April 24, 2024
In my last post I promised a more optimistic subject, but then life happened.
A distressing personal event that made positive thinking quite difficult; then I came across an article fitting right into the train of my own thoughts in the past few posts:
Monopoly on Knowledge - A guest post by Dr. Monika Gabriela Bartoszewicz on the John Carter Substack.
The post is superb, please read it. It is a treasure trove of references and most beautiful art. It guides us through a number of books to explore the evolution of our present state of fear and security driven zeitgeist. I cannot think of a more succinct description of the phenomenon than the title of the post.
It perfectly describes the attitudes in the conversations I am having with family and friends traveling in the Habsburg triangle (Prague - Vienna - Budapest).
The need for epistemic security seems to be overwhelming. The replacement (and even rejection) of critical thinking with blind trust in 'authoritative' - one could say authoritarian - sources, to the point of making any rational conversation impossible.
The concept is also a perfect tie-in to the set I was posting in the past few weeks:
- In Core belief #1 - on decision making I profess my faith in the superiority of distributed decision making over centralized systems.
- In The not-so-smart books of Yuval Noah Harari I am trying to raise the alarm over postmodernist relativism and its sleaziest advocate.
- In The allure of surrogate power I glance at the psychology of communism through short explanations of Soviet communist phraseology.
- In Misunderstood communism I make the point that Communism/socialism is a paradox that can only exist on the values it aims to replace.
- In The enduring insult of "Capitalism" I am just venting my frustration over the continuous use of the word that was always just an insult, never a well-defined concept/theory/explanation.
- In The virtuous appeal of fascism I am trying to point to the dangers of seeing reality through the lens of mob-consensus conformity, while also looking at the psychological power of dissolving one's self in the group's epistemic certainty.
- In The delusion of liberal democracy I try to show how this most confused of expressions gets the least scrutiny in its use. Everybody uses it as if its meaning was universally agreed upon.
The point of the whole series was to show examples of 'epistemic insecurity', if you will, and to demonstrate the need for a far more rigorous approach to the discussion of complex concepts.
What drives my effort is the need to understand our apparently unresolvable political differences.
What makes them so predictable?
What is causing them?
What makes people to react to the same news in fundamentally different ways?
How can we interpret policies in so predictable ways?
How did we get to this impasse, where we cannot even agree on most basic principles?
How did we lose our ability to communicate?
How did we allow our fears to dominate our reason?
How did we get to safe-spaces and hysterical narcissism?
How did we get to the ready acceptance that knowledge is defined on the fly, at the whim of those with political power?
What could possibly effect the changes we are witnessing?
What changed in the past 75 years that led to them? Are we the victims of our own successes?
Did urbanization had something to do with it?
What is the role of ideology and the state's incessant drive to grow?
What came first, the chicken or the egg? The fear or its shameless exploitation?
Did fear create the existential uncertainty or the other way around? In other words: is social security (for example) the answer or the problem? Will UBI create more or less existential uncertainty?
Are we living in times of weak man creating bad times or at times of evil men far beyond our control creating uncertainty to exploit?
Can we create a world where those who need safety can coexist with those who want freedom?
Can we create a world without a busybody, overbearing all-controlling government?
Can we even imagine one?
MGB in her essay implicates mostly top-down processes, with the state being instrumental in creating both the problems and their solutions. Governmental power grabs, Oligarchisation, educational homogenization, etc.
I am not so ready to give ourselves a pass. We are part of the process. Trying to scare us does not work if we do not get scared.
MGB is right pointing a finger at institutions, but does not address the most important aspect of the problem. She says:
"The pursuit of epistemic security demands a structured framework that provides us with definitive, authoritative responses, leaving no room for diversity or the existence of relative truths."
She mentions laws about climate skepticism and hate speech. The essence of these laws is NOT dogmatism, but its very opposite, undefined, vague fuzziness. They are beyond relative. These laws, in essence, mean: 'do not say or do anything we may not like now or in the future.' This is beyond even 1984, referred to in the quote from Anna Pawełczyńska:
"Newspeaks emerge on the verge of propaganda, blurring previously clear concepts and their contexts. Manipulation is used against a generation incapable of independently assessing the mechanisms of social life. Language begins to serve the purpose of manipulating meanings. The process of degradation of linguistic resources and the need to distinguish meanings is one of the most serious symptoms of the regression of contemporary culture."
The security is NOT in the dogma or propaganda, but in absolutely unconditional submission to the caprice of power.
The quote above could be a blurb to the short book I wrote in 2005, sitting in my (virtual) drawer ever since.
The Principles Of Bullspeak
1020KB ∙ PDF file
The book is in a serious need for a major rewrite. When I wrote it, I deliberately excluded politics. It was a mistake. It should be its focus. A clear rethinking of how we think is possibly the most important task of our time. The book is also a little dated. Some of the examples in it clearly betray its age.
For now, take it for what it is - a short book on language. If you think that it is worth the effort of rewriting it, let me know.
I started this post as a reaction to a guest post on the
Substack.
Then it turned into a summary/recap of my series on political concepts. As I was creating the summary, I had to realize that I just opened a door into a world where everything is connected.
I will have to return to the subject and answer ALL of the questions I asked in this one.
Just after I'm done with the World Economic Forum, a major player in the scare-mongering and security-offering scam.
But first: Elon and Vladimir.
If you want to stay with me for the further exploration of this subject, click on the subscribe button.
Expect more on this subject.....