Quote 1

"In the world of opinion, truth is indeed another opinion, and the philosopher is only another opinion-maker." - Michael Walzer

Walzer is currently one of my favorite thinkers/writers.  I just finished a collection of his essays (Thinking Politically) and I had a few quibbles (see future post on the War on Terrorism), but otherwise thinks he gets it spot on.

This particular quote had particular resonance for me on several levels.  First, because I've been feeling kinda lonely and isolated lately, and I think the quote speaks to that.  Secondly, because I think it entails a Strange Loop (see my post on the subject).  Third, because it just makes a lot of sense.  The details . . .

1) Unfortunately, fearless reader, for both you and me the philosopher is naturally lonely.  In order to discover the "objective" truth, the philosopher must look upon his/her subject from outside of it.  If the subject is society, or culture, or politics, or what have you, then clearly, the philosopher cannot exist within such society, at least on an intellectual level.  This places the philosopher in a lonely place.  In the end, it is a combination of self-exile and ostracism, for after all, culture (by virtue of defining itself by what it is not) cannot except those that purposefully reject said norms.

2) This strange loop consists of the philosopher needing to place him/her self outside of democracy in order to consider what is best for it.  In any other system, it pretty much works - the Philosopher King is already outside of the society.  But in a democracy, the philosopher's truth - as Walzer points out - is simply one more opinion.  But if it is an opinion, it is not a truth.  So, for the philosopher who believes in democracy (as this one does) it creates a strange loop.

3) Yeah - it makes a lot of sense.  My new favorite philosopher: Michael Walzer.  Much thanks due to The New York Review of Books for bringing him to my attention.

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

For the last 15 years I've been going "what the . . ." every time I've come across these terms and now, thanks to the Internet and Wikipedia (of course, I've been ignoring the beautiful dictionary on my desk . . .) the definitions are at my fingertips.  And now, fearless reader, thanks to the Internet, Wikipedia, and me, they are at your fingertips, too.

I think they complicate my struggle over the construction of culture, so I'm going to muse a bit here to integrate my developing conceptions of culture with the 2 Gs.

Gemeinschaft is a close relationship among the individuals in a collective, where the individual is subsumed within the larger group.  The cultural impetus of such a grouping is necessarily going to be conservative in that it is going to define itself by what it is not - the progressive ideal of inclusion has no room in such a closely knit community.

On the other hand, Gesellschaft is a looser-knit collective, where individuals can be individuals, but still work together with other individuals because it is in their self-interest.  This allows for a society without an "other" and is a more progressive approach to society.

Every society has both, but perhaps we need more Gesellschaft and less Gemeinschaft.  But I wonder . . . to what extent does Gesellschaft lead to a society which dehumanizes, not by defining some people as "other" but rather by not even considering other people at all - the focus on the individual has its own problematics, no?

The Glory of Culture

Yesterday, I was nattering on about how holding on to cultural traditions is bad.  Today, well, the opposite (this is the true frustrating joy of the strange loop).

Because, in fact, I also see a deep, and human, need for culture.  It roots us, and tells us who we are.  Unfortunately, it all too often tells us who we are not.  That is - we are not that group of people over there . . . this is the negative-side of culture, but all cultural tradition is conservative by definition.

But in the end, I believe that cultural freedom is important and necessary, even if it is conservative in its nature.  So, going back to what I was writing yesterday, I do actually admire and believe in the strength giving aspects of Chicanoism, Black Nationalism, Boricuaism, etc.  I also think there is something to be said for Americanism.  But I think all of these cultural traditions need to be placed within a context that allows for challenges to the cultural norm: that sees the cultural as inclusive as opposed to exclusive, that doesn't define itself by what it is not.

But I also am considering the possibility (I am unsure of the answer) that culture, again by definition, does exactly what I fear: define itself by what it is not.  Culture is inherently exclusive.  Which pushes me towards a nihilistic approach: fuck everything, burn it all to the ground - a position of absolute opposition to everything and everyone.  

But, fearless reader, I am yet an optimist, and I think this is where my pragmatism and my optimism go hand in hand: I don't seek perfection - just improvement.  Perhaps culture will never (can never) be defined other than by what it is not . . . but it can do better than it does now.

Culture and Conservatism

I was posed the question not too long ago, what does freedom mean to me?

Of course, I had to take the question in a really weird direction, because, you know, such is my wont.

Anyhoo, I had been mulling over the notion of cultural freedom for a while and come to the conclusion that cultural freedom (or as I put it: collective freedom) is inherently conservative.  This bothers me, as somebody who likes to think of himself as fairly radically progressive.  On the other hand, I believe strongly in the importance of cultural autonomy.  But, what if that culture clashes with my progressive beliefs?  Well . . . hm.  This, fearless reader, is a strange loop, is it not?  (ha - I knew this was going to come back again).

I've been reading a history of the turn of the century (1900) Worcester working-class, which I will review shortly in this space.  The author suggests that Emma Goldman's disgust with the lack of class warfare in Worcester is misplaced as there was plenty of cultural warfare, if little union activity.  But, fearless reader, cultural warfare is inherently conservative - it's about maintaining traditions in the face of pressure to change.  Goldman, as an anarchist, was looking for something more progressive - something that would transcend ethnic cultural lines.

So, what does this mean for my position on contemporary issues?  Well, I've come to feel that Black Nationalism, Chicanoism, Boricuaism, etc., etc., etc., things that I used to admire, are in fact problematic as ultimately conservative forces that prohibit the progressive change that I think we need.  In America, progressive forces have to reach a post-identity politics in order to find success; of course, given the on-going state of racism in this country, there isn't much incentive for folks, but there it is.

Strange Loops

ok - so I'll be coming back to this fairly regularly, maybe; so, I might as well try to define it early. 

The concept isn't mine, but I think it explains so much about life.  It all started with a guy named Douglas Hofstadter and his book Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.  He followed up with I am a Strange Loop.  It's pretty intensive mathematics, but he does a pretty good job making sense of it for us, his fearless readers.

It turns out that you can create an infinite mathematical loop that parallels the statement: "This statement is false."  Of course, the problem with said statement is that it is a statement that refers to itself, but posits its own destruction.  But if the statement is, in fact, false, then it is no longer destroyed.  It survives.  But, if it survives . . . it is destroyed, again!  And so on and so on and so on.  This is the idea of a strange loop.

In his magnum opus (Godel, Escher, Bach) Hofstadter traces this idea through math (Godel), painting (Escher) and music (Bach).  In his follow up, he makes a firmer connection to . . . the nature of the human soul.

I find his arguments compelling, if somewhat difficult to understand in detail.  Unsurprisingly, then, I've also made a habit of noticing the Strange Loops that I come across in life . . . and, fearless reader, you shall be regaled with the tales . . . I'm sure you are as excited as I am.

Blogs

So, of course, my first post has to be about blogging, I guess.  It beats all the random crap about love and Stalin and US working-class culture and death and what-not that's running around my brain.  It seems a bit early to be jumping into all that stuff.  No . . . something much more profound: blogging.

And, of course, I have issues.

With blogging.

So, here I am typing away with the idea that somebody might actually read this.  In which case, I am presuming that I have something profound to say.  And that you, fearless reader, assuming I am not just going to be posting this in some forlorn and lonely corner of the 'net, have for some reason decided to read this - for edification, perhaps?  or perhaps for voyeuristic onanism of a sort?  or maybe just for the shits and giggles?

but then, don't you have something better to be doing?

as you shall see (if I continue to update and you continue to follow), I fancy myself a bit of an intellectual revolutionary (more on the problematic of that concept at some future date).  So, I'm waiting, one might even say praying, for the revolution (more on the conceptualization of that concept also in the future).  But then, what the hell are you and I both doing here - writing and reading this crap when we should be out making the revolution, storming the barricades, organizing the masses?

oh well . . .