Month: October 2010

Kerouac October Quotation #26: Kerouac as Homo Religiosus

When On the Road finally saw the light of  day in 1957, fame proved to be Kerouac's undoing.  William Plummer writes insightfully:

For nearly a decade he hungered for recognition, but when the public at last chose to take notice it would choose to measure the least part of him. In forums and on talk shows, he would be queried about drugs, kicks, promiscuity. No one would understand or care to credit the spiritual underpinnings of On the Road; interviewers would regard him quizzically when he suggested that his life and work constituted a single effort to force God to pull back the veil and show Himself in the althogether. (The Holy Goof: A Biography of Neal Cassady, Paragon, 1981, p. 104)

Vanity of Duluoz, pp. 176-7:

Pascal says it better than I do when he says:"WHAT SHALL WE GATHER FROM ALL OUR DARKNESS IF NOT A CONVICTION OF OUR UNWORTHINESS?" and he adds to show you right path: "There are perfections in Nature which demonstrate that She is the image of God" — Timmy [Jack's dead cat] sittin like a lion, Big Slim in his prime, Pop in his prime, me in my careless 1943 youth, you, all — "and imperfections" — our decay and going-down, all of us — "to assure us that She is no more than His image."  I believe that.

"God is dead" made everybody sick to their stomachs because they all know what I just said, and Pascal said, and Paschal means Resurrection.

Santayana on Americans and Socialism

George Santayana (1863-1952), Character and Opinion in the United States (Norton, 1967), p. 171:

His instinct [the American's] is to think well of everybody, and to  wish everybody well, but in a spirit of rough comradeship, expecting every man to stand on his own legs and to be helpful in his turn. When he has given his neighbor a chance he thinks he has done enough for him; but he feels it is an absolute duty to do that. It will take some hammering to drive a coddling socialism into America.

Santayana remarks in his Preface that his observations were made over a forty year period prior to January, 1912. Despite all the socialist hammering (and sickling?) that has gone on since then, we are still at some distance from the coddling socialism found elsewhere. American self-reliance may be on her last legs, but she ain't dead yet.

Maybe we can revivify her a bit this November 2nd. 

Again on “Muslims Attacked Us on 9/11”

This just over the transom in response to a post from yesterday.

Your terminology is technically correct, but what is incorrect with the statement "Muslim extremists attacked us on 911"?

One does not have to be ‘politically correct’ to have a desire not to invite misunderstanding of a statement (that it equals: " Muslims-as-a-group attacked us" ) or to desire to avoid a perceived implication that there is something about the ‘essence’ of ‘Islam’ that is responsible for 911.

Nothing is wrong with 'Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11.'  But there is also nothing wrong with O'Reilly's statement, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."  After all, the first entails the second.  No one maintains that every Muslim attacked us on 9/11 or that Muslims as a group attacked us on that day.

My correspondent is missing the point, which is that inappropriate offense was taken by Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg when they stomped off the set in protest.  That inappropriate offense taken  at an objectively inoffensive remark is what shows that political correctness is at work.

This is just one more example among hundreds.  Remember the man who was fired from his job for using the perfectly innocuous English word 'niggardly'?  And then there was the case of some fool taking umbrage at the use of 'black hole.'  See Of Black Holes and Political Correctness and Of Black Holes and Black Hos.

And then there was the recent case of Dr. Laura who pointed out the obvious truth that some blacks apply 'nigger' to other blacks.  This got her in trouble, but it ought not have.  After all, what she said is true!  And let's recall that she had a reason for bringing up this truth: her remark was not unmotivated or inspired by nastiness.

Please note that I am talking about the word 'nigger,' not using it.  This is the use-mention distinction familiar to (analytic) philosophers.  Is Boston disyllabic?  Obviously not: no city consists of syllables, let alone two syllables.  Is 'Boston' disyllabic?  Yes indeed.  Confusing words and their referents is the mark of a primitive mind. In the following sentence

'Nigger' has nothing semantically or etymologically to do with 'niggardly'

I am mentioning both words but using neither.  "But what if someone is offended by your mere mention of 'nigger'?"  Too bad.  That's his problem. He is in need of therapy not refutation.

Kerouac October Quotation #25: The Noise in the Void

From a February 1950 journal entry (Windblown World, p. 262):

There's a noise in the void I hear: there's a vision of the void; there's a complaint in the abyss — there's a cry in the bleak air; the realm is haunted.  Man haunts the earth.  Man is on a ledge noising his life. The pit of night receiveth.  God hovers over in his shrouds.  Look out!

Here  is a review of Windblown World by Gerald Nicosia.

“Muslims Attacked Us on 9/11”

The above statement by Bill O'Reilly caused some fat liberal ladies to stomp off in protest.  You know the story.  But what's to be offended at?   Consider

1. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were Muslims.

True or false? True.  Truth is truth; if you are offended by it the problem is yours alone.  There is such a thing as taking inappropriate offense.  One cannot reasonably take offense at someone's stating what is a plain truth.  Since there is nothing objectively offensive about (1), then the following stylistic variant of (1) is equally inoffensive:

2. Muslim people attacked us on 9/11.

Plainly, (1) is true and inoffensive if and only if (2) is.  But (2) is just another way of saying

3. Muslims attacked us on 9/11.

So (3) like its companions in synonymy is equally true and inoffensive. 

Political correctness is a very great evil and you must, assuming you are a decent, clear-thinking person, do your bit to combat it.  That it is a great evil is indicated by the Juan Williams flap.  The man was fired by National Public Radio for merely reporting on a mental state he often finds himself in when boarding an airplane.  You should find his firing both shocking and outrageous.  It ought to anger you enough to take action.

So do your bit.  It won't cost you much effort.  Write a letter of protest. Speak out. Blog. VOTE! 

Political Aporetics: A Problem with Enforced Equality

This is a sequel to yesterday's post on liberty and (material) equality and their conflict.  It should be read first. This post extends the analysis by pointing out a problem for socialists (redistributivists).  So consider the following aporetic triad, the first two limbs of which are similar to the first two limbs of yesterday's aporetic tetrad:

1. Justice demands redistribution of wealth from the richer to the poorer., and of other social goods from the haves tothe have-nots. A just society is a fair society, one in which there is a fair or equal distribution of the available social and economic goods such as power and wealth.

2. Redistribution, whether of wealth or of other goods such as power, requires an agency of redistribution which forces, via the coercive power of government, the better off to pay higher taxes, forego benefits, make sacrifices, or in some other way compensate the worse off so that greater material equality is brought about.

3. Any effective redistributive agency must possess and exercise power which is far in excess of the power available to other individual and collective agents in the society: it must be greatly UNEQUAL to the latter in power.

These three propositions are individually plausible, and for the redistributivist, not just plausible but mandatory.  (1) defines the redistributivist position, while (2) and (3) he must accept if he wants to implement his scheme of justice.  But the propositions are not jointly consistent: they cannot all be true.  Any two of them, taken together, entails the negation of the remaining one.  Thus (2) and (3), taken in conjunction, entails the negation of (1). 

The conservative/libertarian will have no trouble solving the problem.  He will reject (1).  Justice does NOT demand redistribution; indeed, justice rules it out.  The leftist/redistributivist, however, is in a jam.  He cannot reject (2) or (3) since these are facts that all must acknowledge.  And he must accept (1) since it is definatory of his position.

The redistributivist position thus appears to be internally incoherent.  The redistributivist  is committed to the acceptance of propositions that cannot all be true.  He wants equality, but to enforce it he must embrace inequality

For a concrete historical example, consider Cuba under Fidel Castro.  Who has all the money and the power?  The people?

Kerouac October Quotation #24 : W. C. Fields

How I admire W. C. Fields! — What a great oldtimer he was.  None like him. I'll write something about him soon, my personal ideas. "Ain't you got no Red Eye?" "Ain't you an old Follies girl?" "I snookered that one." "Those Grampion hills." "Mocha-java." "The enterprise I am about to embark upon is fraught with eminent peril, and not fit for a young lady of your tender years." "Don't you want to wear diaphanous gowns? And get enough to eat?" With his straw hat, his short steps, his belly, his wonderful face hid beneath a bulbous puff of beaten flesh, his twisted mouth, his knowledge of American life, of women, of children, of fellow-barflies, and of death ("the fellow in the bright night-gown.") His utter lovelessness in the world. Bumping into everything blindly. Making everybody laugh. The line he himself wrote, addressed to him" "You're as funny as a cry for help." How he blows foam off a beer, an Old Mad Murphy of time; how he is alone among foolish people who don't see his soul.

Shakespeare never was sadder.

A hounded old reprobate, a clown, a drunkard of eternity, and "Man."

(Windblown World: The Journals of Jack Kerouac 1947-1954, ed. Douglas Brinkley, Viking 2004, p. 236, entry of 14-16 October 1949.)

Political Aporetics: Liberty Versus Equality

Political disagreement is ultimately rooted in philosophical disagreement.  So if the latter is objectively irresolvable, then so is the former.  I claim that both are irresolvable due to value differences that cannot be resolved either by appeal to empirical facts or by reasoning.  In illustration of my thesis, consider the the values of individual liberty and material (as opposed to formal) equality.  I will assume that both are indeed values to which all of us accord respect.  Even so, value conflict can arise  in the form of a conflict of prioritizations.  I value liberty over equality, while Peter, say, values equality over liberty.  That difference suffices to put us at serious odds despite the fact that we both value liberty and equality.  The conflict over prioritization — our difference as to which trumps which — makes the following aporetic tetrad objectively irresolvable:

1. Justice demands redistribution of wealth from the richer to the poorer.  A just society is a fair society, one in which there is a fair distribution of the available social and economic goods.

2. Wealth redistribution requires an agency of redistribution which forces, via the coercive power of government, the better off to pay higher taxes, forego benefits, or in some other way compensate the worse off so that greater material equality is brought about.

3. Coercive redistribution violates the liberty of the individual.

4. It is wrong to violate the liberty of the individual in the way that redistribution requires.

It is easy to see that the limbs of this tetrad, despite the plausibility of each, cannot all be true: the first three, entail the negation of the fourth.  Indeed, any three of them entails the negation of the remaining one.  To solve the inconsistency problem, one of the propositions must be rejected.  But which one?  (2) and (3) are uncontroversial and so not candidates for rejection.  This leaves (1) and (4).

The conservative/libertarian will reject (1) while the liberal/leftist will reject (4).  Each will thus solve the problem — from his own point of view.  But surely neither amounts to an objective solution to the problem since the solutions are logically incompatible and both are equally rational and equally consistent with all relevant empirical facts.

Indeed, this is why there is a philosophical problem in the first place.  There is nothing illogical about the conservative or liberal positions: neither falls afoul of any logical rule or canon of reasoning.  And there is no empirical fact that allows us to decide between the two positions.  The difference between the positions is ultimately rooted in a value difference, specifically, a difference concerning the prioritization of liberty and equality.  To the conservative, it is self-evident that liberty is such a high value that no consideration of material equality or fairness of distribution could provide any reason to violate the liberty of the individual by, for example, taxing him at a higher rate because he is more economically productive. To the liberal,on the other hand, it is is just self-evident that justice demands redistribution and so a certain amount of coercive taking of what belongs to the productive and a giving of it to the less or non-productive(for example, in the form of food stamps).

Because the doctrinal differences are rooted in a value difference, the doctrinal difference can be objectively resolved only if the value conflict can be objectively resolved.  But the latter cannot be, not by any appeal to empirical facts and not by any abstract reasoning.  If so, the political dispute regarding liberty and equality is objectively irresolvable.

I conjecture that all of the fundamental political problems are like this.  All are at bottom philosophical problems representable by an aporetic polyad consisting of propositions which are individually plausible but not jointly consistent.  If so, a certain political pessimism is the upshot.  We cannot resolve our political differences by appeal to empirical facts or by abstract reasoning or by the two together.  We are stuck with irreconcilable differences rooted in ultimately divergent values.

The question then becomes one of figuring how we can nonetheless continue to live with each other in some semblance of peace despite our irreconcilable differences.  Federalism may be part of the answer.  See my post Can Federalism Save Us?

Society and Solitude

Individuals need society to socialize them and raise them from the plane of mere animality. The quality of society, however, depends on true individuals, who are made by solitude. Moses was alone on Mt. Sinai; Jesus was forty days in the desert; alone Socrates communed with his daimon; Siddartha forsook the company of the royal compound; Henry "I have no walks to throw away on company" Thoreau went for walks solo. . . .

Thus society profits from its solitaries, assuming that those who escape from it for their own good return to it for its own good. In a Platonic figure, the escape from the Cave ought to be followed by a return to the Cave.

Kerouac No Role Model

Lest I lead  astray any young and impressionable readers, I am duty bound to point out that this month's focus on Kerouac is by no means to be taken as an endorsement of him as someone to be imitated.  Far from it! He failed utterly to live up to the Christian precepts that he learned as a child and the Buddhist precepts he assiduously studied in the mid-1950s.  Not that he was a hypocrite; he was just a deeply flawed human being.  I just now recall a critique of Kerouac by Douglas Groothuis from some years ago.  (Old Memory Babe ain't got nothing on me.)  Ah yes, here it is.   I am in basic agreement with it.

Kerouac October Quotation #23: How Can You be Clever in a Meatgrinder?

Jkerouacmom Here is Kerouac on the road, not in a '49 Hudson with Neal Cassady, but in a bus  with his mother:

Who are men that they can insult men? Who are these people who wear pants and dresses and sneer? What am I talking about? I'm talking about human helplessness and unbelievable loneliness in the darkness of birth and death and asking "What is there to laugh about in that?" "How can you be clever in a meatgrinder?" "Who makes fun of misery?" There's my mother a hunk of flesh that didnt ask to be born, sleeping restlessly, dreaming hopefully, beside her son who didnt ask to be born, thinking desperately, praying hopelessly, in a bouncing earthly vehicle going from nowhere to nowhere, all in the night, worst of all for that matter all in noonday glare of bestial Gulf Coast roads — Where is the rock that will sustain us? Why are we here? What kind of crazy college would feature a seminar where people talk about hopelessness forever?

Jack Kerouac (1922-1969), Desolation Angels, 1960, p. 339.

Compare Mexico City Blues, 1959, 211th Chorus:

The wheel of the quivering meat conception . . .
. . . I wish I was free of that slaving meat wheel
and safe in heaven dead.

Of the Beat triumvirate, Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and William Burroughs, "sweet gone Jack" alone really moves me, and the quotations above I find to be among the most moving in all his writings.