Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Wisdom, Maturity, Common Sense

More common sense from five years ago. If it was commonsensical then, it should still be today, no? In other words, if common sense exists, one of its characteristics would be that it never goes out of style. What's the word? Yes, perennial. The perennial wisdom.

Speaking of which, Dennis Prager's latest column explains how good intentions in the absence wisdom redounds to evil. Does wisdom equate to common sense? Not exactly. It seems to me that wisdom is distilled from common sense -- that no one lacking in common sense can be called wise, but wisdom is more refined and articulated.

Another important element in any discussion of common sense is "maturity." People lacking in common sense are immature, but in a literal way, in the sense that maturity implies a telos to psychological development. Failure to mature is the sine qua non of character pathology, in that the personality, either in whole or in part, has failed to attain its proper end (no different from any other organ). Davila has a number of aphorisms that go to maturity, common sense, and wisdom, such as

--The young mature when the old no longer seems automatically bad and the new no longer seems automatically good.

--To mature is to discover that every object desired is only the metaphor for the transcendent object of our desire.

--To mature is to transform an increasing number of commonplaces into authentic spiritual experience.

--To mature is to see the increase of the number of things about which it seems grotesque to give an opinion for or against.

--The independence of which every youth boasts is no more than submission to the new prevailing fashion.

--Young people believe that youth is a destination, when it is merely a provincial bus stop.

Wisdom, according to Schuon, "is simple, inasmuch as its expressions converge on That which alone is, and wisdom has the gift of simplifying; but it also comprises, for that very reason, all the sanctifying riches which the human soul, so diverse in its nature, may need during its pilgrimage towards the Immutable."

And where we are situated on the Pilgrimage Towards the Immutable must be a measure of our degree of maturity, eh?

On to the old post:

Is there such a thing as common sense, or has it been successfully eradicated by the Big Education of the state? If it does exist, what is it, and how does it work? Is it something a person has by virtue of his personhood, or is it something only acquired through experience? And if the latter, is it through personal experience, or the collective experience of generations who have had to face the same existential conditions? And where does one acquire such collective wisdom? From the family? Culture? Education? The state?

What if the most important things not only can't be taught, but can't even be clearly articulated? Rather, they can only be lived and maybe symbolized, but not with language per se. A passage lifted from Happy Acres resonates:

The challenge for each new generation is figuring out what’s worth keeping and what worth tinkering with. The progressive attitude is that everything is eligible not just for tinkering, but wholesale replacement. The people who lived yesterday were idiots, but we are geniuses!

Which goes to something Schuon said on a number of occasions: that if people prior to us were such idiots, it is impossible to explain how we could be so brilliant, given the crooked and even diseased timber from which we are made. It's almost as if progressives posit a kind of cognitive original sin that strangled the mentality of every man until this angelic breed suddenly and inexplicably arrived on the scene with their immaculate and sinless intellects. As if they are literally the ones we've been waiting for.

But "The conservative attitude is to assume that our parents and grandparents weren’t fools and that they did some things for good reasons." However, as alluded to above, it is possible that these reasons were never consciously thought out or articulated. Rather, perhaps "some things our forebears bequeathed us are good for no 'reason' at all."

This is consistent with Hayek, who "argued that many of our institutions and customs emerged from 'spontaneous order' -- that is, they weren’t designed on a piece of paper, they emerged, authorless, to fulfill human needs through lived experience, just as our genetic 'wisdom' is acquired through trial and error. Paths in the forest aren’t necessarily carved out on purpose. Rather they emerge over years of foot traffic."

Which reminds me of something I read in Lawrence in Arabia. It is impossible to imagine the vastness of the desert, which is like a featureless ocean of sand and rocks. However, the Bedouins don't simply wander around blindly. Rather, the sandscape is dotted with the occasional well, so if we were to map the human phase space of the desert, we would actually see well worn (but invisible) paths from well to well.

Well, it's the same with the human mindscape. One of the fondest principles of progressives is that the mind is indeed a trackless desert -- a blank slate -- and therefore infinitely malleable. Absent that dubious principle, then progressive schemes cannot get off the ground, because people are going to persist in being people, and there's not a damn thing the state can do about it.

This explains why progressive schemes often get a few inches off the ground, only to promptly crash and burn. Which then requires another progressive scheme to put out the fire and clean up the mess. Repeat ad infinitum.

Continuing with the Happy Acres passage,

In the parable of the fence, Chesterton says you must know why the fence was built before you can tear it down. But Burke and Hayek get at something even deeper: what if no one built the fence?... Or what if everyone built the fence without realizing it? What if we are surrounded by fences that were never consciously built or planned but were instead the natural consequence of lived experience?

Do you think beavers wonder about how to defend their tradition of dam building, or that spiders worry about the environmental impact of their webs? Similarly, "So much of what makes civilization civilized is intangible, spontaneous, and mysterious. An unknowable number of our greatest laws are hidden, our greatest wisdom is authorless, and our most valuable treasures are in our hearts. This should foster enormous humility about how to out-think humanity."

I think this explains how and why the people who try to outthink humanity are always lacking in common sense, even if they are otherwise "geniuses." For example, Albert Einstein: genius at physics. Immature boob at politics. Noam Chomsky: they say he's a savant at linguistics, but this hardly prevents him from being an idiot at everything else.

Bion said something about the limitations of language, to the effect that we run into trouble when we try to use this device designed to negotiate the physical world to map the psychic -- let alone spiritual -- world. Obviously, in order to accomplish the latter, we will have to use language in a different way, if we can accomplish it at all.

To cite one particularly obvious example, if you want to be perfectly literal, then there can be no name, no word, for God. As soon as you confer a name, you have placed a boundary around the boundless and signified the unsignifiable.

But there are many things of this nature -- even the most important things in life. I would say that there is a kind of permanent dialectic between knowledge and mystery -- (k) and O -- and that to pretend to have transcended or eliminated the latter is to drain life of all its romance, charm, and adventure. Think about this the next time you imagine you could do a better job at creating a cosmos: how to make one that is simultaneously infinitely knowable and yet infinitely mysterious?

In my opinion, this can only be because the cosmos is personal and from the hand of a person, since a person is the quintessential case of something infinitely knowable and yet utterly mysterious and "other."

You could say that we are talking literally about embodied -- or incarnated -- truth(s).

Fine observation by Eliot, also lifted from Happy Acres, about "the decline of religious sensibility." Sensibility is not sense per se, but sensation in a higher key, so to speak -- like good taste in music or poetry.


The trouble of the modern age is not merely the inability to believe certain things about God and man which our forefathers believed, but the inability to feel towards God and man as they did. A belief in which you no longer believe is something which to some extent you can still understand; but when religious feeling disappears, the words in which men have struggled to express it become meaningless (emphasis mine).

Thus, there are any number of things in which human beings believe because they understand them, even without being able to explain how or why. This goes back to Paul's crack about faith being the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not (yet) seen. This "substance" is the ground of being, while the evidence is its end; or, just say origin and destiny, which is where we always are, because we are in (created and personal and meaningful) being.

When we talk about the "social issues" at the root of the culture war, the problem is that we are mostly talking about pre- or trans-articulated, embodied knowledge, or common sense. In his latest Jonah Goldberg writes of how these are also connected to

the role and authority of the family. Arguments about abortion, gay marriage, obscenity, sex ed, etc. all connect to the family directly or indirectly. Even gun rights have a lot to do with the family, and not just because 'gun culture' is primarily learned in the home. Guns fit neatly into the conception of the autonomous family and the role of parents as primary protectors of their children.


no institution transmits culture more effectively than the family. We learn language, dialect, and accents in the home.... We get most of our religion and morality at home. We learn from our parents how citizens behave in a society and what they should expect from society and government. It's important to keep in mind that while parents teach their kids by telling them things, the real learning comes from watching what parents do — or don't do. Kids are wired to emulate their parents (emphasis mine).

Here again, we're talking about incarnated and largely unarticulated knowledge, i.e., how to "be" (i.e., the "unthought known"). Which is in turn "why progressives of all labels have had their eye on the family. It is the state's greatest competition."

Or to paraphrase Woodrow Wilson -- now, there was an honest and honestly nasty progressive! -- said, "the primary mission of the educator is to make children as unlike their parents as possible."

Which is ultimately to make them as unlike human beings as possible. Well done.


Matte Blk, Catalyst4Christ said...

...and who's THE Author
of ALL life, bubba??
That's RITE.
STOP abortion...
or we gotta pay the piper.

Gagdad Bob said...

Apropos of today's post:

"Humans effortlessly know that a tree is a tree and a dog is a dog no matter the size, color or angle at which they’re viewed. ... 'The way that the human mind, the human visual system, understands shape is a mystery that has baffled people for many generations, partly because it is so intuitive and yet it’s very difficult to program' ....

"AI programers trying to duplicate the functions of the human mind are still dealing with some high-level known-unknowns, and maybe even a few unknown-unknowns."

Matte Blk, Catalyst4Christ said...

Amen, B.
Thats why it was never
meant to be humans should
have POW!er o'er their existence.

Matte Blk, Catalyst4Christ said...

Stupid humans.
-Bugs Bunny talk'n
withat cool alien
in that skirt...

julie said...

What if we are surrounded by fences that were never consciously built or planned but were instead the natural consequence of lived experience?

Do you think beavers wonder about how to defend their tradition of dam building, or that spiders worry about the environmental impact of their webs?

In these days, having children is so often constructive, inasmuch as they observe so many of nature's fences and remark upon them; they haven't learned yet that some fences are, if not torn down, under the ban of mokita. I often find myself saying to my kids, upon such a spontaneous observation, "you're not wrong, but please don't say that other people..."

Anonymous said...

A possible secret to programming humanlike AI is to give AI a pain-n-pleasure sensing body which AI would be compelled to defend. Of course that would open up all kinds of avenues towards mental defenses and all, since no computer wants to feel a queasy pain in its gut for even minor things, like when its brain has been proven wrong.

Kids need to be taught that psychopaths are out there, and that they are all harmful for them, at the end of the day. Low on pain sensing, they're only compelled to defend their bodies pleasure. That'd mean a whole lot of duplicity, I'd think. There are so many sources where psychopaths describe how much pleasure they feel at ruining others, that is seems a common feature. I sure hope programmers don't create any psychopathic robots.

julie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
julie said...

"the primary mission of the educator is to make children as unlike their parents as possible."

Which is ultimately to make them as unlike human beings as possible. Well done.

Reason number eleventy billion why people should really consider homeschooling...

Though if you think about it, we've had a couple of generations since Woody made his statement. Looking around, it's obvious that we are so unlike our parents of those days as to be a fundamentally different people. Success?

(Huh - posted, then thought I had somehow ended up in the wrong comment section. Oops.)

ted said...

I miss Happy Acres. Being the troublemaker he was, he must have landed somewhere out there to rattle the left.

julie said...

He's still on Twitter, here:

ted said...

That's great Julie! Thanks for letting me know.

River Cocytus said...

Oh, hey. Great to see you're still writing, Bob.

How long it has been since Little Green Footballs!

Gagdad Bob said...

The other day I was thinking to myself that 9-11 was such a shocking event that it drove Charles Johnson temporarily sane.

River Cocytus said...

It was only temporary.

I've published a book, by the way, it's fiction. I think we've got a real first edition coming out soon (the original run didn't have barcodes. Not bad for a first try!)

Remember, the OG internet people never die, we just sometimes take a long time to respawn.

julie said...

Re. Johnson, maybe it's that, having been mugged by reality, he decided the best thing thenceforth would be to steer clear of reality as much as humanly possible.

River, glad to see you! Funny you should pop up today; just this morning in my feed reader, Rick had a new post in his the War blog. I wonder who else we'll be hearing from?

Let us know when your book is ready for primetime :)

River Cocytus said...

Perhaps a collab is in the 'works' in the co(s)mic destiny sense. Who knows! Here is some unpublished poetry I wrote recently, so's you all know I'm still writing it.

Song of Waking

I have spent more of my life in dreams
Than many have spent in light of day--
Forgetting at times what is what seems
To be real and what would now betray;

I have wished for a thousand tales
To continue to their end but in vain
Trying to recall as passing sleep fails
Some fleeting face or fading name;

And when we wake from this life at last
As dream-phantoms real to us will fall
From waking-dreams and dreams now passed--
Who will remember these days at all?

julie said...

Lovely, thanks for sharing it!

Anonymous said...

I’ve noticed that there are many leftist Christians. Most are these are black, hispanic, female or whenever they’re male they’re usually gay, fruity, or hipsterish metrosexual with the short hair and beards. Should their kind be considered half saved, half lost, half baked, sub-Christian, sub-human or to be ignored completely? Will they be spending eternity in some kind of lesser heaven? Besides the politics their beliefs seem pretty much the same so this is confusing.