walk to Morecambe;
visit Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop;
bus back;
meeting this evening;
almost no time for blogging (this is over breakfast).
I am still contemplating CS Lewis on screen. He died before I could write to him. I would have liked to have met him and argued about God. What else? The man set himself up for that. With Poul Anderson, argument would have been less necessary and, if it had arisen, would have been about how to organize society. In Freud's Last Session, Freud made an essential point: if the sceptics are right, then no one will ever know.
Next week, we will see Alice in the Park, not for the first time. The material and imaginative realms remain satisfactory - from where I am standing and for the time being, as long as it remains possible to read a page, watch a screen, hear a soundtrack, see and hear other people, see scenery, like Morecambe Bay from the Promenade and from Williamson Park.
Current rereading is Satan's World by Poul Anderson and The Sandman: Season Of Mists by Neil Gaiman - if anyone out there wants to keep up? No, most of you will have your own reading.
23 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Lewis died in 1963, four or five years before you might have written to him. Also, he was a debater so I don't think he would have minded arguing with you, however wrong he would believe you to be.
Have you ever thought of writing to Tolkien, who died in 1973? I'm currently reading THE NATURE OF MIDDLE EARTH (ed. by Carl Hostetter), a collection of largely philosophical essays or fragments which were framed as tho composed by the Elves.
I wrote my first letter to Anderson when I was 23, first in a series eventually reaching 24 letters. It still gratifies me that he replied to every one of my sometimes far too long and argumentative letters!
I think Anderson would have disagreed with you about far more than merely the ordering of society. Such as the nature of human beings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I had not read Tolkien that far back.
The question of how to organize society leads directly on to the question of what human beings are made of and nothing is unchanging.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm a bit surprised, THE LORD OF THE RINGS was becoming wildly popular by the time you were 14 or 15. And I first read LOTR when I was that age.
Tolkien was one of those writers who loved getting letters from his fans and was more than happy to write back to them. But, by the last 10 years of his life the volume of mail he got became too much for him. I think Allen & Unwin, his publishers, eventually took over handling the simpler, more routine letters, forwarding to him only the more interesting letters.
Then Anderson would likely disagree with you--he too agreed mankind was either Fallen or the imperfectly evolved descendants of chimps. Which to me means the human race will always remain flawed, imperfect, prone to folly, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we know these disagreements! Everything changes. Nothing will always remain the case. We are prone to folly in some conditions and to intelligence and wisdom in other conditions and conditions change.
Our pre-human ancestors ceased to be merely animal. Think of that. They cooperatively changed their environment with hands and brains and changed themselves into reasoning language users and bearers of culture in the process. They did not always remain pre-linguistic animals. Our nature is active, cooperative change, not anything unchanging.
People who are (all of this is possible and happens) well fed, comfortably housed, well educated, socially interactive, engaged in meaningful activity (whether paid employment or something else) do not spontaneously riot, break into supermarkets, burn down buildings or lynch their neighbours. Violence is always something that is merely possible to us but that possibility becomes actual only in conditions of grievance and disaffection that need not be perpetuated into an indefinite future especially now that we can develop the technological means of producing more than everyone needs both materially and culturally.
I think that this understanding of mankind is far more realistic and comprehensive than your insistence that we are flawed ex-chimps. We have not Fallen from Paradise (a myth) but have raised ourselves from animality and can raise ourselves further especially if we cooperate instead of denigrating ourselves with a negative one-sided image that emphasises only past horrors. We created a dreadful twentieth century and our current rulers want to do that with the twenty first just when all the beneficial possibilities are potentially opening up.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I understand your views and Anderson examined some of these suggestions in the HARVEST OF STARS series and GENESIS, coming to conclusions I agree with even if you do not.
The only reason any human society has peace is because the State, good or bad, in whatever form, enforces peace thru its monopoly of the means of violence.
It remains my conviction that human beings, no matter how comfortable or prosperous, will manage to bollix things up, in both large and small ways. Our flaws and imperfections can only be managed, not eliminated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But civilized living with no occasion for violence is possible. The state can become redundant.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except all civilizations have had to deal with crime and violence by both individuals and gangs. And I've seen no reason to ever expect that to cease. Hence the need for the continued existence of the State.
I also believe the State will exist to the end of time, as 1 Corinthians 15.24 says: "Then comes the end, when he [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father; when he does away with all sovereignty, authority and power."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But of course all past civilizations have needed a state for very compelling reasons and I have given reasons why I think that that can, not inevitably will, cease in future.
In Biblical and Eastern texts, people predicting and prophesying future events have assumed that their kind of social structure will continue into an indefinite future because they have been unable to imagine anything else.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Where we differ is that I don't believe in the realism and plausibility of those "reasons." At most crime and violence might be lessened, but not completely eliminated.
And I believe the authors of those Biblical and other texts were more realistic than those who think more or less as you do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there is no reason for crime or violence in conditions that we can easily describe. Many people do not attack their neighbours now and that situation can be extended. It can be done when enough people want it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
As both Stirling and I have tried to tell you repeatedly, human beings don't need rational reasons for behaving in violent and criminal ways.
Many don't attack their neighbors because the existence of the State restrains them. And you can never, ever be wholly sure of who will or will not behave like that. None of us can!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Violence exists not because of rational reasons but because of causes which can be identified and eliminated. Racist attacks increase because of racist political rhetoric. It suits British political parties to make an issue out of immigration when people are fleeing violence elsewhere in the world, some of it supported by our political parties.
Many peaceful people do not attack their neighbours because of the existence of the State? Many of us do not want to attack anyone anyway. That can become a habit which becomes a norm so that the State is less and less necessary. We can work towards this. There is nothing in people that makes them suddenly, spontaneously violent when they are not being oppressed, provoked, deprived, discriminated against, treated as second class etc. We are certainly not like that.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. It's not "racist" to be outraged by out of control illegal immigration by foreigners insolently violating the laws of one's country. Since that bungler, "Josip," took office in 2021, more than eleven million foreigners have swarmed in, bringing a crushing burden of crime and violence, with billions spent trying to cope with the chaos!
Violence happens because all of us are flawed and imperfect, Fallen. Meaning we all have the potentiality for violence, and it's impossible to know, beforehand, who will be a robber, rapist, murderer, etc.
And many do attack their neighbors, becoming robbers, rapists, or murderers, etc. The duty of the State, any State, is to keep crime and violence within tolerable limits. I do not believe in the realism of your "Peace norm," for reasons given above. Nor do I agree about that "oppressed, provoked, deprived, discriminated against,..." because that does not with what many criminals are.
Your views, I believe, are unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have many potentials which are not realized. Of course many would respond violently if treated badly enough. Knowing many people and their circumstances, we can easily predict that they will never become robbers, rapists or murderers!
My views, I believe, are realistic.
Violence does not just happen spontaneously without any cause. Try to imagine that. People fought for food. We can produce more than enough food for everyone. Food riots do not happen in prosperous districts!
People fight because they have different beliefs? Not for that reason. People with different beliefs often live peacefully side by side and can share each other's festivals. But they can be stirred up for other reasons. That has to stop. The Crusades were about land and loot.
In practice, concern about immigration involves a lot of hostility to immigrants. Listen to Trump's speeches. Problems that cause people to cross borders in large numbers need to be addressed internationally, not just by rich countries closing their borders and leaving the problems elsewhere to get worse. Far too much technological wealth is diverted into "defence" systems, world-wide.
We are capable of a far better world than this.
Paul.
BTW, when technologically produced abundant wealth is held in common, then everyone will own it and no one will "rob" it. If you consistently fail to imagine qualitatively different social conditions, then you continue to imagine unchanged behaviour.
Kaor, Paul!
I continue to believe you to be incorrect. And you persist in ignoring a basic point: all nations have the sovereign right for setting the terms and conditions by which foreigners may enter a country and become citizens. "Jsoip's" dereliction of duty about that is a huge reason why so many Americans are enraged at him and the Democrats!
All humans, without exception, now and to come, are going to be flawed and imperfect. That is why there are always going to be some who prey on their neighbors.
The only reason people with strongly held beliefs can live in peace with each other is because of the existence of a State capable of enforcing that peace. Need I remind you, again, of how often Hindus and Muslims have slaughtered each in India when old hatreds got out of control? Or the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia? Or the massacres of Tutsis by Hutus in Africa? Or the slaughter of Christians by Muslims in Nigeria? I could go on and on listing how mistaken you are!
Nor do I believe in impossibilities like the common ownership of everything, of any kind socialism. It is not lack of imagination I have, it is realism.
Ad astra! Sean
"What belongs to everybody belongs to nobody... and that's who takes care of it."
This is known in sociology as the 'tragedy of the commons'.
Or to put it another way, it is basic human nature that altruism is episodic but selfishness constant.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That expresses more clearly what I was trying to say on why I believe "common ownership of everything" and socialism simply doesn't work.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is not a basic point. Mankind does not need the continued existence of armed nation states.
We are not always going to be flawed and imperfect. There do not need to be conditions in which some are motivated to prey on others.
Hindus and Muslims have not just slaughtered each other because of differences in beliefs. Other social divisions and conflicts have been involved. All those are past conflicts that need not be reproduced in future. Surely I am not thought to be denying that such conflicts happened in the past?
Common ownership will be necessary and inevitable when there is more wealth than any one individual, group or social class needs to hoard or monopolize. All that thinking is redundant.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul
First paragraph: Armed nation states exist for a reason, human beings are contentious, aggressive, quarrelsome, strife prone, etc. And I see no reason, zero, to ever expect that ceasing to be so.
Second paragraph: Disagree, because we are all of us innately flawed. And the brute facts of real life and real history proves that.
Third paragraph: Of course there are many factors contributing to the hatred between Muslims and Hindus in India. In fact that supports my argument, not yours. And these conflicts are happening now, globally, not just in India.
And I don't believe one bit in what I consider hopelessly Utopian dreams about the "common ownership of everything." The Pilgrims of the Plymouth colony in MA, my own state, experimented with that futile idea, and had the humility and good sense to abandon it when it did not work.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
You often propose things I believe to be dangerously mistaken, which when acted on will or is very likely to lead only to hideous, needless tragedy. So I feel the need to propose to readers countervailing arguments or alternatives I believe to be far more realistic.
Voluntary sharing is one thing, impossibilities like "common ownership of everything" is another, very different matter.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not impossible and will become inevitable. When there is more that enough to go round, why should any one social group "own" and control what everyone needs and what are they supposed to do with it?
A society in which everyone is guaranteed what they need not only for subsistence but also for their fullest development. No longer any need for a money economy. No investment in anyone else's labour. No need to control production or distribution in order to accumulate "profits." No need to compete for resources. If there are some who, in a transitional generation, cannot adjust to the fact that no longer need to toil for someone else in order to earn their living and therefore can see no alternative to dying of boredom, there will be many others who welcome their freedom and set out to see what they can make of life in the new vastly improved social conditions.
These are potentialities but they cannot be dismissed out of hand just because they differ from the way things have been. Competitive industrial technological production has now produced the means to transcend itself.
Paul.
they
Post a Comment