5. On the way home (Our last post)

On the way home I had a moment sitting in the car where I was deeply moved looking at the sky outside through the car window. The worlds that sprang to mind unbidden were Walt Whitman's: "when lilacs last in dooryard bloom'd". And then there was also Carl Sandburg, that poem about the lady in a red dress. Two poets of and for America, who capture the spirit of America during an age. For Sandburg, perhaps a secret spirit, but nonetheless. And one novelist: Hemingway. I felt deeply that the Powers That Be were pleased of this. Only two, and only one. This country I love is so new, and yet also so ancient.

4. One beautiful phrase

 I'm sad to say, it's not the "one good sentence", because it is about three sentences. But it is a beautiful phrase. 

---

The fact, is that, without a rule allowing free speech, there could be no long, slow, and even speechless work (sometimes speechless) toward great humanitarian goals. But, the fact is, also, that free speech is itself a long, slow work -- And, though the speechless work justifies the free speech, the free speech also justifies the long, slow, speechless work.

3. The concept of Egypt

 

I. 

What did the equestrians mean to Rome? That is the first question besides What is Rome In and Of Itself... Rome was like D.C. is: a city of the pen. But what were the equestrians to that city of the pen? Simply put, the power behind the "throne" - but even more importantly the power "outside the room" where records were made. 

II.

Pain is not the same as hurt. There's some guys that love not only pain but being hurt. There is an obvious reason these guys are dangerous to society. But there's also some questions about why that should be asked. For instance: this. There s the sort of man that comes out of a group that used to beat him up a lot but now they no longer do, and just watch whatever he does. Who is this man and why is he no longer being beaten up on by his "friends?" Here's the answer to both; they used to beat him up but now they don't because he finally started beating them up instead, like they wanted him to. (Thought about when watching Rocky III.)

III.

When the Roman equestrians of that class reached the praetorship of Egypt...

IV. 

Let's for real talk about the for-real meaning of the rhetorical power of "no." The honest-to-god truth is that "no" has been used as an offensive to prompt speech, but this puts speech on the defensive. "No means no" should in fact be gospel, but not "no means talk." So much of the rhetorical power of "no" is about the desire for a person to talk and justify themselves, but this, if applied universally as a custom universalizability, is going to lead to all talking being on the defensive of yourself - don't you think that would be a bad thing? 

V. 

Only one more question: What did the praetorship of Egypt mean to this equestrian class? Egypt was nothing to begin from - a place where theywere all that was needed to have a sort of law. 

VI. 

...you are so slow we don't need your support. Not that because you are slow, but for reasons that you are so slow because you're not to be the ones giving us support. ...

VII.

What did Egypt mean?

VIII.

What does Egypt need? It needs the plants to grow. It needs the Sun to shine, the waters to come, but, not too high, and on time. It needs the plants to grow, only that. 

IX.

The problem and what they need to be told, is that they have nothing but themselves and who they are. 

X. 

Why is it so delicate? Because the good guys lost...Why is that so delicate? Because people's hopes and dreams are delicate. They don't like to figure out at the end of the day, that their most desired and beloved ideas were already talked about and campaigned on. But? There's no reason why they can't talk about them again...

XI. 

"Like that river twisting through a dusty land": in Egypt. 

XII.

Why religion? Because people only believe it when they see it. 

XIII. 

"Egyptians" want only to know why they are so confused.

IX.

People in a state of Egypt need to know only what they have in and of themselves, and then they can be told what they are allowed to have. 

X. 

But more than that, they need someone who will tell them what it is that they need, most of all; that all they need is to have the plants grow.

XI. 

In summa: it's like that quote, a song lyric, by Duran Duran no less:

"Just like that river twisting though a dusty land..."

2. Three ideas about The State

 

  i.

As sad and less-fortunate as this may be to put into words, we in the modern world live in the age of hunger. Not only do many more than need be live in conditions of physical hunger, but also spiritual hunger, or hunger of the soul; most of all, hunger for "Forbidden Knowledge." 

1.

Many people don't know Henry George, but Henry George knows you; -if ou eat food and are of our form of monkey-beings who operate in the world as we do, he knows you. Henry George's great idea with which he has silently been moving the world for generations, was that a workman who works for wages should get wages commensurate with his work, and not only well-paid for his labor, but also, get mentally rewarded in kind for his work with the products of his work: in summa, that his wages in cash should not be representative of the dispensation of the boss but actually represent the products of his work. 

2.

Silvio Gesell, like Henry George, is not as well-known as his knowledge of human nature, not only yours, would indicate. His idea, also simple, is also about the economy. Craftsmen should not be paid for the products of their craft: they should own the products and yet may charge rent for others to use them. This solves a basic question of dignity (- of the craftsman: that his work product is reflective of his person, that it cannot be sold as his person can not be sold, for instance, also, that he is not becoming lesser in stock over time.)

3.

The third and final idea is about the law. The conspiracy against the very concept of Law is the literary action of the Church. It's known as the episcopacy. Such figures as Harry Vane, who you should know, railed against it and were the righteous. But the importance to the very concept of society For the knowledge that leaves the cloisters of the Church since it has been trapped since the collapse of the ancients, is immense and total. We all need to read and have technique and write and listen, in order to have society and to have Law which allow for society. We need these which are not unlike the Chinese philosophies of Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, and Legalism (of Han Fei) in order to have society itself. 

4.

What is society actually as defined this way? This is the long work; the biopolitics... but I would say, most of all, this is the real work I would expect the modern statesman to be obsessed with, work on, and to keep as the eternal basis of his work no matter what new information comes his way. This is the way that the Statesman himself, or the weaver of these fates of society-life; that he keeps as fit as in a state of nature...

1. A Teaching

 

  I

"Memory is a tricky thing. It is the definition of fiction: it starts with an event or a feeling or a perception, and then it wanders off down the corridors of its author's mind until what eventually emerges is "true" only for the person doing the telling." -Cheryl Peck "Chocolate Malt", 15, Fat Girls and Lawn Chairs

II

Making good on our promise: what does the Affordable Care Act really mean? Basically, it's not that distinct, from Abakua: if you need something to be at your best, but don't often get it, you can get it through this system. But to my mind, this also entails a sort of acceptance or partnership with yourself to get something if you need it, but also give something if you have it. At the same time and in conclusion, though these seems like extreme cases, they are actually very humdrum and humane and most people's special needs are very simple (as are mine.) 

III

What should happen as a result of the Affordable Care Act, is what exactly? It is that people should learn to listen to what people actually have a problem with. For instance, I sound like a person who really wants to go back to writing, but yes, despite and behind that, there's a sense that I don't really know for certain how long I'm going to have to hack at this trade in the wilderness before it gets notice. It's not and both of these: It's not the despair of hopelessness but it's also and not only the feeling that I have to do what I'm doing or else the outcome would be worse. In conclusion, both a sort of despair at how hard the way is, to get where I want to be, and also, resignedness to work long hours at the skill in order to get where I want to be. It's the soul/spirit of a man who's resigned to do the skill-building work in order to get better (at everything he does). It's not really the search for a long-lost-love really; it's passed for that to be the only motivating though. Would it be better for there to be someone alongside for the ride? Surely enough there should be a good side to that. But I've also reached a place where not many people can hang it's it. And so I might be on the loneliest path there is. But I'm okay with the path that I have to trot along, no matter how long and hard and lonely the path may be. If this was a movie, it would be the montage. 

IV

I was, once, in fact, a child. It didn't stop me from growing up, though. I liked sciences once, but that didn't stop me from eventually liking politics and society and studies about human nature and the social nature of mankind more. And I guess whatever I did like, people were pretty okay with. Perhaps only one reason they were not okay with my changing interests was that my changes left it hard for people who wanted to be my friends to catch up. But I just liked new things for my own interests' sake: I think my parents and brother were mostly okay with it. The only jarring one was when my voice changed. 

I was always smart enough not to like to describe myself as smart, you know? But the biggest thing that happened recently was that I started trying harder, and that made so much more of a practical difference than being smart ever could. The thing I really started doing well and always, and on purpose, was to write daily and really work on melding that skill in with all my others. I don't have a writer's persona; I just have me, just another guy, who, now, writes too, in addition. 

So many youngish folks, because I grew up right at the Gen Z and Millenial cusp, who wanted to be "in politics" at this young, young age. I don't, although I have volunteered and been "in the room" to listen and even chip in. But, my ideal in political society isn't to burn out early, but to have my number called much later in life for that "big thing in politics", when I have had time to have a workshop, and to be a master of my preferred trade. You can't always choose when, but if my number was to be called at some time again, I'd prefer it to be much later on in life. 

V

Is America fundamentally a racist country? 

This is another question that for anyone who has necessary but not sufficient information about America would answer in the Affirmative. The key point for someone who is genuinely anti-racist is to not only say for the record that America hosts a troubling number of racists, but also that most people would be surprised at how many people hate racism and to what very significant degree, even in a country where racist acts get an inordinate amount of not just coverage as in the news, but also interest in the public imagination. Almost the main argument for racists at this point is that racist theories explain America very deeply. Now, of course this is true, but only because in America, any theory gone deep enough into, explains America in a fundamental way b ut in its own idiom; it connects up with the idea of the social contract. The same could be said about any hobby or interest, and racist groupings are far from the best or most efficient way to reach the social contract. Basically everyone gets to the social contract if they show enough interest or are interesting enough. But any good anti-racist and I would agree; racists don't have a leg up, fundamentally, in this country, toward having an impact on social organization and the social contract: -altho', rich people do, and connected people do, somewhat: however the "success" of racists at having a social impact might actually have a lot to do with them following along with the bad intentions among the rich...

VI

Is America a fundamentally corrupt country? No. 

All idle talk about America being fundamentally corrupt is idle talk. Now, certainly a lot has happened since we got started here, on these shores. And we were not alone, and we never were. We did go back to barbarities of the past, the ancient past, that never should have been part of the project, either here or in the ancient past. But all the misdoings of the project of America's creation, can be justified not by our high ideals from the start, or should I say not only that, but also by the fact that the project itself, this great nation-state, worked out and fixed its own problems. Although there is great work to do, on civil rights and Amerindian issues of right, it is also the case that the flaws in our founding serve as the basis for continued reform and building of our nation-state. 

To be perfectly clear, the American nation-state was founded on a plan with two great flaws: enslavement and genocide. These flaws provide the room, and the justification for future plans and re-building of the national project. But more and most importantly, America was founded on, and is still based on, a dynamic form of social contract. This means that such that every time the social contract is mentioned it is at liberty to change; that the more we mention the social contact and its flaws, the more we can change how it is structured. This is the political philosophy that America is based on. A country that opens up its social contract to constant change by anyone based on on individual ability and education to find it, and offers free education to all, can't be said to be corrupt - that would be a canard. I cannot think of a better form of social contract, and tho' denying that anyone else can, I do invited them to find another they if they really want to, or to try ours because it works pretty well. 

To be clear, there are corrupt people, corrupt institutions, corrupt relationships, and so on, that do exist here in America. They may be inconvenient to label, but they are generally not liked by the general public once they are explained to as to the problem, and what it is. There are only to fundamental corruptions in America, and both have to do with money and not America itself. The first is that the worker should own the wages of his labor - the true produce. The second is that a craftsman should be paid for the puducts of his labor in creative craft as in a relationship of rent of the creative products of his labor (This is Henry George and Silvio Gesell, respectively). - A possible third corruptions is that of the Church upon the Law - that of doing legal-type or legal-looking work (essentially literary work) with an eye toward religious and not secular goals. The episcopacy is essentially representing the Church by doing work that resembles that of men of the State. (See here Harry Vane on "The Root and Branch.") 

But these are forms of corruption that are capitalistic and not ofdemocracy, especially not corruptions of American democracy and the union of a republic. If America was really corrupt to its core, these facts wouldn't raise consternation and reasoned debate. And, of course, there have been times when one or more of these distinct forms of the corruption of the English language and set of relations got big enough to cause problems. But the proof of the lack of this corruption is the lack of silence about it. And even with regard to the episcopacy, which is these days inordinately powerful, there are always those who hate it enough to crusade against it. There is something deep-seated in the American character that makes Americans hate corruption and need only identify it to spurn it. In fact, it is the knowledge that we are deeply laced as a country, and that people are too, that makes us hate corruption identified as such. In an important if oblique sense, America could have been a flawed or a corrupt country. Rome saw itself as the pinnacle: without flaws, and yet deeply corrupt. We did the opposite, so at the very least, we are not corrupt. 

Some say these days that the founders of this country were ignorant about the flaws of our nascent country, and some say that they were evil geniuses that set us all up. What they all don't say is that that skeptical attitude toward them, is the same as theirs was about the English institutions of the former colony system. So those that doubt the founders are acting in their own spirit, as well: not only those who support them but more especially too, those who critique them, too. But for the record as well, the founders saw themselves as deeply flawed, and the system as the best system that they, being flawed but educated, and intent on the best possible system that reason could provide for all the people that live on this country, could create, with enough flexibility for future generations too, to fix up its flaws. If that wasn't the case too, certainly we wouldn't be talking about it. 

The question that set off this discussion was: "Is America fundamentally corrupt?" And our workers are craftsmen are not treated ideally, even if they build the White House and Capital Building, our episcopacy can be as bad as it is possible to be, sometimes: recent Court cases notwithstanding though, this is not a fundamentally corrupt country, altho' it might be flawed in other ways. And while it may be fundamentally flawed, it is in repairing those flaws that our system of progress is based upon, and therefore can it even be said to be flawed?

VII

What seems reasonable now that we agree that physiocracy is reasonable? 

The problematic already mentioned before, of the Henry-Georgist political economy being justified by the better system of physiocracy, is inherent in the fact that physiocracy is inherently better because farmers get paid for their work, and in their proper wages, if we are being proper with it. But there surely exists another problematic on top of this one that is already theoretically solved, this time about how a craftsman should be paid for his or her work, for instance for making or repairing farm tools; the solution is, frankly, that he should not be paid for it; he should own everything he makes, but he should be able to charge rent for their use by others. Reasonably this should entail that the repairs he may have to make do not come out of the rent paid to him, but because he still owns the things that he is repairing, the costs of repair are commensurate with the pain and suffering they entail on his own person, because they are his things still, and that would be the cost to him as if they were his things still. Some would imagine this might be mercantilism in disguise. It is not, tho' because this theory does not treat any thing as a fungible good interchangeable as money, for one thing, and it's not farmers paying rent for the food that is the exemplis grati, it is more like, a CSA, because it is labor-related. 

VIII

Why did Trump lose the most recent election for president? 

The philosopher Slavoj Zizek said that Trump is the basic image of the last ting a white middle-aged working class man sees before he sees the reality of class struggle, and so on. So my first instinct is that Trump was actually the result of the millenial performance of political resentment to try to convince Baby Boomers to vote not-Republican. It's not that they were wrong to try, but just that resentment wasn't the right language to speak, I might say. But on the other hand while this may have faded off and the glamour-rage of Trump didn't satisfy what Millenials were telling us to feel as a proxy for them trying to get at the Boomers, the deeper reason I think it happened that way is not because Millenials succeeded but because they gave it up. Nonetheless, there is another reason. Maybe it's also because more people turned in to watch the dumpster fire, and heard that everyone said Trump was not how it should be, maybe it's because they saw him mismanage one too many things, maybe they got tired of the media on broadcast identifying them as like Trump and his bumbling through the job, maybe they also zoomed out and saw that his only "success" was to pay off his donors with a tax cut and social conservative judges, and figured that tuning out Trump on the broadcasts was the best way to figure out the Trump era. Maybe it's these simpler explanations for why he lost. 

IX

What is the most important thing people should know about writing, -i.e. starting the writing process? Most of all, they should know that what you write about, for a long time, is going to be bleaker than you think you think. But that is more of a factor of the fact that it is hard to do this thinking straight on to paper or through whatever other medium the process intermediates with. The long that you have working on the books with pen, the "longer" this sort of bleakness seems to linger, but underneath that there is this sort of deep happiness building up. There is a sort of necessary bleak good humor that comes from the pen work. Like, you really like to write the second you are done for a long long time, and the second you start for a long long time, and yes you are very mentally tired for a long time too. The sort of bleak good humor that results from writing as a tradecraft, as a learned skill; it is a goood humor in and of itself, but the real happiness does come, when the bleakness but not the humaor, evaporates.

0. We are coming to an end, and a new beginning.

 I've retitled this series of essays Map of the Problematique: an elegy for the philosophy killed by the French in War and Peace, in the form of one man's musing on the structure of the Internet. 

Because, in the end, that's what this is about. 

It's coming to an end, because this is the end of that period. 

There's more to come, because there's more to come of my life, but this chapter of it is coming to a close, which opens up a new beginning. So proceeds life.

Is a craftsman an artisan?

 September 27, 2022

Is a craftsman an artisan?

New York Review of Books made an interesting point on what to my mind, was a distinction between the craftsman and the artisan. (Gorra, 9/22/22.) The craftsman, has, it was asserted, a mastery of the tools and skills of his trade. The ultimate goal was or is, the essay asserts, to do the work so as to develop his self and to improve at what he does. The artisan, so it is imagined in this distinction (-is it true? I am not convinced.-) also masters materials and the use of materials underlying his work. How could this be a proper distinction between the real as personhood, and the real as product of work of persons? I think it's a mind-body distinction that neither the possibly-fallaciously-distinct categories of artisan and craftsman, but especially the artisan, would in truth rather avoid. But if we set aside the fact that the current speculatively-tinged moment would prove, that the mind belongs to the craftsman, the very simple and much more basic and fundamental fact, that use of craft requires tools that are in their very essence also material, as the body, the voice, and the brain are all material tends to erase the distinction between craftsman and artisan if taken properly to a conclusion. And a conclusion can never be put off.-

But deeper than this is the extensively material aspect of all of our actual experience. The world, material as it is, can't be put off, in it's materiality. To see the potential in a material object to transform into another thing, is not to not see, or not deal with, it as it is. The absolute wood-ness of some thing, the quintessence of wood, is another material transformation, of wood, that cannot be fully reached its fullness and completeness. There is no purity, and in fact the quintessence of wood could actually be, and is probably, not wood in itself.

This is an example. The quintessence of stone, too, may not be stone in the material transformation that we are used to seeing it in. But it is assuredly not, stone in its raw form that allows the mind to understand that material. And so with metal, or clay, the same way. 

Does the craftsman want to, in the end, turn himself into the material he works on? I think this is the canard, or confusion to be charitable, endemic in the article. This is not, to my mind, what it is all about. Rather, it is to turn himself, in a manner of speaking, into the tools by which he works on the materials he works on. But this is the simply worded, but complex thought that is the distinction: the craftsman strives to become what he works with, and not what he works on. Not the distinction between the craftsman and the artisan at all, but between what a craftsman works with and what he works on. And this does mean he becomes his material tools, but also, he uses the tools of his mind and his body, his hands and his brain, as tools, as well. Being an artisan is an incidental but unavoidable fact of being a craftsman. But it is not at all dispositive of it. In fact, the two are imbricated in the work of it all. Materiality does not mean without mind, it means with brain.