Treading on the tail of a tiger
The non-conscious nature of partisan thought, apparent to anyone who follows it sufficiently, was demonstrated a few years ago in a lab and reported in the New York Times:
Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.
In light of this, being reality-based as regards politics takes on a perverse meaning. Whereas ideally, according to the Enlightenment values mentioned in the famous passage of Ron Suskind’s article that brought the phrase “reality based community” into public awareness, attachment to reality is maintained by a skeptical, rational, common sense. Knowing the irrationality of partisan thought, the politically realistic person behaves rationally by disguising emotionally determined positions as rational ones. In politics, only a fool says what they really mean on controversial topics and expects a rational discussion to follow.
To attempt to publicly distinguish between rational principle and emotional value is to, as the I Ching terms it, tread upon the tail of a tiger.
Which brings us to Rand Paul’s appearance on the Rachel Maddow show to discuss his comments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
more to come on this when i have a little more time…
May 21st, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Well, this debate between Maddow and Paul I recognize as one I have within myself all the time. It is a relief to have it externalized. It certainly brings to the fore a conflict between two values: right to privacy on the one hand and social justice on the other. I agree with Paul that the “lunch counter” issue is problematic with respect to privacy, and that it does potentially invite other problems (possibly the gun-toting restaurant patron problem). I would not accept racist thinking or speech as a criminal matter, though I would not approve of it. Then there’s the notion that if we try to change people by force, we should expect resistance to the message of integration/equality/desegregation because of its association with the force employed to make that change. I think I understand Paul’s view pretty well, and it is curious to see him dodge his own view when asked about it, until Rachel’s tenacity got the better of him.
The reason I support the Civil Rights Act despite the problematic nature of the “lunch counter” clause, is because I do not accept private property as an absolute right trumping all others. I resolve the conflict between the two values by recognizing the limits of each. Generally, Conservatives believe property to be fundamental to all other liberties, and Liberals view social justice as fundamental.
Perhaps the lunch counter clause was heavy handed. At this point, however, there are few who would support a return to the old days, so perhaps the heavy hand was the right amount of force after all, the right dosage of evil (defined as government intrusion into private matters) to bring about not only the good, but a necessary good.
Then again, I’m with Lao Tzu, that the presence of Law shows we’ve already strayed very far.
Reply
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:19 am
lots of things to respond to in that, bi11. thanks.
first, i think there’s no way to return to the old days in any case, even if private segregation were allowed. given the development and extension of information technology, no significant private business would survive going against the social norm.
beyond that, Paul repeatedly said he wasn’t interested in trying to repeal the law. he even said he’d likely have voted for it, given that 9 or the 10 provisions dealt with necessary public changes.
he did dodge his own position a bit, which was too bad, given that his position was solid. doubtless he’s feeling the pressure. treading on the tail of the tiger is perilous business.
as far as social justice goes, we routinely accept segregation. it is in fact fundamental to our social organization. it’s just segregation in terms of money.
Reply
May 22nd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
my obvious point being that one standard of segregation (wealth) is consider proper and the other (race) abhorrent. i find it interesting to connect this standard to MLK’s famous dream of a society in which all people are judged by the ‘content of their character’, as it suggests (if we take our society as a fulfillment of that dream) that money is an accurate means of judging character. further, there is the implicit understanding that character is a valid objective means of apportioning reward or access. so, underlying we have the accepted idea of a differentiated meritocracy, with money as a valid means of measuring merit and hence status.
the interesting bit, for me, is that this segregation is so routine as to be effectively invisible, whereas Paul’s suggestion that a society that respects private property (a ‘free society’, as he terms it) would be outrageously regressive as it would allow for discrimination based on the standard of race within private contexts. that is: the existing system of discrimination is accepted and effectively unconscious, while previous standards of discrimination are treated as if they defined bigotry.
this gets to a general point i’ve been struggling to articulate, about societies conflating whatever their standard of empathy is (the way, that is, in which they determine what is acceptable human treatment; or in other words, which standard it is acceptable to discriminate according to) with absolute empathy, or the Way. local religion is taken as universal religion. so when such a society looks down (the dynamic spiral) at previous forms it seems an abhorrent regression and when it looks upward it sees a dangerous lack of limit. it’s like this joke my brother and i have about driving: everyone who drives (significantly) faster than you on the highway is a madman and everyone who drives (significantly) slower is a fool. whatever the accepted standard, it is unconscious and emotionally defended as the definition of humane.
this gets to the issue of spiral dynamics, which was an issue in the previous round with ‘Ben Vassilev’. many electrons were spilled in a fruitless back and forth on whether Ken Wilber is a jackass or not. it seems to me, though, that the basic notion behind the dynamic spiral provides a useful language for thinking about the way in which the issue of empathy is decided within societies and hence individuals. but – again, seems to me – that the very idea of the spiral is potentially threatening because it implicitly critiques the objective finality of every step along it.
i’ve been putting off getting into this because i’m still struggling with developing the terminology to talk about it.
Reply
bi11 reply on May 22nd, 2010 8:20 pm:
Jones: “societies conflating whatever their standard of empathy is (the way, that is, in which they determine what is acceptable human treatment; or in other words, which standard it is acceptable to discriminate according to) with absolute empathy, or the Way. local religion is taken as universal religion. so when such a society looks down (the dynamic spiral) at previous forms it seems an abhorrent regression and when it looks upward it sees a dangerous lack of limit.”
That is an interesting way of putting it. I believe I detect several problems with insisting on empathy and equality as the foundation stones of humane treatment. I also find the notion that individuals “deserve” humane treatment to be problematic. This is not to say that I object to humane treatment, of course, nor that I do not welcome universalizing it as much as possible. Men are not innocent creatures who deserve to be treated humanely in accordance with their innocence. In most respects we treat others humanely DESPITE what shits they are, and not because they are so deserving. If some tyrant gets dragged alive through the streets and is publicly disgraced and murdered is it not easy to say he has earned this treatment by his own conduct? Still, in moments of reflection such as this, I would say that I would not condone this treatment. It is a far simpler matter to treat him humanely while making sure he cannot add to his misdeeds with more of the same. Killing him would end that possibility, and could even be done humanely. He may not deserve it at all, but I might well approve of it.
There are many who believe we should extend our sense of humanity to our fellow creatures. Perhaps these people feel a deep sense of empathy for animals, or may even feel a kinship with them, similar to how they feel about other persons. But are rabbits and rats and so on, our equals? We can accord them humane treatment without this presumption, or at least without the most radical expression of this pressumption. I can see how raising the issue of humane treatment of animals can make some feel a “dangerous lack of limit”. When’s it all going to stop? Must we protect trees and bushes and bugs humanely as well? This is not the same problem as protecting the diversity of life through correct action/relation — a matter less related to empathy than to some general sensibility about proper views of the web of life. Imagine trying to enforce the extension of human rights to every living creature on earth. Human life would cease if this campaign succeeded, not to mention certain of the other creatures (livestock, pets, lab rats).
Moreover, we can treat others humanely without any empathy at all. We merely have institutional safeguards — laws, protocols, and other principles which we follow, and which protect the humanity of others.
Reply
jones reply on May 24th, 2010 11:00 am:
yes, the idea that humans ‘deserve’ certain treatment is problematic – and even moreso when this idea of entitlement is linked to the God’s Eye View. clearly God, in the Universal, trans-human, sense, doesn’t treat humans humanely.
the anonymous Mouse ultimately, if i understood correctly, rooted the entitlement of all people to a particular treatment in what we might call enlightened self-interest. in order to avoid ’stains on the soul’, smudges on the psychic windowpane, a person must treat others as they would be treated. of course this standard is qualified both by an individual’s sense of proper self-treatment *and* who that individual regards as an other.
the neat (or even, nifty) thing about the Golden Rule is that it operates regardless of the quality of the gold. that is: so long as you treat who you regard to be other according to your sense of self-treatment, you’re in accord with the rule – even though your idea of proper self-treatment might improve, and your definition of ‘other’ might expand.
so again, if we consider the spiral of spiral dynamics (which i really should do some reading on given that it’s becoming a part of my metaphorical understanding of the world), the Golden Rule (or golden mean) preserves the aspect of the spiral regardless what stage you’re at (of self and other definition). indeed, the spiral is nothing other than a progressive expansion on the concepts of self and other.
ultimately, then, i think empathy is ‘correct action and relation’ to other life.
Reply
bi11 reply on May 24th, 2010 6:34 pm:
Sounds like you’ve worked it all out. The spiral is ever opening and enlarging.
I came across an interesting dilemma with respect to empathy and morality. The upperclassmen at my son’s school (7th and 8th graders), have gotten involved in a campaign to choke off support for “puppy mills”. They have posted fliers throughout the school and community about how pet stores get supplied through these puppy mills, or kitty mills as the case may be. The image of an adorable and fluffy kitten or pup is on every flier — usually caged. It explains how miserable their lives are — how they are raised in cages, with no contact with others of their kind, and little attention on the part of their caretakers. These poor creatures also suffer all sorts of ailments stemming from this kind of upbringing.
Children are exhorted, “You may feel you are rescuing a cute creature, but this kitten or pup you buy at the pet store will only be replaced by another. The only way to stop these mills, is by cutting off their supply.”
This is a rather complicated message for younger children to deal with. Basically, the only way to save future puppies is to neglect these ones in the present. It presents a challenge to empathy as that which ensures proper action, IMO.
jones reply on May 25th, 2010 2:16 am:
that is complicated, particularly for younger children. a good illustration of the principle of empathic action as a mean between emotionally-guided humanity and rationally ascertained necessity. the golden spiral is the form expressing what we might call a living balance between these two.
jones reply on May 25th, 2010 5:50 pm:
which reminds me of a line of Rumi’s, which has i’m sure been expressed by many people in many times and places. to paraphrase: virtue consists in watering the fruit trees and not the weeds. empathy, i think, is the way virtue is conceived within a particular context – at, that is, a certain level of the spiral. similarly, ‘virtue’ is a way that ‘the Way’ (so to speak) is conceived within some context. empathy, we might say, is the receptive form of virtue. if virtue is correct perception of and action by the self, empathy is correct perception and action toward others. this correct perception and action has two parts: watering what ‘deserves’ it and not what doesn’t.
which gets back to the difference between empathizing with a hungry baby and empathizing with a drug addict. both suffer, and it may be in some individual’s power to satisfy the want behind that suffering; but one want is a fruit tree and the other a weed.
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Jones: “that the very idea of the spiral is potentially threatening because it implicitly critiques the objective finality of every step along it.”
A nice segue for my purposes into my own position with respect to “good” and “bad”. I am in favor of these distinctions, even where there are qualifications, or serious questions as to how they can be determined. What I am opposed to is closure. Something new can always come along and place the old good into relief with the new, rendering the old good — bad. But I do not throw my hands in the air and refuse the problem. I accept the problem even as I determine the good and the bad.
Reply
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Segregation is about separation, rather than inequality, though that is largely an academic distinction given our own history. “Separate but equal” has been defeated as a notion, though we segregate bathrooms according to gender without implications of inequality (though there are other presumptions there). There are some attempts to integrate the poor and the better off in some of our public policies, for example in the mandate for public housing within the context of more affluent neighborhoods.
Reply
May 24th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
yes, the idea that humans ‘deserve’ certain treatment is problematic – and even moreso when this idea of entitlement is linked to the God’s Eye View. clearly God, in the Universal, trans-human, sense, doesn’t treat humans humanely.
Well, in keeping with your notion of limited empathy relative to ones own group, a trans-human God owes humanity nothing. We are nothing like that God. It is the human-like God we call “He” and who speaks to us and promises us things that is capable of mercy of any kind. The trans-personal God, as Fortune may more or less accidentally treat me with some kind of grace. But it is not because of who I am in the eyes of God. I am of little consequence. Still I can get lucky.
But the personal God seems a metaphor for Man’s treatment of Man. Their are promises to keep or break, their are special ones— chosen people, etc.
Reply
jones reply on May 25th, 2010 2:16 am:
i agree.
Reply
bi11 reply on May 25th, 2010 7:26 pm:
What examples do we find of the Golden Mean principle in theology, or in spirituality which addresses the Impersonal and Personal aspects of God? I seem to recall a Krishna devotee bringing up this matter once. I don’t recall any kind of discussion about a mean between the two, but merely a naming of the two aspects.
I am also curious about the political implications of embracing a notion of the Golden Mean with respect to emotional humane responses versus rational responses to necessity.
It seems that this is where we’re headed, no?
Reply
jones reply on May 26th, 2010 12:57 am:
seems to me the examples you’re looking for are in the so-called ’sacred science’ of the Egyptians; i.e. the hermetic/pythagorean tradition. i don’t have sufficient knowledge to say anything about it though that’s where i think we’d find that sort of approach.
one way to think about the Mean in politics is to consider the relationship between supposed interests (the emotional arguments for war, for example) and actual interests (the geopolitical/economic reasons for war). seems to me we can have a unity of emotion and actuality, a harmony between the two (i.e. the Golden Mean) or a disharmony (ethos and actuality are dissonant).
the Tao Te Ching speaks, i think, about this relationship in terms of how to rule an empire in accord with the Way. the Way is the Mean, or the Logos that harmonizes what ought and what is. None get to the Father but through Me… sayeth the Logos.
ought being the perspective of the personal/emotional;
is being the perspective of the impersonal/rational.
jones reply on May 26th, 2010 1:40 am:
i was just reminded of the hermeticist/egyptologist R.A. Scwhaller de Lubicz’ description of the Golden Mean as the ‘Primordial Schism’ that ruptured the unified Void (god with no qualities) and gave birth to the universe (god with qualities). the Golden Mean in this view is the Logos.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Jones: ” … That is complicated, particularly for younger children. a good illustration of the principle of empathic action as a mean between emotionally-guided humanity and rationally ascertained necessity. the golden spiral is the form expressing what we might call a living balance between these two.”
It is probably too complicated for younger children. The older children are old enough to comprehend the rational necessity and tie it with their emotional humanity, but are still themselves too young to recognize that their awareness of this is a creature particular to their own stage of maturity, and that younger kids “can’t handle” the same truth.
Reply