Are you shaking in your shoes yet?

It will not come as a surprise to any of you that I'm not the world's convinced optimist. Oh sure, things for most of us generally work out, not because we did anything in particular and certainly not because we deserved it. Most of us live in a lucky part of the world and hence most of us are luckier than most others.

This does not mean that I'm therefore and invariably a pessimist. Sure, there are aspects of pessimism that agree with me, but I, like Ben Franklin, am more pessimist out of self-protection than conviction.

And, yes, there have been any number of people who have "accused" me of cynicism ... but I ask why cynicism should have anything crime-like about it. George Bernard Shaw noted, "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." After all, when I'm in cynical mode, it turns out I'm more often right than I would like.

Recently, I read two good essays (both of which are much longer than everyday, internet-attention spans) by Henry A. Giroux and the other by Peter Koenig, both authors for whom I have a lot of respect. They weren't happy essays. They were well-reasoned, insightful, and thought-provoking. Giroux's was more about America; Koenig's more about Europe, but they had something in common: hope.

Giroux ended his essay with the line, ""Dark times are not ahead, they are here but that does not mean they are here to stay." Koenig wrote, "Rather than fearfully shutting up – wake up! Dare stand up fellow citizen – against the white collar onslaught of fraud and exploitation, against corruption of our elitist neoliberal system! Get rid of those deceiving politicians – the scum of greed and power. Expose them. Neutralize them." In other words, they both think that we can turn this game around.

Naturally, I'm not so sure, but I would like to think they're right. The problem as I see it is that too many of us don't take the time to get truly informed, won't make the effort to sort through the issues and facts, will fall back on our innate fear of power and violence, and will jump upon any excuse we can find why it's "not our job" to do anything about anything.

You know, the only reason it appears to be getting dark out there is because we allow it to happen.

The terror of the darkness

We have every right to be afraid ... day in and day out. If the climate doesn't do us in, it could be a military catastrophe when the "wrong people" get hold of weapons of mass destruction, or it could be the "right" people who already have them and are itching for a fight. It could be some natural disaster, and we seem to be getting more of them, in all sizes, shapes, colors and what at least feels like subjective frequencies.

And, if there isn't the big global cataclysmic apocalypse, there's always a new epidemic, an antibiotic-resistant strain of virus, a mass shooting, a slip of the tongue or wrong answer after being stopped by a cop, another armed whacko who decided enough's enough, or lawmakers who think the rest of us have it too good as it is and start taking away what little most of us have left. Yes, we have every reason to be afraid ... day in and day out.

And, let's be realistic. No, let's be honest with each other: most of us live our lives in a state of repressed terror. Oh, sure, we act like we've got thing under control. We act like we have the (or at least some of the) answers. But, deep down, especially at night, when the lights are off and we can't sleep, we're well aware of our terror of the darkness that surrounds us.

Quite recently, I read something that describes this perfectly:

We are, we believe, seeing some long-standing fractures and psychological tensions within [life's] sphere coming to a head: ‘Old certainties’, old landmarks, familiarities, longstanding ways of being – all are eroding, leaving people bewildered and angry – and ready to lash out (at the world because they feel it is no longer what they know and want it to be). The ‘world around them’ is perceived as ‘doing this to them’ (destroying their handholds in life which kept them psychologically secure). It – all of it – as it were, has become ‘their enemy’.

We feel threatened from all sides, regardless of our political and religious beliefs: black lives mattering, gay rights, abortions, financial bailouts and coup d'etats, terrorism, radicals of all kinds, the absence of G-d in government, an economic system gone haywire, illegal immigrants, tax give-aways for the rich and for corporations, intrusive government action, disrespect of authority, and the list goes on and on and on and on, and each of these items is, of course, an "enemy" to someone.

What fascinates me most about the situation, the threats, the list, is that it is all of our own making. Yes, dear reader, you and I and everyone else is responsible for how things are and why there are so many enemies "out to get us". They are all demons of our own creation, and they make the darkness upon which they thrive.

The absurdity of neoliberalism, period

Sometimes I don't know if are progressing, in any sense of the word, or if we are regressing, almost in every sense of the word. The signature value of the small vignette I presented last time still haunts me. It is precisely the attitude of two of the most revered political figures of the 20th century: Thatcher and Reagan.

They were absurdists in their own right. Thatcher openly asserted in absurdity that society doesn't exist, and Reagan, the actor in the role of president, thought Milton Friedman was a brilliant man.

For those of you who may be unaware, Friedman wrote the neoliberalist bible, Capitalism and Freedom, though I doubt that many of you have ever read it (I have, but I would like the time back). It's one of those "classic" texts that uses a whole lot of words to say, well, absolutely nothing, which is as much as trickles down from his trickle-down approach to economics ... or "voodoo economics", as it was called before it became "respectable". Thatcher, Reagan, Friedman are mere examples, just like the liberal-arts college president from last time, share one primary characteristic in common: they may be in charge, but at heart, they're know-nothings.

But, know-nothings are nothing new in the United States, at any rate. Mid-19th century they made a name for themselves and a bit of political splash, short-lived as it deservedly was. But what goes around, comes around and it's apparently back in fuller force again. The run-up to the Republican nomination for president is one example; but our college president, too many "educational reformers" on both sides of the Atlantic, the Troika or Quadrika, as they like to call it these days since the Eurogroup is now involved (yes, an informal association with no formal authority and not legitimized in any way is now playing an "important role" in the European debt crisis. It would seem the absurdity has gone full bloom.

We have non-economists implementing nonsensical economic theory and non-educationalists implementing irrelevant educational policy. We have millionaires trying to show how well they relate to common folk. There are experts of all sizes, shapes and colors who love going on TV to show us how little they know, but so many believe them anyway. We have union-busters going on about right-to-work, polluters and fossil-fuel fetishists denying climate change (and getting away with it), and it all boils down to the simple fact that if you can't but a monetary value on it, it has no value at all.

Stated differently, the only value that counts is money value. A step forward? A step backward? Even a step at all?

As usual, the real answer is my favorite, "e) None of the above".

I refuse to accept that as an option. I refuse to acknowledge that money is the measure of all things. I refuse to adjust to a world that is too ignorant to discuss any more. I continue to resist the temptation to just throw up my hands and say, all those absurdities make sense. They don't, and they never will.

The long and short of it all, if you think economics is primary and neoliberalism is the only reasonable approach to the world, you're not part of the problem, you are the problem.

The absurdity of neoliberal education

Shortly after writing the last post, I was pointed to an article which went a good ways toward answering my final question. It is well worth reading in its entirety, to say the least, even though I'm sure most of you won't bother. (If you are interested, however, you can find it here.) William Deresiewicz wrote it for Harper's, and its title tells the story: "The Neoliberal Arts: How college sold its soul to the market". One vignette therein facepalmed me:

A couple of years ago, I sat down with the newly appointed president of a top-ten liberal-arts college. He had come from a professional school (law, in his case), as so many college deans and presidents now seem to.

I started by telling him that I had just visited an upper-level class, and that no one there had been able to give me a decent definition of “leadership,” even though the college trumpeted the term at every opportunity. He declined to offer one himself. Instead, he said, a bit belligerently, “I’ve been here five months, and no one has been able to give me a satisfactory definition of ‘the liberal arts.’ ”

I offered the one I supplied above: those fields in which knowledge is pursued for its own sake. When you study the liberal arts, I added, what you’re mainly learning to do is make arguments.

“Scientists don’t make arguments,” he said (a statement that would’ve come as a surprise to the scientists on the faculty). “And what about painters? They don’t make arguments.”

I tried to explain the difference between the fine and the liberal arts (the latter are “arts” only by an accident of derivation) with little success. “So what do you think the college should be about?” I finally asked him.

“Leadership,” he said.

This is absolutely "brilliant": the "boss", the equivalent of the CEO in the private sector, has no experience "in the business (was at a professional, not an academic, institution), does not know what the "product" is. What is more, He isn't even aware that there are different "arts", let alone arts at all, and in the end, he thinks his institution is about something that he can't even say what it is.

And that my dear readers pretty much sums up the heart of the problem, not only with education, but with neoliberalism in general. Nowhere in its entire ideological realm is competence, intelligence, insight, or actual qualification necessary. Buzzwords suffice along with a big enough paycheck to think that you have something to say.

There are simply too many of these folks "in charge", but how can you discuss or debate with any of them (not to mention those who would like to be like them and would like to emulate them and have even less to offer), if they have no idea what they are doing, and, what's worst of all, don't even know what an argument is.

Buffalo Springfield nailed it

"Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong." A line from a Buffalo Springfield song ("For What It's Worth"). As true now as it was then, maybe even more so. Why? Because a pernicious infection that began so long ago has borne its fruit.

What fruit, you may ask? How about: over-political correctness, either-or thinking, an either-you're-with-us-or-against-us attitude, advocating love-it-or-leave-it, and many, many more. There's so much fruit we don't know whether to make marmalade or some kind of alcoholic beverage. The former might be better for us, but most of us favor the latter.

My point is that this isn't a new phenomenon, it's only taken on a more aggressive and bitter dimension. There was a time we could talk. There was a time we could debate and discuss. There was a time when justified and substantiated views meant something. Those times are gone.

What's so amazing, if you ask me, is that those times are considered to be "the good old days", when everything was anything but good: enforced and dictated conformity, institutionalized racial discrimination, submission to authority, and a-place-for-everything-and-everything-in-its-place thinking carried the day. Yes, for the greatest part we were "told" how to think and feel, yet in those (not-so-) "good old days", there was still a modicum of dissent possible; discussion was still possible, debate was still possible. It was simply accepted that the person with the best argument(s) won. And then it all changed.

Out of that repressive, conformity-seeking "cultural" attitude, out of that forensically-based, argumentatively challenging norm, we created a winner-takes-all, right-or-wrong, in-or-out view of the world. Buffalo Springfield saw it happening. We're living the consequences of the thought.

The most negative form of all of this is, of course, "political correctness". What's good or bad, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable is dictated from the surface of things. Words, concepts, notions, ideas cannot be explored because some people find some words "offensive". I'm here to tell you that words are nothing more than words. Yes, there are those who are offended when they hear the word "fuck" and there are those who are elated when they hear the word "Jesus", but how do we know where and when and to whom and for what reasons some people are uplifted and others discouraged by such words. Again: they are but words.

Humpty Dumpty taught us that words mean whatever we think they mean. But the words haven't changed, only the "we's". And now, every "we" feels that it deserves equal time and equal treatment and equal consideration, and I believe that that is absolutely correct. What I don't believe is that equal anything means equal acceptance. It only means "you may say". How others deal with it is a whole different issue.

Don't get me wrong: anyone who denigrates or demeans or dismisses what another says simply because s/he "doesn't like it" is as ignorant as s/he who gets upset because someone from another perceptual framework doesn't understand the term as the in-group understands it. It's time for us to get over the words and get down to what we are really talking about. And, to do that, we have to be able to accept, acknowledge, differ, discuss, and debate what we are saying.

Oh, I don't long for "the days", but I do wish for possibility to talk about it. Why is that so hard?

The knowing ignorant

It should be the case that we agree that there's only so much on this planet to go around. To put it in technical terms, there is a finite amount of resources available to humankind. We're clever, that is true, and we have learned to do a lot with our waste, with our garbage and we can do a lot of sustainable things and we can recycle a lot. But regardless of how hard we try, we can't make up for what we don't have.

Last time, I pointed out that if there were only 370% (that is, over three-and-a-half times) more resources than are currently available, everyone on the planet could live as well as we do. We all know, that's impossible, and so I wanted to take the opportunity to point out another impossibility, but one that we believe in just as fervently as we do that hard work and personal responsibility are the key to our salvation.

For those of you who may have forgotten, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the value of all the goods and services produced by a country. For the USA, it's about $17 tr (that's trillion, 1 with 15 zeros after it); for the EU it's around 18 tr; and for the world as a whole it's almost $75 tr. What the GDP tries to calculate is the actual worth of real value in products and services that a country, or the whole world, produces. This is an estimate, to be sure, but it is an estimate about real things, tangible products and experienced services. It's not a fiction, rather it is an attempt to put a number, a (in this case) dollar value on what we make and what we do.

Money, on the other hand, is not really a real thing, rather it is a number linked to an account. The USA, for example, may have a GDP of $17 tr, but that does not mean that there are 17 trillion dollar bills (or their equivalent) floating around in the world. Most of the "money" is just a number on a balance statement or an account statement. Yes, that's how our monetary system works and it is really not much of a problem as long as the money we think we have is backed by something real somewhere (a house, a business, an iron-ore mine, or whatever).

But, here's the kicker (at least to me): in 2008 when the financial crash came, when everything threatened to go belly-up, when the banks screamed bloody-murder and needed to be bailed out, the reason, you may recall were risky investments that threatened to collapse. We heard a lot about so-called "financial derivatives" and, in particular, "CD swaps" (bundled packages of investment papers created by the banks), and how not being able to "honor these obligations" threatened to destroy the entire banking system (i.e., the too-big-to-fail issue).

What most people don't know, and what the banking industry doesn't really want you to know, and what too many are willing to overlook is that the value of the CD-swaps alone (yes, the most precarious, but not the only doubtful, "investment instrument") was six time the WDP (world domestic product). In plain-text: the paper that was a problem, was valued 6 times higher than all the products and services that the world was able to produce at the time. In other words, it was backed by nothing. It was a fiction. It was just a number on a piece of paper, so to speak.

Those in charge at the time knew that this was unreal. Governments around the world (except, for example, in Iceland) acted as if there was no alternative but to save the banks. That there was nothing to save is inconsequential. That the losses were fictitious doesn't matter. They knew, but got us to believe, that the only way "out" was to save them.

And now we have the consequences: the banks are in charge, and the rest of us have nothing to say. Oh we have so much to be proud of, especially of how little we know and how little we are willing to do about it.

The willing ignorant

Every person reading this blog has got it (as good as) made. You've got internet access, food in your fridge, a steady place to sleep, and a roof over your head. That makes you part of the top 25% worldwide. In more absolute terms, there are no fewer than 5,250,000,000 individuals on this planet who are worse off, if not far worse off, than you.

And, still you complain.

Don't get me wrong, you have reason for complaint. I mean, even if you lead a relatively luxurious life, there is an ever so thin slice of elite that makes your life look like one of abject poverty and doing-without. What you share with those below you is disempowerment: you'll never have what "they" have. What you share with those above you, though, is a permanent desire for more, even if it means that those below you will have less. Greed has never known bounds, either in intensity, or in breadth.

The usual "justification" (i.e., rationalization) is that if everyone else worked harder and took on some personal responsibility, they could do better too. This is, I hate to say it, pure, unadulterated bullshit. If hard work were any kind of measure, women in Africa would rule the world, but they don't. And if personal responsibility meant anything at all, large numbers of bankers would be in prison, but they aren't. These aren't reasons. They're only excuses.

But, I'm not here to criticize your lack of comprehension of the obvious, nor am I here to criticize your morals. Those are things you have to come to terms with for yourself and on your own. What I wanted to contribute, however humble, is a mere simple math lesson to hopefully expose the error in your attitude. And it goes like this:

The USA represents about 4% of the world's population, yet they consume 25% of the world's resources. The EU (in whatever sense you may define it) represents about 7% of the world's population and they consume about 40% of the world's resources, and when you throw in Japan, we looking at about 16% of the world's population consuming around 80% of the world's resources. So, what does that mean?

China has a population of over 1 billion people; India has surpassed China as the most populated country on the planet. Thrown in Brazil and Africa and all that's left over and you've got almost three quarters of the world's population trying to make do with 20% of its resources. If we expected them to work hard, take on some personal responsibility so that they could be like us, it would be possible if the world had 370% remaining for them. You don't have to be a math wiz to realize that as it is, and as we're (and I mean everyone reading this and me, and all our friends and relatives and ...) living, there simply isn't enough to go around, regardless of how hard anyone works and irrespective of how much personal responsibility one accepts.

In other words, it's simply time to acknowledge that the problem isn't with "them", rather "we're" the problem. And it's time for us to act accordingly.

A message from the mirror

Though a lot of folks I know don't like to hear it, "facts" in and of themselves mean nothing. They just are. I'm talking about real facts now, such as "grass is usually green" or "the Magna Charta was signed in 1215" or "the atomic number of oxygen is 8". None of these really means anything as they stand. I mean, who really cares one way or the other? They must be placed in some kind of context for them to become meaningful.

There are other "facts" which really aren't facts in the true sense of the word, rather they are beliefs or opinions or the like. For example, "the sun rises in the east" is not a fact, it is a metaphor to describe a phenomenon. Due to the earth's rotation, it looks like the sun is rising in the east but in actual fact the earth is simply turning. Or, "a healthy diet is essential for good health". Well, not in all cases. Some people survive and thrive on what might kill others, and enough people eating healthy diets get sick anyway. There's more here that needs to be considered for the statement to reflect an actual fact.

What the preceding examples all have in common is good, old-fashioned, sloppy thinking. We humans can very often make do with being sort of right and sort of on target and sort of in the know. Life is very tolerant like that. Oh sure, there are times and instances when exactitude means the difference between life and death, but in the grand scheme of everyday things, these are really rather rare. In most cases, "almost" is almost always good enough.

Now, given that this is the case, why do we humans demand so much, especially so much of others? And, as a corollary to that, why are most of us bothered, on the other hand, by others demanding so much of us? I wonder about that a lot these days. Could it be that we're only getting back what we are giving out? Could it be that we are (perhaps unknowingly) expecting more of others than we expect of our ourselves? Could it be that we feel shortchanged in our own treatment as human beings that we're trying to even the score? I don't know. Like I said, it's just something that I've been thinking a lot about lately.

When we look in the mirror all we can see is whatever is there to be reflected, no more and certainly no less. Sure, it's reversed from side-to-side, but we can handle that. The mirror has long been used as an effective metaphor for life and all that happens therein, so it can't hurt to stop for a moment and think about whether we may be expecting to see more in the mirror than the mirror has to offer.

The long and short of it is that whatever you happen to be experiencing, and how you feel you are being treated by everyone else is almost certainly merely a reflection of how you are treating others and what they are experiencing as a result. I'm not saying this is how things are, I'm only saying this is how things could be. Perhaps that's something you can reflect upon.

You don't have to have lost your eyesight to be blind

You can't solve a problem you can't identify. You also can't find solutions to most of life's problems on your own either.

There are many who look for guidelines to help them find their way through life: it might be religious precepts (like the 10 Commandments or Buddha's 8-Fold Path), it might be a sense of moral dignity, it really doesn't matter. When all is said and done, I truly believe that all the "Paths to Righteousness" or "Enlightenment" or "Salvation", I really don't care what you think you have to call it either, can be reduced to one very simple statement. Yes, that's how complex, how complicated human life on this planet is: one rule, guideline, suggestion is all we need.

My friend Stan Tenen at the Meru Foundation has pointed out very clearly that all religions worldwide share one basic precept: they have some form, some expression of what is most commonly known as the "Golden Rule" (which can (and does) include even atheists, in the form of Kant's categorical imperative). And, on the more-than-secular side, the Australian comedian Jim Jefferies has reduced this notion to even simpler terms: "Try not to be an asshole."

We don't need any more than that ... BUT, and believe me this is a big "but": there are no exceptions. If you want to reduce things, reality, life, whatever, to simplest terms, this is it.

For most of us, however, this is too much to ask, and so we come with any number of excuses why that can't possibly be T-H-E solution. Truth be told, it's not a solution, it's a way to prevent solutionless problems from arising. That, on the other hand, is too big a deal for oh, so many people, especially those who love to go on and on about personal responsibility, in all its shapes and forms.

So, there you have it in a nutshell. That's it. Now, how many exceptions do you believe you should be allowed to make?

You don't have to have lost your hearing to be deaf

A long time ago, I tried to point out the difference between complexity and complicatedness. I'm sure a lot of folks didn't understand what I was talking about, but what I had to say then is every bit as relevant today as it was then.

Folks: the world isn't complicated, our lives our; our understanding of reality is; our beliefs and what we hold to be true and good are complicated. Lord knows. But none of it is complicated. Yes, the world, reality, nature, modern society, whatever, are complex. There is always more at work than we can ever know. Lord knows. But, it's not like that makes all that much of a difference.

Truth be told (and I'm here to tell you), life, existence, reality, whatever you want to call it, may be complex, but it is not complicated. You, they, I, all of us, have to deal with "life" (whatever we experience it to be) as it presents itself. There is hardly a thing we can do about what it is that confronts us. We have to deal with whatever it is that shows up. But ...

Being the simple person that I am, I have spent years, decades, searching for a simple rule of thumb that would help me deal with the vagaries of life, and I found that two, simple rules help me one whole helluva lot. What comes, comes; you've got to deal with whatever it is, and 99.9% of what comes our way has to do with decisions we made in the past. Sure, people get hit by busses, come down with terminal illnesses, and more, but there is not a single thing we can do about any of that. We have to learn to deal with it. I deal with it by trying my damnedest to remember every good thing about my involvement with those who have been taken or stricken. If they're still alive, then I want to do whatever I can to help make their lives a little less trying. Not always easy, to be sure, but always worth while.

On the other hand, it's not just what comes to me in life that matters. I, like everyone else, have an effect, often an impact on the world around me. I need to be aware of that, too. I'm not perfect (and most people I know will attest to that fact) nor do I think I ever will be. Nevertheless, I have to think about my part of life's equation.

How many of you are truly aware of yours?

Just how insane does it have to get?

The past couple of weeks have been trying, at least for me that have been. I'm not talking about my personal life. It's as "normal" as it's going to get, but what I see going on all around me is taking its toll.

It's not just the colonization of a nation within the European Union; it's not just the war-mongering and sabre-rattling towards Russia including supporting fascists in the Ukraine; it's not just the Turkish flip-flop on not knowing whether the Kurds or ISIS is the biggest perceived threat to them. No, it's the insanity that accompanies even the smaller issues.

It's the sheer ignorance that comes with ignoring anything that looks like a fact and stating one's opinion as if it was worth listening to. It's the hypocrisy of claiming to help when all you are really doing is harm. It's the perverse way that history gets twisted to make us think that Iran, for example, was responsible for 9/11, or that we can't identify terrorism when it's homegrown, or we rush to suspect terrorism where there is none but it suits our purposes, or how it is possible to believe the answer to gun violence is more guns, or how it is possible, in the allegedly freest country in the world that a former general can float the idea of internment camps for those not loyal enough to America. And this, in the 21st century.

There can be no violence great enough that will make us believe that violence is not the answer. There is no belief so distorted that it can't hide reality from us. There is no self-righteousness so great that it can't allow us to believe that we're the good guys and everybody else is bad.

That's our world today ... day in and day out. It's not just that the inmates are running the asylum, they've got most of us cheering them on.

What's wrong?

I'm not revealing any secrets here, but most of our news reporting isn't all that objective anymore. Let's face it, there are any number of agendas that are alive and well and are being used to, let us say, influence what it is that we "know" in the end.

What does surprise me, at least a little, is that regardless of which agenda is being pushed, some certain "facts" seem to seep through anyway. I use the word "facts" cautiously, because there does seem to be some topics, or themes, that appear to be the agreed subject of discussion at any rate, even if there isn't agreement on the details.

Depending on where you are, these topics will vary. In the US, they seem to focus on security, gun ownership, dirty energy, and banking/finance. In Germany, they tend more toward healthcare, green energy, and banking/finance. In Southern Europe, unemployment, especially youth unemployment is a big deal, along with banking/finance. And since I'm no expert on Latin America, Africa or Asia, I can't really say what's making their tongues wag, but I can't help but think that the topics there can't really be all that different, and I'm sure there is some cross-section that they share with the rest of us.

In other words, regardless of how good or bad the press may be, there is really little, if any, excuse not to be aware of the big-ticket issues of the day, and the one that apparently affects us all has to do with money and those who handle money matters, the banks. We know it. We are aware of it. We all feel it at some point, either at the gas station or the supermarket or when we realize we won't be taking a vacation this year. What's worse, jobs seem to be disappearing faster than people (we do have declining populations in most of the industrialized world at any rate), and things aren't looking all that rosy for our kids and grandkids.

And this is what surprises me about that: nobody seems to want to talk or do anything about it. Why? Is it because most of us believe we have enough that it's not our problem? Is it because we haven't got a clue what I'm talking about? Is it because we don't understand the issues themselves? Or is it, perhaps, simply because we're to fat, dumb, and lazy to care?

I don't mean any of this as an insult. There's more frustration involved than anything. But, it just amazes me how many people I do talk to from so many different places who have become aware of problems, have identified the difficulties, but when asked what they intend to do about it, all seem to agree that there's nothing they can do, so they'll just do nothing at all.

Only conspiracy theorists like to think there is some great, secret cabal out to gain control of the world, but that's perfect nonsense. We are perfectly capable of suppressing ourselves.

What's it worth?

Recently I was kicking around some ideas with my daughter who is working on her literature dissertation on the 'lost generation'. One of the topics we were wrestling with was what does or does not belong to the field of literary inquiry or literary scholarship. A day or so later I found myself trying to help my nephew with an assignment from his undergraduate micro-economics course and was vainly coming to terms with the real purpose of the exercise. It was after this that I realized that in both cases, the actual subject of the discussion was the same: what does it mean?

Meaning is one of those words that is some people use too much and others too rarely. For some, it is an ambiguous, not-very-helpful category. For others it is the central issue in their lives. That's quite a range to cover, that's for sure, and is so often the case, the truth most likely lies somewhere in-between.

One point that came up in the literature discussion is that the discipline itself is not really concerned with whether the world is a better place or whether we, as individuals, are any smarter as a result of our pursuing it. Why an author writes something -- so the theory goes -- is irrelevant. All we have is the text in its historical context and we have to deal with what we find. The only meaning worth anything is the textual meaning, that is, the meaning we find in the words as they are strung together in that particular place at that particular time, and perhaps under those particular conditions. It is, let us say, a rather focused view of meaning.

In the economics discussion, it became clear that my nephew isn't studying business and economics so that the world will become a better place. In fact, it became clear to me that the search for and discovery of the so-called 'laws' of economic activity do not concern themselves for any given state of the world. We only have the slope of a given curve, that occurs at a particular place at a particular time, and under a certain set of conditions. The question of meaning ... what does that mean? ... is never even asked.

The philosopher Günther Anders once noted, ""Human beings are ashamed to have been born instead of made." It would seem that literary theorists and economists are ashamed to be only scholars, not scientists. The analogy is not as far-fetched as one might think. Science, in the sense of counting, measuring, and standardizing, but also in the sense of discovering, researching, and studying has become the non plus ultra of intellectual striving. Only what can be counted counts, is the watchword of the day. We find this approach at the heart of most academic disciplines these days, from astrophysics to accounting (whereby I am still having trouble conceiving of accounting as an academic discipline, but that's another story). The human and social sciences have made themselves no exception. They wanted to be sciences, too. The English language, however, keeps them out, for we have taken the word 'science' from its original meaning in Latin and made it into something that it isn't: a way of life. Science, as a term, derives from the Latin sciro, 'I know'. Yes, we've turned a way of knowing into a way of life. The only problem is, what do we know any more?

What we know ... and if you don't believe me, just ask those bright young guys who own Google ... is merely information. We have tons and tons of information, but do we have any knowledge? I can't help but think of Eliot's "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?/Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" (from The Rock, 1934) T.S. was onto something there. (Well, actually, he was on to much, much more, for the line preceding those two is "Where is the Life we have lost in living?", and that puts it all into a much more existential context, but that, too, is a matter for another time). Information is just information. May 8 is just May 8, no more, no less. Even May 8, 1945 is just another day that slipped by in history unless I know (and here is where we come closer to the issue) that it was on that particular day that Germany surrendered ending World War II in Europe. It's still not knowledge, it's just a fact, but it is a piece of knowledge when we use it to make clear to another that terror and fascism of one type was bid halt by its successor. We need to think about what we mean when we use the term 'knowledge'. After all, it is more than just information, it is information in service of a purpose greater than itself.

That terror and fascism were bid halt is obviously a good thing. The part of that sentence about its successor will make some readers uneasy. And that's the very reason that it was added. This isn't a test, don't get me wrong, but while most of us agree on the first part of the statement, there are more than just a few who would accept the second part. Why is that? To me, it is clear: because it expresses a value that some folks may or may not agree is truly a value. The implication in the sentence is that that which followed wasn't all that much better than what came before. How could I possibly compare democracy with fascism? Well, I'm not really. When we consider that fascism is a type of economic organization, then its successor, that is, the system which we chose to replace it was either communism in the East bloc or capitalism in the West. The fact that those eastern economies called themselves democratic this or that has nothing to do with ignorance on their part, rather ignorance on ours, in the West. Democracy can be defined in any number of ways. There is no one, accepted, valid definition of what the term may mean. There are variations on the others (fascism, capitalism and communism), to be sure, but the span of variation is much smaller.

My point is that it is only now that we find ourselves in the sphere of 'knowledge'. Up until now, everything was just information, and it was all stuff that is more or less 'who cares'. The Soviet Union was communist. The United States was capitalist. The fascists had been defeated so we imposed our respective form of economic organization upon the losers (capitalism in West Germany, and communism in East Germany). That is as far as information gets us. The real question is, however, what difference does it make. In reality, not very much at all. For what we have are merely facts. Pure, simple, objective, indisputable, non-arguable facts. When we move to the next level, if you will, to knowledge, we start entering the realm of meaning, the realm where subtle, but important differences are important. Some think communism was a good thing. Some think capitalism is the best thing. In both cases, however, it is a value (judgment) that we have placed upon the fact that makes all the difference. In other words, when it comes to knowledge, values matter.

And here we have the rub. Knowledge is never value-free. Facts are. Knowledge isn't. What makes the difference is the values we associate with what we know. And that brings us full circle to science once again. Science and our modern worldview would like us to think that things are just the way they are, but for all the objectivity that science would like to impose (and other disciplines would like to embrace) in the end, it just isn't there, for science's own view of its non-valueness is, at bottom, just another value. We can't escape values. That things should have not meaning other than their own description is a value. Not wanting to deal with the messiness and fuzziness that values bring with them is something science would like to avoid. It doesn't like it, it avoids it, it thinks it just complicates things ... there are so many ways to describe it ... but in the end, they are just values.

Science, in its desire to free itself of values has really only driven out the Devil with Beelzebub. Their view of the world has brought us a heap of information. There's no question about that at all. But it cannot be the final arbiter of things, for to say it should or it shouldn't requires that one have values. To determine what is preferable or not preferable, what we desire or what we abhor, what is good or what is bad requires us to have values. Describing the world in such an objective way is perhaps value-free, but in the end, it is really just of no value at all: it is worthless.