hardly realistic for them to deny the facts of their own disciplinary experience, albeit many/most (?) refuse to unthinkingly extend this to human affairs overall, which I can fully understand!
Oh, and John Gray definitely needs to be taken with several grains of salt in "Straw Dogs" - the totality of the evidence in no way supports his extreme hypotheses. Methinks, as a political philosopher, he makes a truly lousy scientist! And, by the way, Craig - your Maya Angelou "quote" was a direct translation from Terence - the ancient North African "Roman" playwright!
Finally, all interested Webdiarists should attempt to seriously examine the very best work on those areas that science "can't say much about" - since, to my mind, the reverse is true, especially in the historical sciences and (especially) in their intersection with quality humanistic historical work. My website, at least to my mind, is a genuine attempt to do so, and might easily serve as a deliberately selective introduction to this body of work - and, I welcome contributions (and comments) that will aid me in this endeavour.
My hope, admittedly little supported by current political orders - is that, as the historical/comparative human sciences advance, we may eventually build workable political orders which will restrain the stupidities of power (as exemplified in the case studies of Barbara Tuchman in her "The March of Folly"), and harness human diversity/creativity properly and responsibly. To my mind, however, the basic insights (in the main) are largely in place. All it takes - a big ask - is the democratic will in at least one of the leading nations...as well as the near-comprehensive defeat of that nation's political class and (calling all Webdiarists?) - a sufficient body of citizens well-versed in the evidence we have to hand.
Come the next great depression (see Solon)?
All the best.
Re: Science, history, and value-systems
The dark or the dawn?
Some of this conversation is beyond me too, because of my limited reading. However, I'll jump in anyway.
Charles said "Soul is a concept that science has little to say about, except to dismiss it as immaturity." I think this is worth further attention (though I have to admit to not understanding all of his posts).
The last few hundred years have seen a huge increase in humanity's collective knowledge, brought about through science. That knowledge has also been applied to great effect, but the benefits have not been evenly shared and there has been insufficient attention to deleterious effects on the environment which sustains us. In our rush to develop and use scientific methods and to build success upon success in Western society, we have pushed aside things science is not easily applied to. We have dismissed religion as foolish at best (well some of us have!). We have dismissed women as sentimental and de-valued many of the traditional “sentimental” roles. Women have since shown they can be rational with the best of the blokes (even though this one has trouble at times), so we are undervaluing women less now. But the sentimental has not been redeemed. The soul is not fashionable. Music and the other arts acknowledge it, but have mostly been diminished to forms that indulge but do not seek very much to develop the soul.
To combat the threats to our survival we will need to use our souls, not just scientific facts. The major problems we have lie in the realm of human choice and motivations. The social sciences have developed some understanding in this area, but that knowledge can not yet be applied to bring about large-scale cooperation while still allowing freedom. As Charles said "What animates the human body into movement is Soul". Why are religious fundamentalists dangerous? They lack knowledge, yes, but mostly the danger comes from the power of the passion within them. Whether or not we deny the divine, we need to at least acknowledge our souls, even if it is just in terms of "those emotionally-generated reactions others name the soul". We need to learn more about them and how to use them as a positive force.
A final comment on optimism and pessimism, mostly for Roger's benefit: Pessimism might be "the natural state for those who remain unconvinced that forces for good abound." However, I am certain that forces for good will not abound while people are deeply pessimistic. We may find we have a natural tendency towards either optimism or pessimism, but to some extent it is also possible to choose between them. Since both are also to some extent self-fulfilling prophesies, we may as well choose hope and find in it some positive motivation.
Elephants And Optimism
Robyn, I am reminded of the story about two men travelling to work in a car. On reaching a particular intersection, the driver stops and toots his horn three times. The passenger asks "What was that for?". The driver replies "To scare away the elephants". The passenger replies incredulously "There are no elephants here" to which the driver answers "Yes, it works incredibly well".
The linking of cause and effect needs careful thought. The argument for forces for good is tenuous. In catastrophes, the survival of a few is cause for celebration and an affirmation of a willing goodness at work. That is optimism at its wooly-headed best and allows us to ignore the overwhelming death toll.
The recent tsunami caused a philosophical anguish for a few days. Now 15 months on it is ignored and God is in His heaven. The snuffing out of a quarter of a million lives in a matter of minutes just did not happen and leaves no need to question our enlightened optimistic attitude.
Pessimism is not a debilitating state. One needs to be prepared for all eventualities and, on balance, bad outcomes are just as likely as good ones. The idea that either -ism is self-fulfilling is not really evident. Here is a trite example. All new business ventures are started by optimists. 97% fail in the first 3 years. 99% fail in the first 5 years. Only a miniscule percentage survive ten years or more. Optimism is no guarantee of any sort of success.
Composers and Murderers
Craig, I tried in my last post to dismiss the idea that we live in an ‘enlightened’ age. Now I would like to address your inability to accept implications which derive from common knowledge about the more negative aspects of human beings.
Let me take just two examples of extreme outcomes of human behaviour:
Both of these examples, though extreme, demonstrate capacities which dwell inside all humans in some measure. But how can we compare the beauty and uplifting emotion conveyed by great music with such bizarre cruelty and violence. How can we reconcile such conflicting outcomes? The answer is that some people can’t!
Of course circumstance often decides which extreme comes to the fore. For example, the Holocaust was carried out by Germans who, pre-war, were just ordinary citizens like you and me. At the same time, some folk in occupied Europe were taking great risks to harbor Jews, to help them to escape. Again, extremes of behaviour: one lot killing, the other lot saving.
The duality of human nature (good and evil) is well documented. We either accept it and live with it or we try to change it. I have suggested gene technology or selective breeding as two possible avenues of changes because religion and education have failed to tame the beast inside us (as cleverly demonstrated in The Lord of the Flies).
If we accept our bestiality, then perhaps we could make a start on changing ourselves. To deny it or to claim it’s all too hard is to condemn us and future generations to endless war, incest, murder, rape and suffering.
Bach and Time
Scot Dunmore wrote: "I post this with some trepidation. By the by, Bach’s interest was with the mathematical relationships in (Western) music rather than time; the utilisation of which was only possible with the technological advancements that resulted in precision-built instruments."
Consciousness exists in time; the mathematical relationships that formed Bach’s consciousness were a product of the movement of cultural time. Bach’s own perception of his own Consciousness may not be equivalent to our perception of his Consciousness, because we exist in a different cultural time, which creates different relationships between the foreground and background, relationships that make Consciousness possible.
Cultural Dissonance produces movement; the history of much of Western music has been a growing movement of possible mathematical relationships. Bach existed in time and inherited a tradition that was a product of cultural time, in any other time the mathematical relationships could have been of a completely different order. Self exists in time, the technology of Bach’s time allowed a gestation period were the mathematical relationships that existed in his time could find fruition in his music. If time in Bach’s period would have been of a different order that would have meant a set of different mathematical proportions. Cultural Time is the relationship that Consciousness forms between Time and Space. Human Reality exists within this Time and Space; self is a product of Time and Space.
Basically what I am saying is that Consciousness can be located in time. J. S. Bach could not have happened in any other Cultural Time or any other Cultural Space. His sense of himself is determined by these factors. Self is dependant on Time.
The dark side of the earth
Charles, I'm confronted with a choice here to remain engaged or give up on it. No choice really because the desire to remain connected with people with whom I can find much common ground will always win out but in areas such as this I have a serious communication problem; that of language, or more accurately, semantics.
I can only catch a glimpse of your conceptualisation of time and consciousness. As much as anything else this is the product of written communication. I have an abhorrence of it, and my efforts here are usually laboured. I much prefer conversation, the dynamics of which are vastly different and misconceptions quickly resolved. Body language comes into play, tone of voice and other unnamed factors make communication so much easier. I'll guarantee that if we met we could talk long into the night. In the mean time this will have to suffice.
At this point I'm going to out myself. I have long harboured an amused contempt of academia. Perhaps contempt is too strong a word, disregard might fit better. Patently you have a concept of Time that is important to you. There are moments in our lives when clarity of thought reveals the nature of that which we have lived with all our lives without questioning or knowing of a need to understand.
That you (and others) should know me better let me explain. Time for me is unknowable, that is, it cannot be qualified and only quantified in terms of our experience. Consider this; if the earth's axis of rotation was perpendicular to the direct line to the sun and it's rotation the same as that of the moon in it's orbit around the earth, organisms on this planet would have a completely different idea about time. There would be no days or seasons and time would only be measured by the moon, the slow progression of the stars and planets and the deterioration of the flesh.
Time becomes foreshortened as we age, easily explainable in terms of our experiences. For an eight year old, what happened four years earlier was half a lifetime ago.
I'm guessing here. If I was to say that Cultural Time is erratic, not linear in form but non-functional wave, would that have a resonance for you?
Consciousness. For mine, all life forms that respond to stimuli from other organisms or changes to their environment have consciousness, nor do I believe that a sense of "self" is exclusively human. I've had too much interaction with animals to know otherwise. Dogs can have a sense of humour, indulge in subterfuge and feel embarrassed as can cats who hate being laughed at.
Self knowledge while desirable, is not as important as self acceptance and I believe unattainable in a complete sense. Robbie Burns pointed this out with
"Oh would the good lord the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us"
The rest is lost to my memory but the message remains. It would save us from a lot of soul searching and anguish.
Bach’s works would have had a vastly different form had he been born in a different age but he was not a product of the age. There has and will be other Bachs, building on the work of their predecessors.
Over to you.
Craig, I’m staggered. Are you telling me there’s people out there worse than you? Settle down, I’m a hopeless case when it comes down to ribbing and I thought I detected a note of peevishness in your response. If I was correct then you misunderstand me. You know how I feel about written communication; had you been sitting opposite me you would not have bridled.
I laud your motives for writing what you did and I take it seriously.
Thank you for the link, that bloke Kant certainly knew what he was on about and enabled me to answer my own question. Enlightenment in this sense is not a state but a process; hence my confusion.
No need
Scott Dunmore there is no need to be staggered as I was not irritated or annoyed by your earlier comment. I was aware at the outset in writing the article that it would likely attract some criticism and I welcomed the prospect. Not so much so I could argue against points put by critics, but so I could learn something through considering what any critic may have to say. So rest assured there was no bridling back here on my side of written communication, and that it might have seemed that way probably goes some way toward supporting what you've said about the limitations of 'on-line' conversations. Webdiarists who've met me over a brew or two will tell you I'm a good humoured friendly fellow.
I'm still contemplating Charles Camilleri's conceptualisation of time and consciousness a while longer before commenting on it. Your comments give me even more to think about Scott. And whilst I do agree with you about what is lost in written communication, one of the things I like about Webdiary and written communications more generally is that we have greater scope to stop and think about any response we might make.
Try This For Enlightenment
The following enlightening application of science has been taken in part (and abridged) from a recent (technical) document that we leaked to C-Span originating from the US Department of State yesterday.
The document claims that the United States is now the only industrialized country in the world that does not use the metric system as its predominant system of measurement. This is all about to change and it appears the US government will be standardising not only weights and measures but time as well. The following may help understand this revolutionary and logical manner of using “Circular Measurement” as the universal standard; at least as far as the Whitehouse is concerned.
The United States government plan on introducing the new or “neo” second which is 86.4% of the existing second. However there will be 100 “neo” seconds in a “neo” minute and 100 “neo” minutes in a “neo” hour thus giving us a 10 hour “neo” day. In short the decimalisation of time. This revolutionary recalibration of time will allow for the “neo” metrification of measurement or simply put “Circular Measurement” which is directly related to the Earth’s daily rotation on its axis. The following table (A) may assist:
(A)
Assume a 10 hour day (1 hour = 2.4 old hours or 144 old minutes or 8,640 old seconds)
100 minutes per hour (1 minute = 1.44 old minutes or 86.4 old seconds)
100 seconds in a minute (1 second = 0.864 old seconds)
Time to start from 0 at midnight and given as a 3 figure number or more precise work as a 5 figure number; i.e. 0.00.01 equals one second past midnight while 9.99.99 would be one second to midnight.
What does a ten hour day have to do with “Circular Measurement”? Any navigator or surveyor will soon figure the advantages, for at present we have 360 degrees in a circle. The Earth rotates on its axis at a rate of 360 degrees per day. If we decimalised the circle to 10 degrees instead of the existing 360 degrees (one “neo” degree equals 36 old degrees) then we could have 100 “neo” minutes in a degree and 100 “neo” seconds in a minute. Thus 100,000 “neo” seconds in a circle would also equal one rotation of the Earth, or one day, instead of the 86,400 seconds in the existing 24 hour day. Do the arithmetic: 24 (old hours) times 60 (old minutes) times 60 (old seconds) = 86,400 old seconds. While 10 (“neo” hours) times 100 (“neo” minutes) times 100 (“neo” seconds) = 100,000 “neo” seconds (in a day). In short the “neo” hour (100 “neo” minutes) will be 2.4 old hours or 8,640 old seconds; the “neo” minute will be 86.4 old seconds and the “neo” second will be 0.864 of an old second and so on. Once again the following table (B) may help:
(B)
To agree with (A) above we would need to assume Circular Measurement thus:
10 degrees = 360 degrees old degrees or 21,600 old minutes or 1,296,000 old seconds
100 minutes = 1 degree (36 old degrees or 2,160 old minutes or 129,600 old seconds)
100 seconds = 1 minute (0.36 old degrees or 21.6 old minutes or 1,296 old seconds)
100 centiseconds = 1 second (0.216 old minutes or 12.96 old seconds)
Using current calibrations of time we have a situation where 1 degree of (the Earth’s) arc equals 4 minutes of time as we currently know it; or 1,440 minutes (in a day) divided by 360 = 4 minutes of time. THIS IS AN IDIOSYNCRASY, however if time and measurement were based on the decimalisation of time using “Circular Measurement” then one degree of arc would equal one hour of time. Something any primary school kid could figure; 10 degrees (or one rotation of the Earth) makes 10 hours in one day, One degree of arc (or one tenth of the Earth’s rotation) equals one hour of time and so on. This decimalisation of time makes a lot of sense claims Douglas William Morphett of the US Department of Weights and Measures who is responsible for this revolutionary recalibration of time and it would naturally follow that measurement will be adjusted accordingly as follows. The following table (C) may help:
(C)
Supposition (B) now leads to a logical unit of length based upon Circular Measure:
1 old minute of arc at the Earth’s equator = 6,087.05 feet
1 new second (of arc) = 0.216 x 6,087 ft. = 1,314.8 old feet. = 1 kilofoot
1 new foot = 1/1000 kilofoot = 1.3148 old feet or 15.777 old inches.
1 new inch = 1/10 ft. = 1.578 old inches
At present one minute of arc at the Earth’s crust on the equator equals 6,087.05 feet of the Earth’s circumference (24,901.55 miles multiplied by 5,280 - feet in a mile) or 131,480,184 feet divided by 21,600 minutes (or 360 degrees multiplied by 60 minutes). Using these calculations then one “neo” second of arc would equal one “kilofoot” or 1,314.8 old feet which equals 131,480,184 feet (Earth’s circumference in feet) divided by 100,000 “neo” seconds of arc. Therefore one “neo” second of time based on “Circular Measurement” would also measure one kilofoot, i.e. 100,000 seconds in a day and 100,000 kilofeet or the measure of the Earth’s circumference. Therefore one “neo” foot or one thousandth of a kilofoot would equal 1.3148 old feet and one “neo” inch (one tenth of a “neo” foot) will be 1.578 old inches. In short 6 old inches will now equal only 3.802 “neo” inches.
“It would then follow that weights would be standardised accordingly thus giving humanity the gift of decimalisation of time, measurement and weight based on the Earth’s rotation which is a natural phenomenon rather than the ad hoc way in which time, measurements and weights have evolved throughout history into the current complex systems we have today. The economical advantages of this proposal are enormous.” stated Mr D W Morphett.
It was reported that President George W Bush after being advised by the US Department of State claimed that “Decimalised Time” was a “must” as it would now make America competitive with China for “we will now only have to pay workers for about a three hour day instead of the current eight hour work day.” It was reported that the President in a candid moment stated he was delighted with this “neo” proposal as he could now calculate “neo” hours using only his fingers; and in a moment of typical GWB humour he was overheard whispering to the Veep: “looks like big Dick will now be Dick - less”; The Veep replied quietly, “this neo thing has really got out of hand don’t you think!”
The Soul a Bleak View
The soul and time, self, musical composition, improvisation and interpretation are created by self’s relationship to time. What animates the human body into movement is Soul. The creative force that is the Soul is Consciousness caught up in a movement in time and self’s relationship to this movement. Cultural Dissonance and Cultural Time are in the background of Self’s relationship to time, which is the cause of the animation of the self, which is the Soul.
The industrial revolution and its technological achievements started a process where time dissolves, that is TIME DISSOLUTION. Time Dissolution is instant communication and best represented in our own time by information technology. Post-Modernism is a product of Time Dissolution. Consciousness’ relationship, to Linear, Deep, Foreground and Background is in imbalance, language becomes surreal, and many possible interpretations are possible.
But these interpretations have no gestation in Time and its relationship to self. While information technology dissolves Time, our relationship to Space is slowly being altered. Technology has not yet produced Space Dissolution, which would be instant travel, that is the combination of Time Dissolution and Space Dissolution.
If Space Dissolution is achieved Time and Self and the animation process of Soul will enter a new phase and the relationship of Cultural Dissonance and Cultural Time will become so fluid as to be rendered totally meaningless. Technology and its masters will have achieved the Reich, One Cultural group within a state of total MASS CONFORMITY. With Space and Time Dissolution the human species will have no mirror, cultural dissonance and cultural time will end. The Soul has been extinguished.
Time and Self expanded
Knowledge can go in two directions
1-linear 2-deep
Knowledge can also have a different relationship to consciousness 1-foreground 2-background.
An example of linear progress, would be your typical account of say for example musical progress, Bach= Baroque, Haydn=Classical etc An example of Deep progress would be taking one composer and reflecting on his achievements until all the influences that formed his art is understood.
An example of foreground knowledge might be looking at certain physical characteristics in a species of animal, but not making any wider connections An example of background knowledge might be a concept such as Darwin’s Natural Selection. Now linear progress is deceptive, for while it gives the illusion of progress, an end can never be reached, because the relationship to foreground and background is constantly being synthesized.
As a relationship of foreground and background is synthesized, its linear appearance disappears. For example what is linear to me, may not even exist for you, let alone some one who lived in a cave 1000’s of years ago Now deep progress acknowledges that Time and Self is a product of the relationship of Foreground and Background.
Earlier I gave an example of J .S .Bach and how he inherited a centuries old tradition, and how through his sons, notably J. C. Bach and Carl Philip Emanuel Bach this tradition was passed to the Classical period, i.e. Haydn and Mozart which eventually made its way through to Beethoven.
Because of the relationship to time in the pre – industrial era, the relationship to foreground and background had a gestation period that was in a relationship to time and self, which produced the tradition, which is consciousness had a relationship to time and space which had a relationship to a thought density which produced CULTURAL TIME.
Post industrial relationship, traditions have been severed, the relationship to time and self is no longer part of an organic cultural transformation, but dictated by other factors. Political, Technological etc
The composers Bartok’s, Janacek, Vaughn Williams are representive of this. There is a social and cultural dimension to Time and Self, and this is represented in how consciousness perceives, the linear and the deep levels and how this relationship synthesizes into various foreground and background relationships. These relationships form our perceptions and place us into a relationship in the physical world that is either one of unity or disunity.
Consciousness moves in time, this movement has a relationship to foreground and background, this movement creates CULTURAL DISSONANCE. Cultural Dissonance is Self’s relationship to Cultural Time. The linear, deep and the foreground, background are the parameters that control Self’s relationship to Time.
Death and slavery
Craig, your article touches upon so many issues that, if you’d written a trilogy of books, you still wouldn’t have scratched the surface. I also agree with Scott’s point that some Webdiarists will be daunted and/or left behind by the heavy intellectualism. However, taking one of your points - has science delivered us into a new kind of slavery? - might be an appropriate way of narrowing the discussion to a more debatable area.
I would suggest that science and slavery are mutually exclusive. Science produces knowledge. Its ugly son, Technology, produces things that are sometimes useful, and too often not (wants, inflated by clever advertising, vastly exceed needs). Ironically, in producing things, materials are used which are carcinogenic and the world becomes polluted which would seem rather counter-productive.
Slavery, by definition, is where one group of humans gain complete control over other group. Control can be achieved via occupation and military force (as seen in the West Bank) or it can be done much more subtlety.
In the West, control of the masses is cleverly done and relies upon an understanding of the many foibles and dark secrets which hide inside all human beings. As a beginning, the string-pullers turn schools then universities into vocational-training centres so that students are not taught to question or to ask about the relative value of the many social paradigms that exist, but how to perform functions useful to the Warlords of Industry.
Then the string-pullers tell people they live in a democracy and that Governments are elected by the people and exist for the people. They also present them with the idea that competition is good and accompany it with a greed-based ideal: that of accumulating great wealth and many possessions (though few ever achieve it). Then they promote a religion which emphasises a we are good- they are evil agenda. Religion, as a by-product, effectively nobbles and confuses the thinking processes or the masses as well.
Then, by manipulating the media (by looking after the media magnates) and by selectively controlling the economic levers (such as interest rates) and bringing in laws that weaken groups which might offer opposition (unions) and by ridiculing opposition parties (who often help in this process), and by appealing to patriotism by engaging in the odd war, and ignoring protests from the electorate (about Iraq), the string-pullers manipulate the masses who, their noses to the grindstone, think they are free. The actions of Howard, Blair and Bush clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of these strategies.
Craig, science does not bring slavery. Conscienceless, greedy humans bring slavery and the more subtle type of slavery outlined above is the most effective because it generates little opposition.
If we were truly enlightened, it could not occur!
PS Will, the main reason I'm not dead is that, despite everything I'd still like to leave the world a little better place than I found it.
The reason I use the internet is that I can enjoy the company of intelligent, caring people like you and Craig.
Parallel discussion
There is an interesting and at times rather hilarious parallel discussion taking place even as we blog at The Guardian, triggered by Madeleine Bunting's piece Enlighten me: Why are the 'hard liberals' so keen on invoking the Enlightenment as their tablets of stone?
But back to the chase. I support Will Howard's comment on Craig's assertion that:
I have met a few fanatics in my time, and also a large number of scientists. Scientistic scientist fanatics may be around, but they have so far eluded me. I would add that what we usually describe as 'science' is simply reason as applied to nature. ('Science' is included in 'Reason'.) If the Enlightenment stands for anything, it is the replacement of dogma, untestable hypotheses and pronouncements of Authority carved on tablets of stone, by reason: reason pertaining not only to 'natural' phenomena, but social and personal ones as well.
Science can never be a religion, because as Will says, according to the rules of the game, nothing put forward by any scientist is beyond scrutiny and challenge. (Not so for religion, as certain Danish cartoonists will tell you.) I think that is probably why attempts to set up a 'cult of reason' to replace Catholicism after the French revolution failed so dismally. People seek different things from religion than they do from science.
Craig also asks: "Has science delivered us into a new kind of slavery rather than the universal liberation promised?" A variety of responses is possible to that. Some will assert that it has, and offer their evidence. Others will go the other way. But all will offer reasons, using reason. Like a New Age hippie's testament to the wonderful powers of pyramids, an answer of either 'yes' or 'no' to Craig's question ultimately stands or falls on the strength and soundness of the rational argument supporting it.
A yoga teacher told me once that ancient Indian masters believed that human development required a balance between four aspects of life: the physical, the intellectual, the emotional and the spiritual. I have found that to be true in my own experience. But it takes a logically constructed linguistic message (ie a reasonable and reasoned sentence) to convey it. I think it was Carl Sagan who said: "Reason may not be much, but ultimately, it's all we've got."
Otherwise we finish up with what one anonymous wit put on the abovementioned Bunting thread:
thoughts of a simple man
Craig, I must confess that for me your article and responses to date are far too academic, abstract and reliant on knowledge of literature that unfortunately I do not have. However, I have a tenuous grasp of the concepts it begs two interrelated questions which you might like to consider.
The title. Is it a rhetorical question meant to underline the body of your work here, and what is meant by “we”?
The reason I ask is that if I take the title in its literal form and assume that “we” refers to humanity in general then, no disrespect, it is a no brainer - patently not.
There is a third question. How do you define enlightenment? Is it wisdom? If it is, then we are little closer now than when we were living in caves. Knowledge does not beget wisdom and, even if it did, our knowledge is not remotely complete. The most wise are those who realise the vastness of their ignorance.
I believe there is a limit to human understanding of the universe. That which we craft is determined by the tool we have to use; in our case thought processes that are driven by the passage of electrons between brain cells; large particles in a universe where matter might be infinitely divisible. Maybe we’re trying to work out a watch with a cold chisel and hammer. All we can do is fashion models, analogues to aid in our conceptualisation of the nature of our experiences, ranging from dreamtime through religion to science. Freud, who started out as a neuropathologist, gave us psychology from what I believe was frustration in the realisation that he would never do more than scratch the surface of understanding the human mind.
I post this with some trepidation. By the by, Bach’s interest was with the mathematical relationships in (Western) music rather than time; the utilisation of which was only possible with the technological advancements that resulted in precision-built instruments.
I've no doubt Scott
I've no doubt Scott Dunmore that many an academic would find my article far from academic, whilst others see it just as you do. I just felt like writing something a little different, tossing around some ideas, and potentially sparking some interesting conversations amongst 'diarists.
I used that title to echo Kant's question, which I thought was an interesting one to ask again with so many years of 'progress' down the track. I'd been reading material on the 'net and a number of books in my library again prompted by Daniel Smythe's comments a week or two ago about finding salvation for humanity through eugenics. Daniel's view had got me wondering that if we're smart enough to know how to do what he's suggested are we smart enough to work through the question of whether it's a smart thing to do. And yes the question in the title is a rhetorical device and it is used as you say and the 'we' is meant to encompass all of us - humanity.
I use the term "enlightenment' reflecting Kant's use in his essay of 1784 - Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?
Rejecting Modernity
On a lighter note, this thread reminded me of a satirical piece I read last year, entitled College Profs Denounce Western Culture, Move to Caves, which starts out:
Two years ago this month, Alan Lowenstein, associate professor of philosophy at Harvard University, came to a fateful conclusion. 'I suddenly realized that the oppression of western technology extended to my own life,' he explained. 'That's when I got rid of my computer, threw away my Brooks Brothers suits, changed my name to Grok and moved into a cave.'
A passionate critic of Euro-American 'linear thought,' Grok is one of a growing number of college professors around the nation who have relocated to caves, mud huts and makeshift sweat lodges to demonstrate their disdain for western culture and technology. For Grok, 44, the move to a cave was a natural step in his intellectual progression.
'My dissertation at Columbia integrated the seminal works of Jacques Lacan, Derrida, and Michel Foucault,' said Grok, referring to the influential French deconstructionist philosophers. 'I was able to prove, conclusively, that conclusiveness is not conclusive.'
The 1983 dissertation, entitled 'Beyond the (Dis)Integration of Post-Modern Post-Toasties Pair 'o Dimes and Paradigms: Look at How Clever I Am,' created a stir in academic circles and landed Lowenstein a prestigious teaching position at Harvard. From there, he honed his cutting-edge research.
...and goes hilariously downhill from there. I chuckled at this:
Grok's dramatic commitment to western technology-free living has inspired others in the academic community. One convert is Eegah, chairperson of the department of gender studies at the University of Michigan, who now lives in a creek bed outside Ann Arbor.
'There is something very liberating, very empowering about abandoning phallocentric culture,' said Eegah, who was until recently known as Katherine Robinson. 'Cave dwelling authenticates our visceral experience, releasing us from the bond of western patriarchal oppression.'
As an example, Eegah noted that she is no longer dependent on money. 'I have adopted the traditional barter system of non-western, matriarchal societies. I get all the furs and meat I need by having sex with hobos.'
Eegah said that non-western living has other advantages. 'I am liberated from western notions of female beauty. No longer do I have to shave my armpits, bathe, or see the dentist,' said Eegah, noting that she has lost fewer than ten teeth since 'going non-western' in 1996.
Then you'll like this
I came across a different version of this a while ago, but can now only find this one on the Communications from Elsewhere blog (just hit refresh to generate a new essay).
I wonder if we hit refresh often enough will we generate Beyond the (Dis)Integration of Post-Modern Post-Toasties Pair 'o Dimes and Paradigms: Look at How Clever I Am or even Do we now live in an enlightened age?
Crossroads Of Convergence
Craig, if I get to Melbourne sometime soon we must share a beer.
I haven't read anything on convergence theory for some time, but recall 2050 as a rough point when things are predicted to really warm up. In my mind the most important thing is that when this potential Golden Age comes around our society is culturally equipped to maximise the opportunities.
I like the way my father puts it, "when we're all black boxes on the ocean floor, we should all know how to play the banjo". It's a simple metaphor for carrying forward all aspects of society, and making sure they exist up to and beyond the point of the convergence of knowledges. Our family has endeavoured to assist in this by keeping non-commercially viable music forms in the local public field of vision.
I had a nightmare a while back that I'll take to my grave... well more of a morbidlly fascinating dream. I watched the earth from space as explosions were engulfed by nanotech-driven waves of matter, regular decimations of humanity instantly resolved by clones, and resources fell from space to keep the process going.
Fantasy writer Piers Anthony once wrote of the battle for souls between God and the Devil as being the ultimate sorting of primal matter. I self-explain my dream-nightmare in a similar manner.
Personally I'd prefer a knowledge-augmented Gaia in which matter and concepts continued to flourish through eternity.
The era created at the crossroads of convergence is about to begin. We need to think about the direction we take. Given humanity's current track-record, I hope we are able to make a good choice.
Converge this way ... soon
Dare to know thyself
“Socrates,” says Renan (Life of Jesus) gave philosophy to mankind and Aristotle gave it science. “There was philosophy before Socrates, and science before Aristotle; and since Socrates and since Aristotle, philosophy and science made immense advances. But all has been built upon the foundation which they laid.” Yes indeed, science is progressive, we observe, document and learn, then pass on this knowledge to our children who like architects and engineers build even greater processes and methods and things we label science and technology. In short science and technology are linear and progressive, but what of philosophy and the human condition?
Science begins as philosophy and ends as art for philosophy will always surrender its ground to science. As children we learn maths, science and language; the tools for our survival yet what do we learn about ourselves? Sadly the human psychic unlike science and knowledge is not necessarily progressive, rather cyclical. Science gives us the ability to build increasingly sophisticated weapons that we sooner or later use against each other just as we did thousands of years ago. Then having done so we claim to have learnt from our mistakes, make glorious speeches about peace and tolerance then a few years later do it all over again.
Craig concludes: “So perhaps we need to bring on some enlightenment and examine these ideas of those who want to redesign the human condition and decide whether it’s utopia or dystopia we see on the path ahead of us.” Craig inferred early in his piece we should dare to know thyself. If we as individuals are not prepared to embark on such a journey then we will simply be the play things of those who wish to redesign human kind in their image.
Our immaturity as individuals is something we must come to terms with, and I suspect the first step on our personal road to wisdom has something to do with our being aware of the fact that we (adults) are simply nothing more than experienced children, out of our depth, with far too many extemely dangerous toys.
Dangerous toys
And what were the Socratic dialogues discussions of? Love, Piety, Virtue and the like.
What could we give our children that is of most value? A knowledge of Love, Piety, Virtue and the like? The stuff that brings joy?
What do we give our children? Far too often, it's dangerous toys.
Renaissance refashioning
Fantastic piece, Craig Rowley. And great to see the sensible responses you're getting.
No big contribution from me here, but am just starting a book I've been exposed to by some smart people that deals with the problems you raise from the point of view of "self fashioning" and consciousness, mediated through the effects and process of historical change in an epoch. The American literature professor Stephen Greenblatt locates his study Renaissance Refashioning: From More to Shakespeare at that great junction of antiquity and the modern era, the Renaissance, and from what little I've read so far is outlining the genesis of the very negotiating, living process Craig is explaining.
In the meantime I'll stick with a brief comment. Kant, to me is marvellous in, in effect, reiterating Shakespeare's comment from the mouth of Hamlet about "more 'neath heaven and hell than meets our philosophy, Horatio". That we are "limited", as Plato explained in his cave analogy, is a determining condition in human experience and formation as to anxiety, adaptation and action.
We can't presume that some benign influence will come and sort it all for us, yet given our conditional relative ignorance, how we seem to flail about in panic; ignorant even of our ignorance, ignorant of our human, social and cultural processes, of our motives; ignorant at the most basic level.
Kant knows much of ignorance is self-imposed and one tactic we use is mystification to ensure that we don't understand our own motives, for what we suspect we and others will discover. It's always difficult to "cast the moat from my own eye" when considering the speck of dust in an others, yet am I brought back to this situation again and again as a seeming precondition to advancing from the latest rut. Yet how grateful must I be for even this limited wiggle room, in a life as contingent, confining and even disempowering as this one.
By the way, may I recommend a book? Not too earnest, concerning perplexity, that I found a really good laugh. It is a wry reworking set in a more modern time of Voltaire's rollicking Candide by a bloke called Steven Lukes, entitled The Curious Enlightenment of Professor Caritat.
In le meilleur des mondes possibles
On-Isolationist
Craig, a very interesting article. However, I did think that there was a very important aspect of society's endeavour that you did not address. Namely that the worlds of science, technology, education and all the other worthy candidates for improving our life are subservient to the "golden rule", that being "he who has the gold makes the rules".
In the egalitarian world of the West, the things of sophistication and charm, which we value and aspire to, are baubles for those who have no "gold", nearly 97% of us. As in the brutal times of robber barons and despots, our achievements smack of "bread and circuses" (I know, lots of mixed metaphors). Even with post-graduate degrees and 6 figure incomes, nearly all of us are excluded from the club that determines our national wealth and global political direction. There is a lot of room in this gilded cage for us to rattle around in but it still remains a gilded cage.
I admit that people can adopt a fair facsimile of an independent life but history tells us that events like The Great Depression and the World Wars, for example, happen with monotonous regularity and undismissable inevitability. There is another military conflagration coming and it will not be the choice of the 97%, who in fact have no financial stake in the outcome.
In spite of everything that we could have, the world remains a mess. One might be tempted to think that more education, in fact, more of the same of everything that we believe will cure the world's ills, is the answer, and that we may be on the path to success. This is just not so. The world's forests will be cleared, the wilderness areas violated, the atmosphere poisoned and the seas emptied because the rapaciousness of those who rule the world's wealth, knows no boundaries and acknowledges no law except their own will. They care nothing for your education or mine except for how it might serve them.
They are the masters of our universe and all governments answer to them. The rest is a carnival, in the original sense of the word, where we farewell those things that we have valued for something new and different, all the time being kept off-balance and a little uneasy. This, we are told, is progress.
Why the caged bird sings
Roger, your comment reminded me of what Max Weber said he worried about -- the "Iron Cage" of a technically ordered, rigid, dehumanised society:
No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals or, if neither, mechanized petrification embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: 'Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has obtained a level of civilization never before achieved.
It also reminded me of Maya Angelou's poem - I know why the caged bird sings (click here to see it as Flash + Poetry) and something this inspirational woman said:
"I am human and nothing human can be alien to me."
To be an optimist or pessimist - that's yet another question my article might provoke (sorry Scott Dunmore and Daniel Smythe for adding more to the mental load).
The variety in response to my article and particularly Paul Walter's mention of "Voltaire's rollicking Candide" (fully titled Candide, ou l'Optimisme; in English Candide, or Optimism) has got me thinking about this optimism v pessimism question. Voltaire, as Paul would know, famously mocked Gottfried Liebniz's optimism by representing him as Candide's tutor who continually asserts tout est au mieux ("everything is for the best") and that he lives in le meilleur des mondes possibles ("the best of all possible worlds").
I find in myself a tendency to optimism, even if I am shining a light on things that may be cause for some to feel pessimistic. It's my motivation for shining that light - a hope that we (humanity) can get smart before doing something really stupid, like a slow self genocide or a quick "mutually assured destruction".
The eternal pessimist
Craig, no need to apologise, this didn't need thinking about. I've always known that an optimist is a person too slow in thought to be pessimistic. (Sorry, can't help myself.)
By the by, have you given any thought to my questions?
Voltaire
Funny how Voltaire's black humour resonates so thoroughly for so many people in our time. How can optimism thrive except outof the deepest pessimism. Sometimes the only thing a normal person can do is laugh else they'd cry. That's why I doubt whether anyone contributing to this thread would not possess the deepest sympathy for the "dark night of the soul" sentiments expressed by Roger Fedyk, Daniel Smythe and others turned melancholic from the side effects that inevitably derive from the commendable, unshirking and exhausting effort to see things unadorned and free of wishful thinking. They must be finally reassured at Craig's (and Kant's and their own) sanity in the wake of his inclusion of Weber's comment.
Ian Macdougall's blog was an act of genius. Not only for the general content, but the timely inclusion of the culminating syllogistic exercise neatly inserted near the end. Also the precious "Guardian" link. Includes a photo of Bunting, who rates as eminently spankable. Which from this writer is a compliment of a very high order, indeed.
Finally, Scott Dunmore. I felt intimidated when I put down my impressions, too. If it's a subject distinguished by the fact that it deserves thought, your response seems more than adequate. That's judging by the ordered and thought-out comments you included.
Sapere Aude, indeed!
Paul, optimism is the refuge
Paul, optimism is the refuge for the powerless which is why religion has such a powerful hold on its adherents.
Pessimism is the natural state for those who remain unconvinced that forces for good abound.
And then, there are those for whom neither optimism nor pessimism are relevant. Those individuals do not write to forums or concern themselves with philosophical or intellectual pursuits. They have a world to run.
Objective /subjective
Roger Fedyk: " And then there are those for whom neither optimism or pessimism are relevant. Those individuals do not...concern themselves with philosophical intellectual pursuits".
So some of us have noticed.
Am not sure though, whether you are referring to the White House, Murdoch, Kirribilli House, Sussex Street, David Jones' Fashion Week, or just the Cronulla mob (either side!).
Maya Knows
Craig, Maya tells a charming story of how she got her name. Christened Marguerite, her younger brother when learning to talk called her "Mya sister". The name stuck.
That really is very human, very heart-warming and uplifting. In my large collection of biography's (including all of Maya's books), I have the life stories of John Paul Getty and Donald Trump. Neither has an uplifiting moment. The dichotomy, so defined, is that The Donald lives only for the deal and Getty never gave a sucker an even break but both have/had an extraordinary influence in the halls of money and power. Angelou on the other hand remains a good example of an aspirant fo the better life. Most would say that her influence is the preferable one but the possibilities for our lives is constrained by what the Getty's of the world decide.
On that score, I remain a pessimist. As long as the world values wealth before art or science the long term prognosis is for more of the same of what we have had done to us for centuries.
Enlightenment? Turn off the light!
Craig, death is utopia because humans are freed from the grinding, futile drudgery of life, the endless hurt, the systematic dismantling of our dreams (assuming, that is, that young people still have idealistic dreams), and the cruel ordeal of growing old in a nursing home where there are no visitors.
Life in our "enlightened age" is dystopia. Technology has brought us a mobile phone that takes photos, global warming, medicines and ray treatment that prolong suffering, cluster bombs, depleted uranium explosives, napalm, and Hiroshima.
Enlightenment? Where?
Turn off the light?
Daniel Smythe says "Life in our 'enlightened age' is dystopia. Technology has brought us a mobile phone that takes photos, global warming, medicines and ray treatment that prolong suffering, cluster bombs, depleted uranium explosives, napalm, and Hiroshima."
I broke down last year and got a mobile phone (try getting one without a camera!), so I think it's a fair enough point that many of our technological developments are, at best, mixed blessings.
So two questions for you Daniel:
1) What are you doing using the Internet? Not only is it product of that "dystopian" enlightenment, but even worse, it's a product of US military technology!
2) If "death is utopia" why are you still alive?
Is it that bad?
Daniel Smythe, you and I would appear to have very different views on humanity and I see that as an opportunity to learn. I'd like to learn more about how you arrived at your views.
I find that whenever I start to think along the lines you've shared with us that I draw back from it. I'd like to learn why you dimiss the things that make me draw back from the harsh view of humanity, things such as our capacity for creativity, caring, friendship, love and all the many things that have been considered virtues.
Science is not technology
Craig Rowley, you bring up a number of really interesting points. I'm glad to see you make the distinction between science and technology. Science usually underpins new technology, but does not dictate how it is applied. This brings up the difference between what we can do, and what we should do. Science can give us all kinds of abilities - to initiate nuclear fission, clone human embryos, transplant the organs of other animals into humans, etc. But the important question is how, or if, we should use these capabilities. The Enlightenment didn't do much to advance our abilities to answer the latter - it's a question of ethics, moral philosophy, theology. Areas science can't say much about.
I disagree with you on one key point. You note "Science was meant to be a light that would, as Francis Bacon said, 'eventually disclose and bring into sight all that is most hidden and secret in the universe' and it was meant to lead the way in the battle against blind faith. Instead we founded a new religion. The vast majority of scientists believe in the inviolability of progress and they do so with the driven purity of terrorists. Is it enlightened not to question the privileged status of scientific knowledge and associated technologies?"
I and most scientists I know definitely don't believe in the inviolability of science. Indeed science is constantly trying to undermine itself, by disproving hypotheses. The kind of statements your essay makes about science having become a religion fundamentally misunderstand the sociology of science.
We're not trying to uphold a dogma; we're trying to knock down whatever the prevailing paradigm is. Darwin's work hasn't survived as a body of theory because scientists are circling the wagons and defending it, but because it's stood up to everything we've thrown at it. And any day now someone may come up with the key set of insights and results to disprove it. Same with any theory. If I had the proof that global warming is a furphy, I'd publish it and have my picture on the cover of Nature, Science, Newsweek, and Rolling Stone.
If there is an article of "faith" among scientists, it is that there are mechanistic explanations for the behavior of natural systems which do not require (but do not rule out) divine intervention. In other words no "then-a-miracle-happened" theories; eg God stopped the Sun, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and then everything went back to normal.
Scientists, perhaps more than most other people I know, are sceptical about the "inviolability" of scientific knowledge. Because we understand how tentative it is. Today's prevailing paradigm is tomorrow's scrap paper. Hopefully, or we'd be out of a job and out on the streets causing trouble. If it were inviolable it wouldn't be science.
You are correct that many people do place an almost religious faith in science's ability to deliver "progress."
You ask "Has science delivered us into a new kind of slavery rather than the universal liberation promised?" My answer is no. There are new kinds of slavery, but they have not been brought about by science. They arise from the usual motivators of human (mis)behavior - fear, greed, hate, etc.
The inviolability of progress?
Will Howard, I appreciate that scientists, by and large, are the leading sceptics challenging the veracity of claims (even scientific claims), but what of the belief in progress?
Now I'm not framing this question from the perspective of one who doesn't subscribe to the belief in progress. My own field of work (organisational development) rests on an assumption of progress. I'm just keen to hear the views of a scientist on the 'progress' question.
To explain where I'm coming from: The Christmas before last I received a gift of John Gray's Straw Dogs. Are you familiar with it? I found it engaging. Actually challenging is a better description. It's been described as a disturbing philosophical onslaught on the widely held humanist optimism in human progress. Daniel Smythe's comments remind me of some aspects of Gray's argument that:
Craig, remember Descartes
Craig, remember Descartes Doll from a previous post by the Yale psychologist?
What is the soul?
Artists are constantly faced with this question, or they used to be, until the mathematical and scientific took over from the creative side and created an imbalance.
Mozart and Bach to me seemed like a perfect balance of both sides of the brain, the intuitive and rational. Mozart’s birth place of Salzburg had a population of 17,000. I find this interesting, it is conceivable that everyone knew of him, and that he could know everyone. His sense of himself must have been totally different to anything we can imagine.
JS Bach inherited a long tradition that was centuries long, what was his relationship to time and self? What is the inner quality that communicates through the centuries?
I would love to research this more, but wasn’t it the industrial revolution that created a new relationship to time? With this new relationship to time came a different relationship of man to himself.
Isn’t it a relationship to time that creates Mass Conformity? There was no Mass Conformity in the past.
Have you thought about the changing relationship to art and the relationship to technology and Science? Religion, Art etc are expressions of mans inner Soul, and Soul is a concept that science has little to say about, except to dismiss it as immaturity.
The reason for this attitude I believe is inherent in Capitalism, what use has the concept of soul in a so called free market economy?
And on a personal note, why is that no artists were used in your post?
Are you not also betraying your own indoctrination perhaps!!
Deep questioning, Charles
Hello again Charles, and thanks for raising some deep and thought provoking questions. I do remember that earlier discussion prompted by Paul Bloom's Project Syndicate article Soulless Bodies. I must confess that I went to comment on that thread, hesitated when I stopped to really think through my position on the issues raised by Bloom and found that process of thinking it through was going to take time – a lot of time.
And I'm still uncertain of how to answer a question like your second: "What is the soul?" Like most educated in the Western tradition I was taught the "common-sense" Descartean dualism. I'm not sure that it was "indoctrination" as my teachers did encourage me to think critically about it. However I do find it, as Bloom said, "so hard to swallow" the scientific rejection of dualism.
Bloom's article was also published at a time when I was still grieving the loss of my second son, who was strangled by the usually life-sustaining umbilical cord connecting him to his mother and making them in some ways two and in other ways one. Seeing his tiny lifeless body had me thinking about souls as may be expected (only a few weeks before Soulless Bodies) and that was the driver behind my desire to really think through the issues raised in Bloom’s article. And I'm still trying to think them through, perhaps an indication that I'm concerned about the conclusion that we are soulless bodies. The basis of my difficulty is the tug-of-war between my sense of intuition which says there is spirit or soul (and that I see it in living things) and my habits of reasoning that are leading me to conclude that the small minority of philosophers and scientists Bloom spoke of may be correct (and it's a prospect I find chilling in the absence of the new morality Bloom says we need to construct).
Your questions about Bach's perception or relationship to Time I cannot reasonably address. I just don't know. I do know and agree with you that the industrial revolution did create a new relationship to Time different to that which prevailed in the ages before. We believe we now belong entirely to passing Time. I just don't know much at all about Bach and I hope you can share more of your knowledge of him. I hope you can follow up on your desire to research it more and then share it with us.
I do sense that our relationship to Time plays a significant role in the shift to mass conformity. I read with interest just recently an article about the studies of a German professor of chronobiology and the distribution of “chronotypes” in the population. Essentially it was saying half of us (in the modern Western world) are in a state something akin to a permanent jet lag. I'll try to find it again and provide a link later (as I'm in a far too jet lagged like state to remember where I saw it right now).
On your second last question about the use of use the concept of soul in a so-called free market economy I'd say it is seen as useful. More on that later as well.
And finally, why no artists? Well, in some ways all the men with utopian visions mentioned were artists and certainly some saw themselves as artists.
Francis Bacon stated that he was following the path of the Ancients and that he had the Wisdom of Solomon and Christ as his guide. He called his ‘New Method’—the Baconian Method I mentioned—an ‘Art of Discovery’ by which all knowledge (divine, human and natural) might be obtained. Bacon by the way proclaimed literature and poetry to be his main love and what he primarily wished to do.
Most people would describe Aldous Huxley as an artist. Fiction writing is an art. He also professed a love of art: "The finest works of art are precious, among other reasons, because they make it possible for us to know, if only imperfectly and for a little while, what it actually feels like to think subtly and feel nobly."
Comte saw the future as belonging to art and looked forward to a time when a ‘regenerated education’ would "render singing and drawing as familiar as speech and writing".
And I could go on. Your point, though, is a fair one. I focused on these men of science as scientists rather than as artists even though most were both. Why? It just didn't occur to me to highlight their artistry.