We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Steven Pinker on how ‘progressives’ aren’t Steven Pinker is quoted by John Tierney at the start of his review of Pinker’s Enlightenment Now, saying this:
Intellectuals hate progress. Intellectuals who call themselves ‘progressive’ really hate progress.
The mis- (I would say) -use of the word “progressive” to describe people who hate progress is a bit of a hobby horse of mine. I am delighted that intellectual mega-celeb Pinker seems to have found such excellent words to hit this point home.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Progressive do not hate progress at all.
They strive for progress towards a big state run by them, with total obedience to it required from the rest of us.
That’s why many of them admired the Soviet Union and admire Castro’s Cuba.
And also why most of them are pro-EU.
Different definition of the word, pete. You’re using it in the sense of moving toward something (in this case, absolute state control); Pinker (and Brian) are using it in the sense of societal advancement. Soi-disant “Progressives” would have us believe they mean the latter when they really mean the former.
Definitions matter. That’s why “progressives” start by seeking to constantly change the meanings of words in unexpected ways.
I understand, and approve of, “technological advancement”; I understand, and approve of, “economic advancement”.
I do not understand “societal advancement“.
Where are we headed?
I’m not trying to be difficult, honestly.
I can look back at history (bits of) and see some things that I would definitely say were “societal advancement”, but I’m not clear where “forward” is now.
Keep in mind that everything Left is Orwellian backward double-speak. Of course “progressives” want zero-sum tribalism and a society hardly worthy of being considered Neolithic.
The words “fairness,” “equality” and “progressive,” all words much loved by politicians, become subjective and meaningless when not measured against absolute values. We have a society which no longer has an absolute set of moral ethics; they have abandoned western society’s Judaeo-Christian roots; Tom Sharp’s Scullion will have his revenge.
Progressive is a lazy vacuous platitude; the last refuge of a political scoundrel.
But far more annoying is the use of the words “rational” “logical” and “emotional” – used as rhetorical devices to disparage those with whom one disagrees.
Those engaged in the sciences are certainly analytical: that is the whole basis of our respective disciplines: and we are subject to the forensic judgement of our peers – and how.
But very few of us would claim to be either logical or rational since much of what we do is heuristic and simply guessed at: many of us are polymathic but nearly all of us are mono-manic obsessives: that is how we achieve what we do.
Rationality, logicality and emotions are simply human inventions: in a scientific sense the human brain is an entity which cannot be separated from the body and its functions: everything which comes from it is an entirely dispassionate set of electro-chemical reactions.
The claim that “progressives” have access to a body of knowledge that others do not possess: some sort of superior cranial activity is ridiculous.
Use capital-P Progressive to differentiate, in the same way you’d use capital-C Conservative (who are no longer “conservative”).
I wrote a long comment – but sadly I lost it.
I will write a shorter comment this time.
It depends on what considers “progress” – beneficial change.
For example, to a political “Progressive” (i.e. a collectivist by the instalment plan – what British people call a Fabian) the expansion of the state in most Western countries since about 1870 (in some countries a few years earlier than this) is progress (beneficial change), to a libertarian (or just non leftist) the expansion of the size and scope of government over the last 150 years is a tragedy.
Whether cultural change has been beneficial (progress) is also debatable – I would argue that the artistic changes of the last century or so has been anything but progress. And certainly people who argue that the cultural changes since about 1960 (the collapse of the family and voluntary associations and the rise in dependence on the state) has been beneficial progress are people for whom I have a great deal of hatred. As for architecture – people who think my home town looks better now than it did in 1960 are just wrong and that-is-that (there has been change – but it has not been progress, quite the reverse). The way we (including myself) dress now is also ugly – but there we are, things may change for the better in future.
Technology has certainly advanced (progressed) – this has generally been beneficial, although the internet has helped undermine my health (it just eats time and means the house does not cleaned and so on, going for walks and so on used to give me pleasure – the internet is a grim duty that I hate, but must carry on with indeed I spend most of time on this hateful task), that is a very minor problem compared to the great benefits technology has given the world.
As for theoretical science – I am torn by it.
On the one hand modern science has disproved (at least so we are told) the Western view (going back to the Ancient Greeks) that the physical universe makes sense – that there are rational laws in line with human reason. The Eastern view that the universe is insane and not in accordance with reason seems to be correct – and I am rather upset about that. HOWEVER, the truth is the truth (objective and universal) – and if the universe is the insane and horrible place that modern theoretical science states that it is, one should just grit one’s teeth and carry on.
With hindsight the doctrine in modern physics that was established even before Einstein – the doctrine that if a beam of light is fired and one person chases after it and another does not, the light gets away from both men AT THE SAME RATE was the beginning of the end for the Western view of the universe as a rational place.
another quote from Pinkers book
“countries that combine free markets with more taxation, social spending, and regulation than the United States (such as Canada, New Zealand, and Western Europe) turn out to be not grim dystopias but rather pleasant places to live, and they trounce the United States in every measure of human flourishing.”
To many minds such a statement would mark out Pinker himself as a ‘progressive’.
He is, nothing new about that. It’s just that he’s saner than others.
“countries that combine free markets with more taxation, social spending, and regulation than the United States (such as Canada, New Zealand, and Western Europe) turn out to be not grim dystopias but rather pleasant places to live, and they trounce the United States in every measure of human flourishing.”
Well, they certainly are committing suicide at a faster rate than the US. I don’t want to live in Baltimore or many US cities because the Democrats have run them into the ground, but at least in those cities I can defend myself as in the rest of the country. In the Muslim cities of Europe you are just a serf with no ability to defend oneself, and if you do it’s you who will be arrested. I’d live in Eastern Europe any day over Western Europe.
Alisa: Yeah. Or, at the very least, librul.
Interesting: Short, e-mail interview of Dr. Pinker by Adam Rubinstein. Some good stuff, but…. See the two topics toward the bottom, just above Humanism. Globalism, capitalism.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/steven-pinker-identity-politics-is-an-enemy-of-reason-and-enlightenment-values/article/2011595
“I don’t want to live in Baltimore or many US cities because the Democrats have run them into the ground”
John Kennedy did it? lol
Jack Kennedy was never a city Mayor newrouter. And if you want to pretend that the Democrats have run the cities well – then you have a tough case to prove.
As for President Kennedy – he did allow the Berlin Wall to be built (just making speeches rather than doing anything), and he messed up the operation in Cuba – President Kennedy personally made the changes to the plan (such as where the landing was to be) that doomed the operation to failure. And President Kennedy approved the changes to FDA rules in 1962 that have made medical drugs more and more expensive over time. And President Kennedy allowed the FCC regulation changes that concentrated television entertainment in the hands of a small group of people in ABC, CBS and NBC. And President Kennedy repeatedly used the tax authorities (the IRS) against political opponents – when President Nixon talked about doing that it was an outrage, when President Kennedy actually did it (repeatedly) the media did not care. And there is also “Food Stamps” (1961) – meant as a corrupt little program to support farm prices, but which have turned (over the decades) into a massive welfare program that have got the poor dependent on food from the government – shades of Ancient Rome during the dying days of the Republic.
And there is the “little” matter of his entire Presidency being based upon a lie, not just the rigging of the 1960 election (Chicago and Texas), but also the lie that he was a fit man. The media knew perfectly well that Jack Kennedy was a cripple who was also dying of Addison’s disease – and was using every drug (legal and illegal) that he could lay his hands on.
Think about that newrouter – the media presented a dying man who was on drugs (including mind altering drugs) as a fit young athlete. And you do not have a problem with that media lie campaign do you. That the media lied their socks of to get Jack Kennedy elected does not bother you at all.
Ironically Jack Kennedy was NOT a Progressive – but the Progressives hoped they could USE him (due to his physical and mental condition).
I just automatically translate ‘progressive’ into ‘regressive’ and work from there. It is occasionally inappropriate and needs reversing but is, more frequently, revealing.
Clovis Sangrail (March 11, 2018 at 5:56 pm), Montesquieu observed long ago that abuse of power is greatest when the laws do not anticipate it. In the same way, the idea of ‘progress’ is most likely to be a fraud and/or a disaster when those who push it do not recognise it will probably have a downside as well as an upside. Whatever deserves in retrospect to be called progress is best achieved by those who are not progressives.
Anyone who thinks that “mainstream” media corruption is new should (I repeat) remember that in 1960 the media conspired to put a dying man (who was using mild altering drugs) in charge of nuclear weapons.
More irresponsible behaviour by the media would be hard to imagine.
One piece of progress that HAS occurred is that there is now no longer a monopoly media – the internet (sometimes) allows the truth to get out. It would be much harder to do a 1960 today.
First comment:
“…the doctrine that if a beam of light is fired and one person chases after it and another does not, the light gets away from both men AT THE SAME RATE was the beginning of the end for the Western view of the universe as a rational place.”
This is not doctrine. It is the result of many carefully designed and executed experiments, done repeatedly by different people and groups, in many parts of the world. The measurements are the same, every time, within the error bounds of the instrumentation.
Second Comment:
The progressives, at least in the USA, want to make progress towards a different form of government than the one we currently live under. They understand that the current system was not “designed” to deal with a modern, complicated, populous state, and they want to make progress towards “perfecting” it. They have made a lot of progress in their endeavors, from re-interpretation of laws to the development of an administrative state that is essentially unanswerable to the populace.
They want to go “Back to the Future”, to a time of feudalism with one kindly, wise philosopher-monarch. He/she/it would be supported by a cadre of administrators and other “smart people” with good credentials from accredited institutes of learning. The institutes of learning would be run by the people with the largest number of credentials, thinking very important thoughts, and also providing advice to the administrators and the monarch.
There would be no legislature, because that it too messy.
The judiciary would work on the principle of social justice.
Bands of roving activists would stimulate the society with all sorts of insights gathered from their experiences out among the suffering peasants.
Material goods would be created by accredited artisans who are members of guilds that would carefully evaluate applicants after they have completed apprenticeships. They would produce only the highest quality of goods, not widely available, often only available by word-of-mouth, to people “in-the-know”.
The vast majority of the population would be happy peasants, singing as they till the fields and harvest the crops that would be lovingly cared for, under the guidance of knowlegeable farming experts, in collective farms where everyone would get along with one another. They would entertain themselves at night by sitting around a small fire, eating hearty, simple fare, singing songs, and sharing tales of the bad old days when they were exploited.
No one would get sick or injured, because no one would do anything dangerous.
All the women would be strong, the men good looking, and the children above average.
Which would be the result of a steady diet of powdermilk biscuits among other things.
So, their concept of “progress” centers on becoming Minnesota. Good to know.
I am quite taken with the idea that all the children will be above average. Right on! 😆
The reference, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar.
Except in their statistical reasoning ability, one presumes. 🙂
I could say that phrase gave me doubts about the assured success of this wonderful plan (justly called ‘progressive’ by commenters above), but truth to tell I already had doubts – the sort of doubts that feel like certainties.
On the one hand modern science has disproved (at least so we are told) the Western view (going back to the Ancient Greeks) that the physical universe makes sense – that there are rational laws in line with human reason. The Eastern view that the universe is insane and not in accordance with reason seems to be correct – and I am rather upset about that. HOWEVER, the truth is the truth (objective and universal) – and if the universe is the insane and horrible place that modern theoretical science states that it is, one should just grit one’s teeth and carry on.
With hindsight the doctrine in modern physics that was established even before Einstein – the doctrine that if a beam of light is fired and one person chases after it and another does not, the light gets away from both men AT THE SAME RATE was the beginning of the end for the Western view of the universe as a rational place.
I have a lot to say about this. For now, since I need to get to work, I’ll just say: Don’t lose faith in reason. If something in nature doesn’t make any sense, we just don’t understand it correctly yet. (That goes for physicists too!) (And their horrible popularizers and ‘interpreters’ for the masses.)
(There are a great many things in the modern understanding of physics that make no damn sense, and are at best ‘effective procedures’. Special relativity, on the other hand, is pretty straightforward if you can get a picture of it.)
Paul, you might like these articles, from one of my favorite new authors, Hans G. Schantz:
Philosophic Premises of Quantum Mechanics – Part I/II: http://aetherczar.com/?p=380 / http://aetherczar.com/?p=383
“The purpose of this article is to debunk a myth by which the advocates of mysticism and non-objective science seek to undermine science in general and physics in particular. Proponents of this mythical history of science would have us believe that up until the discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920’s, physicists were committed to a classical (or in other words, more or less objective) view of reality. They hold that these physical discoveries destroyed any hope for an objective view of reality and forced physicists to reject such notions as identity and causality. The picture such persons paint is of physical discoveries somehow validating non-objective philosophy. They portray the history of science as a progression whose climax is the discovery of its own impotence.”
You should check out his fiction work as well, starting with The Hidden Truth. Most readers on here would enjoy I think.
Alisa, thanks for the link. As part of a comedy show, “all the children will be above average” is indeed a great lampoon of (a part of) a rather common human daydream. :>)
I never could drum up any interest in them; but I had gotten the impression, tramping about in my sector of the Echo Chamber, that Mr. Keillor and his Lake are distinctly to the left among the Libruls. But Wikipedia leaves lots of room for doubt on that score. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
I think that Mr. Keillor was definitely a leftist, at least in the beginning, but he started to show some signs of apostasy, and then the sexual harrassment complaints occurred, so he is currently banished into exile. It may have had to do with some marital problems.
Maybe if he recants, he can be rehibilitated. There are a LOT of these wrecks around right now, and it will be interesting to see how they recover, if at all. The women seem to be determined to never forget, never forgive.
Bernie Sanders was likely a bit too conservative for Gary Keillor. Although built on bluegrass/country music and tales of mythical Lake Woebegone – a small Minnesota community with traditional standards where all the children were above average – the underlying message was that the stupid inbred redneck rubes ought to shut up and listen to their betters. Keillor eventually admitted to hating his small-town roots.
And I’m amused at how little attention Wikipedia gives to the ultimate explosion, last year, of the entire PHC universe when Keillor was accused by several women of downright creepy behavior. Coming so close to Al Franken’s destruction, it left the Left enraged around here.
Lots of physics does not make sense. It just is. Quantum mechanics is very spooky. Turbulence is a phenomenon that drives people crazy, trying to model it in any sort of detail. Special relativity is very special, because it is very different from the behavior of sound, which is another wave phenomenon. The dual nature of light as particle and wave can have some very disturbing consequences. All of these issues are the result of reproduceable, falsifiable experiments, which is what makes them real science. As opposed to social science, which does nothing that is reproduceable or falsifiable.
Then, of course, there is the subject of feminine logic, which is completely impenetrable.
Yes, I think it’s more or less as rxc puts it, but that’s as regards the man himself. I was a great fan of the show, and never noticed anything political, at least not explicitly so. I could have easily missed it though, because at that time I used to listen to NPR by default 🙂
I now see bobby’s comment – indeed I seem to have missed stuff. Oh well.
EdMJ, thanks for the link. I also went to the Cathodexx site, pdf on semiconductors. Wish my Honey would revisit our Worldly Plane to give it a critique — his field was solid-state physics (experimental).
ETA: Paul, have a look at EdMJ’s link (& follow to Part II). He argues that “uncertainty” and “unknowability” follow only from bad Weimar “nonobjective” philosophy ( my quick shorthandish descriptions).
…
Alisa, rxc, bobby, thanks for info.
Alisa, much of my knowledge of Keillor comes from knowing him, and knowing about him as a local boy. PHC started out as a radio show back in the seventies at my college while I was there, and, over the years, I probably attended 20 or more shows. Plus, he wrote extensively, giving away lots of information that was at least masked a bit during the actual shows. He wrote some truly awful, despicable things about conservatives over the years.
I always loved the show, until I couldn’t stomach the man.
bobby, you mean you knew him personally?
At any rate, thanks for the additional info.
It was one of those relationships where I met him and spoke with him and listened to him several times, but he wouldn’t likely know me from Adam. I and several roommates rented a large decaying mansion in St. Paul for a bit, and we used to host pre-show meetups two or three days before the radio shows where a couple of the artists would show up and banter and play music for whoever we invited in order to boost ticket sales. If you wanted to be a guest musician on the shows, you were responsible for selling X number of tickets each week. Those people had to work for their appearances.
Same here. I didn’t become aware of his leftism (or his politics in general for that matter) until GWB became President. I never was a fan of Bush, but Keilor became seriously unhinged at that time. I wonder what he makes of the current President – or maybe I shouldn’t…
Another Minnesotan who seems to have fallen off my radar is Lileks. I see he still maintains The Bleat, but I don’t hear about him nearly as much as 10-20 years ago.
Ah. Veddy interestin’, bobby. Thanks again. :>)
. . .
Now this, from James Lileks at National Review (you get to read five articles without buying a subscription) — and thanks, Alisa, for reminding me of him:
[Snipped, but … 😀 ]
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/01/22/trump-support-republicans-10-point-scale/
Or his “Eat, Pray, Stay Home,” on Evironmentalists
:
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/02/06/eat-pray-stay-home/
Clovis, isn’t “economic advancement” simply progress made in the direction of absolute equality of income, indeed of wealth generally, across the U.S. — or perhaps the West itself, including Israel, but with a slight shift upward in the wealth equally distributed among denizens of the Third World?
I’m not sure what we should be aiming for in the case of up-&-comers such as China. *thoughtful frown*
ETA: Of course, perhaps it just means progress made towards the end of achieving an economy completely planned, administered, and enforced by economic experts. That would be the Progressive vision as opposed to the Hard Left one. I suppose.
Hey Julie, thanks for that!
😀
Fun quotes:
Garrison Keillor, 2004.
(This was the one that made him dead to me.)
Hmph. I see. “Not funny, McGee,” as Mother used to say, echoing Molly.
You may disagree with the sentiment, bobby b, but you have to admit that it’s clever writing.
“I always loved the show, until I couldn’t stomach the man.”
Precisely. I’ve long known that he’s a hard-core leftist (he has a syndicated column which used to run in my local newspaper until his abrupt fall from grace), but the man could tell a story. He always seemed to me to be in the mold of Jean Sheppard: a relatable, gentle humor and sympathy for the foibles of humanity. His personal politics never seemed to intrude into the show (and he often had great musicians on it, too).