Another cold opening:
From a purely logical point of view, the advantage of positive-sum interactions [is] so great that it's obvious any "reasonable" person would prefer them. Who would not choose cooperation, affection, intimacy, creativity, productivity over violence, coercion, and destructive behavior? Who would not want a world of mutual benefit and prosperity?
Oh, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Hurras al-Din, the Holy Land Foundation, Mehdi Hassan, Sunny Hostin, House Squad members, VP Harris, Hollywood, Harvard, Hitler.... and that's just some of the H's.
We hear about a "two state solution," but no solution will come so long as there exist the two states of mind characterized by the positive- and zero-sum interactions described by Landes above.
But there are deeper psychological reasons for these two states of mind, and Landes describes one of them: envy: "Zero-sum attitudes have a close relationship to envy." Moreover, "like shame and vengeance," envy "may be peculiarly human, and play a key role in our evolution."
Except there's no maybe about it: envy is peculiarly human, and deeply intertwined with psychological development (and arrest).
In the past we've discussed Helmut Schoeck's foundational Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour, and Landes does as well: "Envy is a pervasive element of the human psyche and of human societies," and
cultures that resist envy, even in small but significant amounts, become wealth producing nations. When envy dominates a culture, its members mobilize against success.
Like the Palestinians, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
If memory serves, Shoeck writes of the "envy barrier" that individuals, cultures, and nations must overcome in order to become successful, prosperous, and affluent.
In particular, socialism -- now called "equity," among other deceptive euphemisms -- is atavistic to the core, resting on what psychoanalysts call "constitutional envy." But you needn't be a psychoanalyst to get the point, rather, just a sharp-penned Aphorist:
The left claims that the guilty party in a conflict is not the one who covets another's goods but the one who defends his own.
"Having promulgated the dogma of original innocence," progressives conclude "that the man guilty of the crime is not the envious murderer but the victim who aroused his envy" (Dávila).
Churchill also nailed it: "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." Except to say that gospel means "good news," and socialism always results in bad tidings.
As we've said before, Social Justice is just envy with a Ph.D.
I don't want to veer into a pedantic discussion of psychoanalytic theory, but suffice it to say that there is a hidden but robust relationship between envy, paranoia, dysregulated shame (or shame intolerance), ingratitude, and History -- for individuals sunk into what is called the "paranoid position" are prone to a very different experience of history.
Permit me to yoink one of my old psychology books from the shelf, The Matrix of the Mind by Thomas Ogden. Better yet, let me just synthesize material from a few stale bobservations from the past:
One of Melanie Klein's most important contributions was the distinction between what she called the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions. To achieve the depressive position is to have attained a degree of maturation, integration, and continuity of being that extends both spatially and temporally.
Another very bright fellow, Thomas Ogden, says that a better name for the depressive position would be the historical position, because of its profound effect on one's perception and appreciation of time....
For the person in the paranoid position -- and this is critical -- their current state of being determines their "truth." "History is instantaneously rewritten"....
If you've ever had the misfortune of having a borderline person in your life -- and most of us have -- then you know how this works: "the present is projected backward and forward, thus creating a static, eternal, nonreflective present." You are drawn into the momentary primitive emotional storm of the borderline person, who dismantles time and history. It is simply impossible to argue with such un- or dis-integrated persons, because they constantly throw out arguments from different planes, aggressively unaware of their contradictions.
In contrast, in the depressive position, the person "no longer has access to the kind of Orwellian rewriting of history that is possible in the paranoid-schizoid position."How convenient: I see that I already wrote a post that asks the question, Are Islamic Terrorists Crazy, Evil, or Developmentally Arrested? Why, it even has 70 comments! I wonder what happened to all my readers?
Let's return to the present, where it is already 11:00. Which means we're out of time, irrespective of whether it is the depressive or paranoid kind. I'll pull it together tomorrow, I promise.
6 comments:
Why, it even has 70 comments! I wonder what happened to all my readers?
I still see Van and Joan around here and there, but most of the others have essentially disappeared from the internet, as far as I can tell. Which is truly a bummer, as there were some great conversations back then. Of course, a good conversation takes time, which seems more and more to be in short supply these days.
Re. inventing the individual, it strikes me that the whole point of dismantling Western Civilization and reverting to the default position of tribal envy is to do away with the individual. Except, of course for those who would be our overlords. You will eat the bugs, own nothing, and be happy, comrade... and if you object, well, you know what happens to the too-tall blade of grass or the nail that stands up.
I just wanted to let you know that I'm still (though newly so) a regular reader, enjoying both your posts and the comments...
To Julie - I can relate to your lamenting the lack of "good conversation" and wish I could provide some. Unfortunately, for me, it's not a matter of time, but energy....And as well, the older I get (my 60th fast approaching) the more problematic it is to 'converse' by means of keyboard.
Anyway, just wanted you to know you're appreciated!
Carol
Hello All:
I'm a long-time reader and troll of this and other blogs. However, I have been of late in agreement with what Bob is writing. For a troll, if you don't have anything bad to say, you shouldn't say anything at all.
But I will break the rule on this occasion. No one else out there (that I know of) is offering plausible explanations for the baffling behavior of Hamas, and such are sorely needed to guide policy decisions about a two-state solution. According to Bob, a two-state solution is simply never going to fly, and I find myself in agreement. Someone should send a letter to someone who can act on that judgement. If there is anyone.
Now, to pick up on a comment made in passing about about bugs, that is really weird. I've been hearing more and more stuff about plans to force people to eat bugs. I take it as part of progressive exhortations to obtain protein lower on the food chain and decrease methane producing livestock.
Like their crustacean arthropod cousins, many insects are in fact tasty and nutritious. People have been eating then for time out of mind, and continue to do so in other parts of the world. However, insects do very poorly at market in the USA. They have two problems: the meat is almost impossible to separate from the chitinous exoskeleton, so that every bite is annoyingly fibrous and crunchy.
The other is that some insects such as roaches, flies, mosquitos, and others, are vectors of pestilence and humanity has been locked in conflict with these terrestrial arthropods since our species began.
So, how shall elitist overlords force insects as food on humanity? Especially when there is no real shortage of other proteins.
So, in my opinion, the idea is absurd and could be delusional. Don't fall for it.
@ Open Trench
The prospect of eating insects (or pushing them as food for 'underclasses') doesn't seem "absurd" or "delusional" at all, according to the European Parliament...check out this link:
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/edible-insects-european-union
And where the oligarchs in Europe go (legislation-wise), the ones in the USA are likely to follow.
Hello Cae:
Point taken. However, don't misunderstand me. Despots may want things, but the might not necessarily get them.
Dietary changes historically have been impossible to impose by force.
No amount of Tatar rule could change the Russian propensity for caviar one jot, for example.
Regional cuisines are some of the most stable social formations ever known.
Stalin came up with the "no food at all" restriction which unfortunately did work for depopulation, for awhile.
People will make changes voluntarily; Hindus gladly abjure cattle, and the Muslims, pork and alcohol.
So, in the final analysis, unless bug eating is somehow "sold" to the people, they will not eat bugs. Because they just aren't very good. Too much chitin, not enough meat.
Fair enough? Ball's back in your court.
Julie said "...I still see Van and Joan around here and there..."
Oh I'm still here, but occasionally I get so wrapped up in a series of posts (most recently, metaphysics and epistemology) that I fall behind. Doesn't mean I miss any posts - Bob, seriously, you've no idea how important this harmonic but slightly off in the key of jazz perspective on the whole existentialada, is - but it sometimes does take a while to get back to the future. But I'm getting there, now only about 2wks back... oh, the things I could tell you about the future... but... well... you'll see. ;-)
Post a Comment