Outside the Asylum
Some folks here at caucus99percent have asked those of us who reject mainstream political assumptions to start explaining more clearly what we DO believe. This thread is my response to that. I'm going to use this thread to uncover and piece together my own political philosophy. I also would like this thread to provide a place for everybody's questioning of assumptions, the more fundamental the better--and not just assumptions I want to question! I hope that everybody feels free to bring their own questioning and imaginings to the table.
Come outside.
Material Concerns
I am sitting right now in a coffee shop called Curia on the Drag It is part of a complex of buildings including a food bank and a vegan restaurant that's only open during the school year. The open fields adjoining and the food bank area have the occasional junk sculpture; a wooden face peers down from a tree over my favorite parking place.
I know from the moment I turn into the parking lot that this is a safe haven for certain kinds of deviance. This seems to go all the way back to the motives of the landowner, which deviate from the enforced norm of our culture: profit at any cost.
In case you were wondering, this is what profit at any cost looks like:
Like Sister Hazel did on the much more fashionable west side, the owner bought this complex partly as a civic gesture. Opening a business on the east side at all would have to have some motive other than profit, assuming that the owner is well-off enough to have a choice: those driven purely by profit would not open here. But it goes beyond that, as the presence of the food bank and the junk art tells anyone who is paying attention.
(FYI, this is Sister Hazel for those who don't know them:)
If you missed this place's quiet announcement that it is a safe harbor for deviance, the music playing inside the coffee shop will let you know. Mainstream radio stations don't play The Pretty Things in 2018,
When I go to ask the cash register girl, she tells me the music they play here is all over the map; it depends on who's currently working. The one thing all the music has in common is that it probably wouldn't get played on the mainstream radio.
In other words, Curia on the Drag doesn't buy its playlists pre-planned and prepackaged from Clear Channel.
This tiny fact is like a very small tremor, plates shifting the ground a very small amount and leaving almost-imperceptible cracks in all the buildings. It is a challenge to the status quo that almost no one will understand as such. What makes it a challenge is that the music reflects the desires and choices of the workers currently present, not the desires and plans of Clear Channel, Inc.
What the food bank, the junk art, and the (workers')choice of music have in common is that none of them exists in this place primarily because of anybody's desire for profit.
Let me be clear that I'm not trying to paint this place as some kind of pure alternative space completely divorced from the profit motive. That would be stupid, since the coffee shop obviously sells things. What I'm pointing out is that here the profit motive does not dominate all else. Places where the profit motive does not rule alone like a king on his throne are increasingly uncommon these days. In such places other motives and preferences than the profit motive can express themselves, something that is meant not to be possible in this best of all possible worlds. In the extremely authoritarian form of capitalism we inhabit, any such expression constitutes rebellion.
Not only the art and the music and the presence of the food bank, but the architecture and the land use and even the side of town this is on indicate deviance: the profit motive would never allow open, undeveloped fields to remain, nor the buildings to be so far apart; the profit motive would be unlikely to restore old buildings (someone could make more profit building new ones out of crappy materials to a uniform pattern), and, as I said above, it would be more profitable to open west of 13th St, at least, if not west of 34th. All economic activity and wealth migrate inexorably toward the interstate. When I was a kid 13th St was the heart of town, and this place would not have been considered the east side. Opposing the economic stagnation here is itself a gesture of quiet defiance.
This place is not a revolutionary ideal, but under the right conditions the place could spawn autonomous zones, or even become a sort of semi-permanent autonomous zone itself. Having many places like this would be a good idea. Not all of them would be coffee shops; not all of them would be businesses. They could be anything from a business to a park to a private home. The space could be inhabited semi-permanently or temporarily. But having a space is essential.
I'm suggesting something here that is not at all in line with fundamental American assumptions about, not only politics, but the self. Americans are not materialists. Americans are materialistic idealists. We subscribe to the notion that the spirit rules the flesh. In these secular times, we use words like "character" and "will" rather than soul, but the idea that a strong character can and will overcome any adversity forms the basis of our social thought.
Here's a really good example of someone exploiting that belief. Listen to him talk about the steep climb, the improbable challenge, the adversity of standing in the snow to vote.
"If we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there is no problem we cannot solve. There is no destiny that we cannot fulfill."
It follows from this belief that no configuration of external circumstances can stop a strong character from achieving its desires. Therefore, who the hell cares about the physical environment, or, really, any external conditions?
Since many of us are not idiots, many of us do not follow this logic to its extreme; but our rulers sure do. The crash of 2008 put a sizable dent in this philosophy, so now its trunk won't open--but it's still running. In any case, it is an anti-revolutionary, anti-reform dogma, tweaked recently to assert that the one circumstance that can stop a strong character is bigotry, so we shouldn't have any of that. Don't put sugar in the meritocratic gas tank. That's bad. Every other kind of adverse circumstance is inconsequential, however.
Therefore, there would be no difference if I took my laptop and did this writing at the Wal-Mart food court. Who owns the land and what they do on it doesn't matter, because those of us with strong characters will rise above. Right?
Wrong.
Unfortunately, what this means is that land ownership is extremely helpful if you want to establish a TAZ. It's even more helpful if you want to establish a SPAZ. Remember Wonko the Sane's beach house? Ownership is not *essential*; Hilly Krystal's CBGB could be described as a semi-permanent autonomous zone, and he rented it; the Occupiers' encampments were definitely semi-permanent autonomous zones, and they simply squatted, as do the people Hakim Bey mentioned who are making settlements on floating islands of sea garbage. The problem with making semi-permanent autonomous zones in physical spaces one does not own is pretty obvious: if renting, one is at the mercy of the landlord; if squatting, at the mercy of the police.
Temporary autonomous zones are easier to maintain than semi-permanent ones; often those can spring up in the heart of big capitalism. I think this action by the Philadelphia Opera Company, which they call a "Random Act of Culture," is a TAZ, albeit a mild-mannered and well-behaved one:
Monarchist Christianity may not be particularly revolutionary content, but the dominant religion in that place and time is not Christianity, but capitalism, and it is surely disrupted for the duration of the song. At the height of the Christmas season, in a mall, the Philadelphia Opera Company are neither making money nor spending it. The customers, for the duration of the TAZ, completely ignore the commercial concerns that brought them there. It is music for no profitable purpose, something celebrated in the Joni Mitchell song "For Free:"
And I play if you have the money
Or if you're a friend to me
But the one-man band by the quick lunch stand
He was playing real good for free
Now, apart from the monarchist Christianity, obviously the Opera Company of Philadelphia negotiated with Macy's and got permission before doing this action. We can get a lot more revolutionary and outside the system than that.
But in order to do that, we must have access to space.
My point in this essay is that we must grapple honestly with material concerns, in particular access to physical space, and that means that we must grapple with poverty, economic inequality, and lack of assets. Living in the bomb-ruins of what was once a culture, though not a very good one, we need not only temporary autonomous zones, but a network of semi-permanent ones: places where the profit motive is not the sole monarch, where all other priorities are not rescinded. Therefore we need access to physical space, preferably for longer than a few months at a time. Where do we get the money to buy land if we don't have it? Is it still possible to find sympathetic landlords, in this era of horrendous land speculation and the concentration of land ownership? How else can we obtain reliable access, if not through the accepted means of ownership or rent? Are we capable of creating semi-permanent autonomous zones at all?
I hate to use the term, because it belongs to capitalists and monarchs, but this is about territory.
Next week, I'm going to talk about the specific kind of cultural territory we might aim for. What would that look like? I'm also going to talk about the specific, personal things that often stand in our way and discourage us from even trying. Is it possible to find a way around them? If not, what are our alternatives?
Comments
ownership is always temporary
Because we are temporary. First nations peoples didn't understand land ownership because the land lasts far longer than individuals. The idea of "owning" land is really quite absurd. Today's religion of capitalism makes ownership and material gain the goal....leading to shallow and unhappy lives.
Chris Hedges had an interesting conversation with Lauren Greenfield discussing the cult of self and its destructive qualities shown in her new film - Generation Wealth. She explains our greedy materialistic impulses quite well. Sorry there isn't a transcript. (26 min)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60NxjD4dWro]
Thanks for the thought provoking essay. Your description of the shop reminded me of the days of food coops. There are still a few around...but not around here.
Wow at the rain we are having...it's like our usual winter rain...nonstop...2 inches since yesterday and several more days projected. Of course that's better than dry and burning in my book. We are under flash flood warnings.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
@Lookout Stay safe, Lookout. I
Stay safe, Lookout. I agree with you about the rain, though. I hate drought.
As for ownership, yes, of course, the idea of owning land is a bit ridiculous; that's why I try to focus on access, rather than possession. The real question is: who has the power to determine what happens on that land, even to the point of stripping it of all life? And the real problem is that we're living inside capitalism, a particularly authoritarian form of it. While not respecting land ownership can be fine (Occupy did a version of that, though arguably the land in those parks is supposed to be public), it's not like we can ignore the concept. Land ownership is an important tactical consideration.
What I'm looking for here are different kinds of bulwarks. If we are to have semi-permanent autonomous zones, I'd argue that some kind of defense is necessary. (I'm willing to be argued out of this notion). Under the current conditions, land ownership is a bulwark, if you can manage it, even though land ownership is a fiction, and an ugly one at that. Money is a fiction too, arguably even more so than land ownership (because at least the land part of that equation is real), but I'd argue it's a good idea for a movement to have some. I was always a bit frustrated when Occupy would debate whether they should take money donations. Until you have enough power to transform society and change the terms on which we live, you need to gather power, and I'm not sure how you do that without money. Again, I'm willing to be talked out of this.
What you're doing here is questioning the material reality of the things I'm calling material. You're saying that those material realities rest on concepts that are more or less false. You're right, but I'd say we still have to deal with those material conditions, whether they rest on false ideas or not. The fact that land ownership is a fiction doesn't change the real impact of that concept on people who don't own land--as, of course, you know.
I'm neither an idealist nor a materialist. I fall somewhere in between, groping to find my way as always. If I lean toward materialism in this essay, it's because I'm compensating for what I see as the strong bias of our culture toward idealism.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Nice installment!
Just a bit about the Opera Company of Philadelphia performance you highlight:
This was one of a number of "impromptu" actions funded by a foundation to bring cultural fare to people who might not expect it at that moment.
This being Philadelphia, they should have expected it in that place. Indeed, that atrium in Macy's -- the former Wanamaker's Department Store -- regularly has had music playing, especially during the holiday season. You get a glimpse at the beginning of the video of the organ that has been there since forever, long before Macy's bought out its competitor; it's one of the best and biggest organs in America and was placed there by the Wanamaker family for just this delight and respite for those doing their shopping. Back in the 1910s to 1930s, that store housed one of the most adventurous art galleries in the U.S., where early avant-gardists from the U.S., Mexico, and Europe found an audience long before the critics and museums embraced their creations.
In that video, too, near the beginning, you see a large bronze sculpture of an eagle, standing in the middle of the atrium. That sculpture is one of the places that Philadelphians tell their friends they will meet up -- everyone in the region knows that sculpture, just as they know the large boar sculpture in the old Strawbridge & Clothier store just down the street, or the Robert Indiana "Love" sculpture, or Claes Oldenburg's giant Clothespin on the other sides of City Hall from Wanamaker's/Macy's.
This may seem to be my waxing nostalgic for a day when capitalism understood it needed to offer more than just an avaricious grasp of your wallet. But that's not my point. My point is that these things -- sculptures, organs, the specific acoustics -- are the elements that afford a sense of place: people congregate there even when they are not shopping for cosmetics. People congregate there in anticipation of friends or music, even when it is not playing. And a sense of place will be necessary for any TAZ and especially for any SPAZ. The Opera Company knows that and used it. We should, too.
@dance you monster This being Philadelphia,
This being Philadelphia, they should have expected it in that place. Indeed, that atrium in Macy's -- the former Wanamaker's Department Store -- regularly has had music playing, especially during the holiday season. You get a glimpse at the beginning of the video of the organ that has been there since forever, long before Macy's bought out its competitor; it's one of the best and biggest organs in America and was placed there by the Wanamaker family for just this delight and respite for those doing their shopping.
Thank you for bringing this history to the thread! I was wondering where that organ came from! Back in the days when capitalism supposedly could play nice with the other aspects of civilization, and before it became clear that it was a cuckoo in the nest. There was always a price to be paid by somebody in suffering or blood, of course, but it wasn't clear at that time that human civilization and life on the planet were the cost. Some people even believed that you could minimize the suffering more and more over time.
As someone who lived in Philly for eight years, you're making me nostalgic too. I didn't know anything about the organ or the sculpture because I never went to Macy's. I was a poor grad student. I did sometimes, when I had the money, take the train to the Redding Terminal Market. Man, I miss that food. The Amish have great meat and dairy products. It was a great place to get a Thanksgiving turkey.
I do know the "Love" sculpture.
That sculpture is one of the places that Philadelphians tell their friends they will meet up -- everyone in the region knows that sculpture, just as they know the large boar sculpture in the old Strawbridge & Clothier store just down the street, or the Robert Indiana "Love" sculpture, or Claes Oldenburg's giant Clothespin on the other sides of City Hall from Wanamaker's/Macy's.
My point is that these things -- sculptures, organs, the specific acoustics -- are the elements that afford a sense of place: people congregate there even when they are not shopping for cosmetics. People congregate there in anticipation of friends or music, even when it is not playing. And a sense of place will be necessary for any TAZ and especially for any SPAZ. The Opera Company knows that and used it. We should, too.
I couldn't agree more.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
This Hits Close to Home with Me.
I don't do chain stores. I will go far out of my way to avoid a chain. Loved the piece and agree that SPAZs are amazing and could be used to avoid the Establishment and to create a League of Autonomous Zones with which to knock the Establishment around.
Love it.
Where it hits close to home is on the materialist front. Capitalism is not the religion Scientism is:
Scientism's appeal to logic is no different than the appeal to morality by the Kill for Christ crowd. "Science" is a cudgel and shield no different from the sword and shield of "Faith" that fake Christians use. Beat off the enemies of the dogma with the faithful cudgel and protect the dogma from direct attack with the shield of faith.
It's the same with Scientism.
So we have Economics, the strongest branch of Scientism, and if we were talking rings of power, it would be the One Ring. If there ever were a "science" that screams Scientism, it is economics.
We have neuro-Psychology and Behaviorism, a split branch of Scientism which seeks to explain consciousness and the complexity of the human condition through brain dissection and mapping of electricity. Consciousness and the mind need not enter the conversation.
"Searching for consciousness in the brain is like searching for an announcer inside the radio."
Western Medicine... While often highly scientific, is also affected by Scientism. Consciousness, meditation, and other natural and homeopathic solutions are beyond stupid; they're backwards.
Geology, Archeology, Astronomy - all super sciency and amazing, but all being stymied by the scientific dogma of the people who came before and the dominant framework. To step away from them, at least in the initial stages, is akin blasphemy.
I have recently been exposed to some alternate history on the science and archeology front. And the errors of "Science", usually due to dogmatic Scientism, are large and counter-productive.
Materialists smashed the mind and consciousness - they don't exist - they are only tricks of the brain. How is that for limiting the scale and scope of the human being?
That is not to say that materialism is completely wrong, but it is not the only aspect of the human experiment.
This morning I woke up with the idea that the Materialistic focus of science is a necessity for capitalism and market based freedom. Our lack of consciousness and the removal of non-objective measurements of the human condition are required if humans are to be broken down and chewed up by industrial and financial capitalism and submit to that authority.
What better authority is there than objective, proof positive, truth? And that, my friends, is the religion of capitalism.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc gonna have to chew on
gonna have to chew on this a bit more, but I really want to respond to it this morning. I don't immediately know what I think, because to me the two things--capitalism and scientism--look like a Ven diagram of sorts, but I'm not exactly sure what the shape of the overlap is, or if in fact the two things are one complex thing. I am sure of this: capitalism is, in itself, functioning as a religion, here and now; looks like it has been for some time. It seems to me that capitalism hides behind scientism because it needs to assert itself as the only reality, and, you're right, the first step in doing that is to destroy the notion of the soul, because--
well, for these reasons:
1)You can't have the idea that standards of human behavior are set by something outside the material world. If you admit that idea, then the kings of the material world (big business and big banks) cannot set the standards. Priests claiming to talk for that non-material something will. Then you'll have to buy them off and try to control them from behind the scenes, and it's so much simpler to just have the power oneself. Similarly,
2)You can't have the reward for good behavior be outside the material world, because big business and big finance cannot possibly claim to have any power to offer that reward. That's probably why early on, capitalism had a handshake deal with certain kinds of Christianity, asserting that financial prosperity was a sign of being God's chosen.
3) It's harder to destroy something if you believe it has a soul.
That's why I love this scene, in particular the line: Prove to the court that I am sentient.
What would happen if we believed that all living creatures had a soul, or that the earth itself was ensouled?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
THAT scene,
and many others like it, is why That show succeeded so well. The whole concept of that show(to me) was to ask questions About our assumptions relating to the human condition.
Which is what you're doing here as well. I don't have any answers, I'm not sure any of us do, but the questions open up possibilities for direction to explore.
The only way out is Through. . .
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
@Tall Bald and Ugly Star Trek has shown
Star Trek has shown an amazing resilience to being what I call "warded," which essentially means "subverted or outright taken over by propagandists." Both the old series and Next Gen had their moral and political hearts largely in the right place, despite certain moments of silliness. The undeniable sexism of the old show was its one serious moral flaw, but for my money, those shows are still seriously on the side of the good guys.
Deep Space Nine was a fairly ugly exception. An early example of totalitarianism made palatable by hiding it behind the figure of a mild-mannered Black leader. I'm guessing somebody powerful contacted some producer at Paramount and said: "You have to do something to shut down that other space station show. Try drowning it out with a new Trek."
However, Trek recovered with Voyager, which was more than a bit silly, but had its moral and political heart--for the most part--in the right place, and certainly wasn't controlled by Deep State propagandists.
Enterprise was too much of a botch to be useful as propaganda or anything else.
The most recent Trek I haven't watched, because the trailer I saw in the theaters looked very much like it had been horrendously warded.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
“Warded” may be what some Alt-Right writers call “converged”
Of course, in their usage, to say that an organization or institution has been “converged” means that it has been hijacked by “SJWs” (so-called “Social Justice Warriors”) such that it now works harder at promoting certain political views than it does at serving its original purpose.
@k9disc I will say this, as
I will say this, as someone highly trained in rationalistic thinking and what you are calling scientism: economics is not a science, even by those standards. It pretends to be a science so it can pretend to be the ultimate descriptor of bedrock reality, having deposed the priests and gently nudged the physicists aside: the laws of capitalism are described as if they are the speed of light or the law of gravity.
That's one reason I say capitalism is a religion.
What a hot steaming mess.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Scientism Is Not Science, and That's the Point.
So Economics IS Scientism because it attempts, or pretends to attempt to apply scientific principles and pretends that it is scientific. When people claim markets are natural law, that is the unstake-able ground they are standing on – this is SCIENCE. They do so with the confidence of the scientist and the zealotry of religion.
I think Economics is probably the best illustration of Scientism out there. It's claims and models are "so strong" that contrarians need not apply. It is the dogma of Natural Law. The only reason we accept it is because we are taught that science and metrics are above challenge. It's a religious authority con, but based on materialism. I think you'll find that most applications of Scientism become some kind of religious cult. Hillary could fit that bill. LoTE voting is completely based on Scientism which is why it sounds like such a religious argument.
If you want to look at capitalism as a religion, the priests are the property owners, economists, and business peeps. The Gospel is More. Justification and Salvation by Science alone.
The Gospel and the priests are important, but the justification by science alone, I think is a key thing. It sets up a big split, as big a split as by salvation by faith vs or by deed. I think the faith people are wrong, and are prone to Scientism rather than an open ended pursuit of science.
Scientific materialism is root religion of the economy, I think, and if it's not, it's the Achilles Heel.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc It's a religious
It's a religious authority con, but based on materialism. I think you'll find that most applications of Scientism become some kind of religious cult. Hillary could fit that bill. LoTE voting is completely based on Scientism which is why it sounds like such a religious argument.
Thank you for the clarification.
Now that I understand what you're saying: I was NOT trained in Scientism.
I'd like some more about how this applies to LoTE. Is it because it tries to make itself sound realistic? Is Scientism anything other than a series of "world as we find it" arguments? And is the heart of that ideology the erasure of human action and choice from the equation of history?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You Just Summed It Up Quite Well, I think.
I've been kicking this around for a few years, though I didn't know about the concept of Scientism.
I do think a bunch of us here have a problem with it, too. Clean foodies, environmentalists, anti-corporatists, marxists, social justice activists, and a host of others all know how "science" is perverted to serve the Establishment and how near impossible it is to make a dent in the flow of the river of knowledge when it runs against profits - Global Warming, clean energy, clean food, tax policy, social justice.
I think that is part of it as well. We have surrendered ourselves and our faculties to any claims of science from an authority, and they know it. A bunch of us know that we are being lied to, but really are only sure of it in our political or social wheelhouses.
So we get more and more specious argument pulling us further and further from any objective reality. Now we are so far off our moorings all we have is our slavish devotion to our authority who delivers the dogma. To challenge the rationality of the results of Science becomes a self revelatory challenge to cognitive dissonance. Add in some significant gaslighting and it's easy to see our national Stockholm Syndrome take shape.
And as you mentioned stripping the spiritual, mystery, and romance from our life of learning and breaking it down into bits and bytes is like turning the analog into digital. I'm not sure that's a good idea. I think we are more than that.
"Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking for the announcer inside the radio." I think that's super powerful.
We can do the brain and check it's connections like a computer. But that doesn't answer the question of who or what is operating the computer. We can break down the bits and bytes, trace the electricity through the system, and explain, mathematically, the pixels on the screen.
But it doesn't become an image until someone or something sees it.
I think it's why AI is having such a hard time becoming "smart"; at least at the public/commercial level. I'm pretty sure that the more serious science, darpa type stuff, is working on the consciousness problem without the strict confines of materialist science that dominates our market driven society and results based science.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
There Are All Kinds of Scientism Arguments Floating Around
In dog training, people are always citing their work and methodology as science, science-based, scientifically proven, etc. They will argue their methodology as science. But there is no white paper on their home. Or studies of their methodology.
"I do things that, to me, seem to jive with science. Ergo, they are science, science-based... etc."
The argument becomes about science and validation of a similar scientific premise, leaving the point of whether or not their interpretation of science is correct. Then it gets down to inputs and measuring devices, and we're off in meta world. Sound familiar?
Many arguments and most all the logical fallacies we face in political, social, and economic discussions are nothing more than specious Scientismic distraction. The only ones interested in having the inside baseball discussion are those arguing over inputs and measuring devices, and the rest of us check out.
Best experts and media citations win.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Now that I understand what
Not many scientists have. It takes money or religious/personal zeal to create Scientism in someone.
So you have the creationists and corporatists relying on science to leverage ideology. And it's rampant, I think. The invasion of public education and personal development with "objective performance metrics" and such while claiming scientific veracity towards better "educating students" is not scientific, but it does have scientists working on it, I'm sure. I doubt they're educational scientists, though, and I wonder about the methodology; where is the control group for the program, and other real sciency stuff.
I think Scientism from scientists happens as a defense of turf and deference to authority and the hegemony of the school of thought within your discipline. Nothing ruins a career in science like running against the mainstream. The asteroid/meteor/comet that killed the Dinosaurs, for instance. That theory was laughed at for decades. I'm sure many careers were ended and bridges burned on that one.
The truth wins out a lot of the time, but now that we have near complete corporate control over science, I'm concerned that it won't be happening near as much in the future. Those kinds of epochal changes in science require a complete retinkering of the system and rethinking of our place within the system. Corporate avoids that kind of existential change like the plague.
"It is simple math, CStMS. If you don't vote for Hillary, you are voting for Drumpf."
"but... "
"Math. QED"
That's Scientism in a LoTE nutshell. It is the very definition of Scientism I quoted above:
LoTE is not the ideology of Democrats. It is the ideology of Science.
"Math. QED" is cosmetic.
It also does not meet scientific standards because it ignores the point of politics completely. Yes, someone will win. And that does happen in elections. But it is not a bet. I don't get benefits if I vote for someone and thy fail to represent me, or worse, represent my political enemies. So X winning the election is not the point.
"Math QED." assumes that X winning the election is the point and uses the most elemental of science "facts" to force any dissenter to believe the same.
It boils down politics to a raw, easy to measure metric of my team winning or losing.
I think the veneer of realism or authority is a big point to Scientism, but not the only point. I think it is honestly explored by passionate people all the time.
Applying science to non-sciency applications or layering/superimposing one branch of science overtop of another can be and is amazing, but the when stretching theories to other disciplines, the theories are not infallible, nor are they the entire picture.
I think just about anything can be somewhat convincingly justified to us if it is dressed up in enough scientific legitimacy. I mean, most of us believe in Quantum Mechanics, and that shit is loony. I believe in QM, but I'm not wedded to it. I find it fascinating. I love to not know and to explore things.
Ultimately, I think Scientism is about having all the answers. There are many people who want closure and clarity and cannot handle the unknown. Big Corporate & the Oligarchs want to control people. Having ready made, realtime answers in the present and holding the secrets to the answers of the past is key to controlling the questions of the future.
I think so. Sad, too. It has really smacked me across the face of late.
"WTF are we doing here?"
It's like the real life version of David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs".
I think we're ripe for an upwelling against the materialists. We're stripped down automatons and we want (and need) more.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc Well, the
Well, the argument that if you don't vote Hillary you're voting Trump, in a rational world, would result in an immediate critique of the two-party system that allows that political equation to exist. 60% of the voting population being forced to choose between two people that they quite literally hate is obviously anti-democratic. If refusing to vote for Hillary means that you have automatically voted for Trump, then the voters have been forced to vote for one or the other regardless of whether they want to or not. Thus, the parties, and the system that fosters and relies on them, would immediately be revealed as political structures that suppress the will of the voters. Therefore, in a rational world, the parties and the system responsible for that crap would be taken apart.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Economics
is just accounting married to a belief system.
It will be too vast a digression and is too early in the day
here to go into this deeply and argue it back and forth, but I differ with your seemingly overbroadbroad thesis on scientism and its role in things. For starts, it is very poorly defined.
The second sentence makes sense and provides useful input, the first is nonsense or truly horrible english. It appears to be sloganism at work. Science has no ideology. Science is a methodology. Ideologies are defined, in part, as beliefs that are not based on "epistemic" content, whereas science is purely epistemic. Perhaps the author wished to convey that Scientism is the Ideology of falsely believing that things not at all based on some scientific analysis or process are scientifically proven, or are science, but that requires completely different verbiage. That is simply a classic marketing gimmick "9 out of 10 doctors agree...", which is fallacious, but works on the average person,; but the abuse or use of "presumed scientist as witchdoctor/oracle" isn't an ideology of science by any stretch of the imagination.
Scientism as per the second sentence could be thought of as bearing the same relationship to science as truthiness bears to truth. Science is invoked but not present.
Well, in the sense of scientism = the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations there may be some meaning to that, but only in the sense that those falsely using illogic disguised as logic as a cudgel upon ideological opponents could be said to be involved in "scientism". Scientism, whatever it may be, is not an actor, it is not volitional, it is perhaps two slightly different things at once: 1) a Form of sophistry using a combination of fallacies and misrepresentations in conjunction with certain modern cultural tendencies. It is a tool, a sales and advertising technique, for selling everything from toothpaste to rentier capitalism to established religious dogmas and political ideologies. 2) It is a body of established frameworks or platforms based on such sophistry that may be relied upon, often in or as shorthand, much as one might refer to real things such as the pythagorean theorem or ohm's law. These things are things like econ, or the laws of demand and supply or psychology or "statistics" (which is not in and of itself corrupt).
A common thread may be that this form of sophistry pretends to have a foundation in inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive reasoning, but that creates no broader taint to either per se.
The various major historical errors of science have been indeed attributable to dogma, but I'm leery of lumping all of them and all of those dogmas into "scientism". "Gradualism", for example was far more complex than simply misrepresenting as scientifically determined or discovered something which was not. There is a very real risk of calling all errors of logic, fact, or methodology "scientism", which then renders it useless as a concept.
Though "materialism" has been invoked in support of capitalism, so has religion, they are both weapons and tools of very broad application if so used. What is different about materialism is that one can, usually improperly, claim that there is real evidence in support of something or another, whereas spiritualism has,so far, consistently failed to generate something of similar probative value.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I Hear You, and I'm Quite Sympathetic to Your Argument, I'm
with you all the way.
This is similar to my argument that we can't call our political system corrupt because it is operating the way it is designed to function. And to call it corruption is to enable it in the future.
Other people disagree with that.
It is a matter of the details and the perspective.
We both know we have "truthy science" all over, and that is our problem. I am suggesting that the massive materialist capture of science, assisted by large immovable and ideological funders has created a bunch of scientism.
I believe that science, today, completely has an ideology. It is not about uncovering secrets and getting the truth. It's about proving things are true or disproving them and moving forward to grab another piece of the puzzle. There is no money in obtaining the truth. Truth seekers and boat rockers are rather poorly funded.
This video below speaks to it quite well. The 10 dogmas, I believe, is spot on.
It was a suggestion from google i stumbled on a few minutes ago. This video and Graham Hancock's consciousness video were banned from TED.
I'm into the brain and mind, and I find myself being offended by the hubris of scientists studying the brain and extrapolating to or excusing the mind altogether. They are so cocksure of the results, and don't even have the question right. It is my wheelhouse and it is the area that Sheldrake is talking about. My experience with scientists on these topics is similar.
I'm not appealing to Sheldrake as an authority at all. I don't know much about him. He sounds kind of kooky, barefoot on the grass and whatnot. But I find this presentation strong and it has nothing to do with his theory on Morphic Resonance which is not germane to the conversation.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg]
At 10 minutes he talks about the numerical changes to Big G and the Speed of light and other universal constants to fit the model. Again, not sure of the veracity, but I believe that confirmation and profit bias is a large part of science at this time.
Speaking of the relationship between the mind and science, I think he's really spot on.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Sorry it took so long to get back on this. It is something of
a Gish Gallop - 10 truthy assertions, each of which is something of a ball of suppositions, "observations" and the like, with no real defined universe of discourse. Morphic Resonance calls to mind Lamarck, but it is different from that. Machines, mechanisms, and deterministic ones at that sounds vaguely Newtonian. Who exactly holds these beliefs? The Press? Congress? The "man on the street?
I follow the sciences to some extent, certain fields more than others. The articles I read generally make it clear that the scientists are aware that they are formulating and refining models. They are also aware of randomness and uncertainty. Even though the biosciences are not my best or favorite area, his dip into genetics is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. He is projecting mechanism and/or determinism, not discovering it. His presentation of the big bang is similarly flawed. Nothing was determined at that point, at least not according to the current models, which are admittedly incomplete and even, to some extent, known to be wrong in some respects.
I'm going to mostly duck the whole mind-matter thing, too much to cover and too long ago and far away in a real sense. Also not really my thing. Modern experiments do, however, seem to be aware that correlation is not causation, and that associations are simply that.
A big part of this seems to be a rejection of the rejection of the idea that there is spirit, soul or nous inherent in some if not all entities and organisms. It is fine if one wishes to hold such beliefs and to incorporate them into their worldview. It is not possible, however, to incorporate them into science or even empiricism. That is not because scientists unscientifically ignore the evidence, or have arbitrarily defined it out of existence by demanding materialist underpinnings, but because the methodology of science cannot handle them. If one wishes to believe them, well and good, but that goes in the pocket with the wallet and not in the pocket with the keys. I briefly touched on this issue in this post: https://caucus99percent.com/content/separate-reality-kossack-way-knowled... Repeatable, quantifiable, demonstrable, etc. These and more are necessary for stuff to be evidence. One can have beliefs that are not evidence and are not about evidence. I have had experiences that are not of an evidentiary nature, but for purposes of science, they aren't data because they are unique non-repeatable and non-reproduceable.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
That is not because
I don't think that's true. Science chooses not to handle them. People who choose to handle them are ridiculed and ostracized. "Anything but a Flood!" was the methodology of gradualists, evidence was perceived in that manner, despite the actual evidence.
Comet strikes were verboten. People still believe that the Great Pyramids were burial chambers. Lead was NOT a problem! How come these exotic particles can exist all around us and we can spend billions on developing the science to find them, but something like spirit or consciousness cannot exist because we can't measure it and people who "believe" in that shit are nutters.
The Gish Gallop you claim isn't really a Gish Gallop. A list of 10 keys to science that are, rather obviously, not scientifically above challenge, are completely above challenge in science. He then offers a couple of instances within his wheelhouse to illustrate the point.
His point is that approved and established science is above question. Careers are ruined if you go against the grain. There is a purposeful exclusion of ideas that run counter to Established dogma. Weird Data that fits the model is proof. Weird data that doesn't fit the model is discarded.
Anyone who chases that weird data is a weirdo. The effect of consciousness, as illustrated by the observer principle and the placebo effect, are embedded in most material science, but they are almost entirely excluded from research.
Again, the consciousness thing and the mind are kind of in my wheelhouse. I see a dogmatic assertion of "science" that stymies progress. It takes decades for something to be allowed to be studied without damage to your career and future.
Today, given the reliance on corporate funding, and the corporate hijacking of public science institutions, and the private ownership of publicly developed science, this is truly scary.
It really does strike me as a modern day church situation.
Oh, and I don't think scientists are necessarily the cause. I think they're navigating the system as best they can. Good eggs and bad apples, like the rest of society.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The gradualist thing was nonscientific dogma, not related to
observations and arbitrarily imposed. Lead was not a problem was not a scientific finding. Lead was known to be a problem and it was decided to sacrifice a generation or so on that altar of profits because they couldn't fully capitalize on ICE technology of the day without leaded fuel. It was already known to be a serious problem.
No, they aren't, and haven't been for some time. AS I said, his stuff on the big bang and genetics, on things being mechanistic is simply wrong, that isn't remotely mainstream science. Don't know who he is talking to.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate
the depth of you guys' comments on these threads. Thank you.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Wow. Thanks for this, rather interesting thoughts.
I'm trying to reject the main motivation of profit with what I do, and I'm actually really happy with it. I think what's important is that when you excise a bad concept, you need to find a GOOD concept to fill it up with. There is a need for identity and belonging in humanity, and it's very hard to find alternate ways to exist when the ONE DOMINANT idea keeps getting blared at you time and time again.
For me, it's the concept of "Eudaimonia", or Human Flourishing, which I'm trying to live to the best of my ability. Hence my workouts and sparring (Judo is great at helping refine my humility at the same time it's boosting the HELL out of my confidence. Just got thrown around by a 65 year old woman for a few hours last night, and I feel GREAT, because I learned I can take a really hard throw and get up afterwords.)
With that in mind, quick OT plug for my new Logos. Number 26 in the series, and my first pretty explicit dig at Christianity. I bring it up because I'm releasing this as "Copyleft" and hope to take as much of the profit out of what I personally consider some of my best work as possible. I don't dream of a theme park and films made of my work. Rather I hope that it will make somebody happy. I know it does for me and why should I hide that joy from people until they pony up LOTS of gold?
I also believe land reform should be a major thrust of any political action. It gets the attention of TPTB and they'll commit HUGE amounts of resources to defending it. That is of course when we trip them with a move they don't expect.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks Walking the talk is
Walking the talk is important. It can be hard for artists to do that, since the system seems geared to keeping artists in poverty (gee, I wonder why), but it's also admirable whenever an artist like you can do it.
I'm not too worried about getting people on board with something other than profit at any cost, not since 2008. Those who can't see the problem with that formulation this late in the game are, sad to say, not my concern.
I can't help somebody who insists on inserting their arm into a bear trap over and over again.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
'I can explain it to you,
but I can't make you understand it.'
Bumper sticker on the Wife's vehicle. So true.
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Thanks for giving me a platform.
I'm trying to think of it as a Salk Moment.
In my mind a Salk Moment is one in which a person sees the immense profit possible from an their work... and rejects it completely in order to do good.
IMHO, it's not a matter of trying to get people to agree with me, rather just provide an alternative that works. People can try it, or not as they wish. Hell, I hope that it inspires others to find their own truth and way of living. May a million flowers bloom and all that.
The funny thing, is that the inspiration for giving this away came from a Japanese interpretation of a Buddhist saying.
"An act to make another happy, inspires the other to make still another happy, and so happiness is aroused and abounds. Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the single candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. Those who seek Enlightenment must be careful of each of their steps. No matter how high one’s aspiration may be, it must be attained step by step. The steps of the path to Enlightenment must be taken in our everyday life."
So, yeah, I'm borrowing from everybody who can improve my own flourishing.
The great thing about not being tied to dogma is finding wisdom within many ideas and stories. (And so of course, my philosophical ramblings tend towards the polytheistic as a result.)
Edit: Typos
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Nazi USA
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDeKhiyjxOo]
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Material Things
" First nations peoples didn't understand land ownership because the land lasts far longer than individuals". We can't view our lives through other eyes. We can say we own something, and when we die we can't take it with us, but it is still "owned". Even abandoned it still is valued by local governments seeking property taxes, someone seeking to enhance it's worth. Everything we view is in a straitjacket of some real or potential monetary value. That lakefront property, that car, your appendix, lunch. Put a price tag on everything you see, including yourself. Then assign worth. That's how the phantom morality haunts us all. With computers and the shift in wealth what we call our economy has been weaponized. The great recession was a disaster for us, but for the casino class it was a slew of opportunities. It'll happen again, it'll be different, but the out come will be the same.
I know this doesn't address what you are talking about Can't Stop The Macedonian Signal, except obliquely, so I apologize, but I am stuck on the pervasiveness of this system. It is always humming through our heads and says "if only I had a little more money, I could do things and be happy and safe, life would have more worth", and spend a lifetime chasing, doing things we don't value, for that "little more money", often failing and never enough.
What may address it is the loss of our frontiers. In many ways America was the last frontier, a place that you could turn your back on all this and make your own way, homesteading until the thing you left caught up to you. It was it's own dilemma. On one hand it represented freedom, on the other, ownership, and the imperative to gain more and more, to be strong enough to not have it taken away from you, like you did to the people who couldn't understand ownership of the land. We seem to have run out of frontiers. Maybe the zones you are talking about could fill that need.
We really, really need a new belief system.
Hola, Amigos !
...
,,,
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.