The Higher Ignorance

It is quite normal to hear people- not in the corner of the saloon bar, but on some public forum, presented to the public by the government or the media as an expert in whatever material is being discussed, people with academic titles or professional prestige- making, in all seriousness, suggestions that show they do not have the faintest idea how government, societies or individual human beings actually function. Often it is about the operation of economic activity, about which people make the most spectacularly wrong assumptions, failing utterly to understand what trade is, and what a market is, and what can and, most importantly, cannot be done to them. Particularly, if you stop people trading, they starve. That means you and me, not Microsoft, or Big Pharma, or the chairman of Citigroup. We know this is true not because some elaborate theoretical edifice has been constructed which says it must be so, but because that little experiment has been tried and is still being tried in many parts of the world- nearly all of them at one time or another- and the results are unambiguous. It takes a particularly staggering kind of, obtuseness, or evil-minded stupidity, to fail to notice the murder, starvation, repression, poverty and general misery of hundreds of millions of people, but a lot of people manage it.

And why do they think Bill Gates founded Microsoft? It wasn’t so could have communication of a scale and comfort unimaginable only twenty years ago; it was so he could get stinking rich. But if he hadn’t been able to get stinking rich you would not now be reading this. That is the simple truth. The way to make a thousand people better off is not to stop one of them from getting filthy rich. What got us all of these comforts we like to think we have a right to be given for nothing was greed, someone else’s greed. And if you don’t like it you can go back to living in a cave, or shrug your shoulders and get on with life. What you cannot do is propose that we define the laws of nature, the absolute truths of man and the universe, to be other than what they are. It doesn’t work. The universe is not listening. But a lot of mediocre intellects make a good living by making sure not too many people notice this.

This chap says things like this quite regularly. He does it rather better than me, too, partly because he can stick to the point.

Philosopher Kings

The suggestion is often made, apparently seriously, that the best form of government would be that by philosopher kings, or it is expressed as ‘least bad’, which seems to be the same thing; a reduced, or weak version says that it would be better than some specified form of government, or better than some perceived state of affairs is held to be. It is fairly clear that this notion is complete and utter nonsense.

The reference is to Plato’s Republic, in which he suggests that if philosophers would be kings, or kings would philosophize, the state would be a much better place. In fact, he says in book VII that it is necessary in order for his ideal city-state to come into being. And there we begin to spot the flaw.

Firstly, does anyone have any idea what a philosopher-king would look like? Or how we could go about finding a few of them? Or how we could interest them in politics, which is almost entirely the preserve of the personally and intellectually inadequate? (The world knows almost nothing of its greatest thinkers. What the press, and, presumably, the public, seems to consider public intellectuals shows that they have no conception of what an intellectual actually is. But that is another matter. And another rant) And, having agreed on what a philosopher-king is, and found enough to make a respectable oligarchy, and persuaded them to take an interest in governing their fellow-man, how do we propose to persuade their, and our, fellow-man to let himself be governed by such people? The practical difficulties are insurmountable, and there is therefore little point in considering it as a practical possibility, rather than an intellectual game.

But the point is that it does not stop people proposing such a thing as though it could in fact be done. And it is a very good thing that it can’t be done, because it would undoubtedly be the end of all freedom, almost certainly it would be the end of the very concept of freedom. And probably the end of wealth and happiness, too. The destruction of what it means to be human, or at least of what makes it worth being human. And all, ultimately, so that an abstract entity we call the state can be seen to function more efficiently.

So yes, it’s a good thing it’s impossible. Unfortunately, those who get into positions of power tend to think that they are that elusive creature, the philosopher-king, and to act accordingly. This is a very bad thing, indeed. Which is why it is absolutely vital that we can argue with them, criticise them, call them names, and kick them out when we have had enough of them. The idea of the members of government and of parliament as servants of the people has always been utopian, since they will never think of themselves that way, but the people should treat them like servants anyway, to remind them of what they should be.

‘The Signifying Monkey’

Is the title of a book by Henry Louis Gates Jr., Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University, and Director of the W.E.B. du Bois Institute for African and African American Research. This thick but empty volume bases its premise, that all white people should be chained up and beaten to death (it’s what he means, though he doesn’t quite dare say it), on the title phrase, which he spends 300 odd pages interpreting in the most extraordinary ways, and showing he doesn’t understand it. It is a West African expression for man, anthropomorphized as not a white insult at all, and refers to the obvious fact that man is an ape that talks or thinks or however it has been put by thousands of people, often, I should imagine, independently. It is a fairly obvious comment to make on man. Nevertheless, despite showing that he knows its origin is a descriptive phrase used by blacks he presents it a symbol of racism.

He also treats signifyin’, which he repeatedly calls a homonym of signifying, as though it had some special, esoteric meaning for Africans. It is perfectly clear from the examples he gives that ‘signifying’ in that sense simply means talking, especially perhaps conversing, yet he randomly derives a series of ideas and wild interpretations from this perfectly clear and simple expression. The book is doggerel, illogical rubbish devoid of any reason, a racist diatribe dressed up as serious research, the work of a stupid and hate-filled man. Yet it is on the reading lists of many English and other departments, and he has prestige among people like himself. (By which I mean fashionable critical theorists, and those who do similar nonsense for whatever reason.)

I have written this from memory, but the memories are clear. If anyone can explain why this book is other than what I have said, I should be glad to hear from them. But not from critical theorists. I refer to people who know how to think, and who can understand a text rather than having to invent a meaning for it.

Do we only talk to our own heads?

I wrote this piece some time ago, but I publish it now, in the hope that someone will think the idea makes sense of some sort. It reads rather negatively, but why not? It is a depressing conclusion. It is meant, however, to be a description of an observed phenomenon, and a partial explanation of it. It is also incomplete; there will be more.

People only speak to the images within their own minds. Intelligence, I should say, is the ability to do abstract analysis, and the vast majority of people do not use that ability, even if they possess it to any degree. The reasons for this, one may imagine, are various, and must frequently have to do with the necessity to consider survival above other things- intelligence may, at times, be useful for survival, but, in general, survival is a matter of perseverance, debilitating the body and the mind and not allowing it to do more than is essential. We are not, however, concerned with the inability, intrinsic or extrinsic, temporary or permanent, to think, to use the mind in the ways in which it can be used, but with the deliberate refusal to use it for any purpose but immediate personal gratification.

People, we have said, talk almost exclusively to their heads. They do not want to hear anything which does not confirm their previous ideas and opinions, prejudices, one should call them, since they do not wish, either, to analyse, or submit to judgement in any way, those opinions, they simply have them, because they think they must have them, and that the possession if them is a sign of their character and of how their minds work. This is not the case- they state these ideas because they have heard them from some source that inspired trust at some moment, for equally unanalysed reasons.

Briefly:

1. People do not think.
2. People like to believe that they think.
3. People are only prepared to assimilate information which seems to confirm their prejudices. (They only want to be told that they are right.)
4. People are only interested in news which tells them about things they already think they know about. (This is why almost all of what passes for news is derivative.)
5. People are angered by opinions that conflict with their own because they do not wish to have to think.
6. Opinions which conflict with their own, and to which they do not have to respond, are satisfying when they can be used to classify others absolutely as good or bad.
7. Almost all entertainments, and most of what is intended to be, at least in part, informative, simply pander to this, as the only way to keep an audience is to reassure it it will not have to think. (gossip, TV drama, Hollywood films, pop music, even political debate)
8. Almost nothing in the life of people in wealthy countries requires them to think, or encourages them to think.
9. People do not want to know about, perhaps are afraid of, what is outside themselves.
10. People have little or no concept of objective truth.

So, people talk to the images in their heads and relate everything to the mental pictures they have created there, arbitrarily. The information conveyed by the senses is analysed and assimilated in terms of the images and ideas that are already present in the mind, rather than being used to reassess these images. What they hear and see is accepted or rejected depending on whether it can be interpreted as confirming the previous image. It is not considered in itself, and then used to correct the mental image, which it should be in a thinking person. The process, in other words, is the reverse of what it should be, the reverse of thinking. It is, perhaps, for this reason that most people have no understanding of the concept of objective truth- they do not understand it and they cannot understand it when it is explained. (Tony Blair said something like, “I only know what I believe.” He meant, I think, not that he defined what was true, but that his only measure of truth was his own opinion, but I do not think he meant that he analysed extensively before reaching those beliefs.)

For most people truth is any of their images in which they see no obvious contradiction. Even educated people often think that truth can be arrived at by some form of consensus of the images held by people who are, in some way, qualified to comment- that is, whom they perceive as like themselves in whatever ways they consider important. Uneducated people usually hold the truth to be whatever image they themselves hold. They will bluntly defend the expression of an opinion which they cannot defend of itself, which is against the logic of argument. Their purpose, coherent if not logical, is to protect their own image of themselves as thinking beings.

Many people enjoy gossip programmes because they do not have to think- none of us wishes to think all the time, in any case- but there are further elements to them which are essential to their interest: familiarity- the information must be given by someone the audience considers it knows, and be about people it thinks it knows, or at the very least a subject that is often repeated; confrontation- there must be shouting, consisting preferably of mere contradiction, so that there is no difficulty in forming the image, and those involved must be clearly classifiable as good or bad, if only arbitrarily; seriousness- this is called news, and the participants journalists, so the audience can believe it is not frivolous. These programmes are directly aimed at the images people have, and could not work if there were any objective analysis.

Terrinches

The name will not mean anything to most of the people who drop by here. To very few indeed, in fact. Our reasons for being there this weekend are of little interest, I imagine (mostly eating and drinking, since you ask) but the area is attractive. Terrinches itself is a small village in a corner of Ciudad Real, very near the borders with Jaen and Albacete. To the East is the Sierra de Alcaraz, to the south and West the Sierra Morena. The village, may its inhabitants forgive me, has almost nothing of aesthetic interest, but there is some history, and the surrounding landscape is good fro walking in, being full of mountains, valleys, streams, olive groves and that patchwork of large and small fields, intersecting at random angles, and all of slightly different colours, that give interest and novelty to a place.

The stream just south of the village, that flows past the Cerro Conejero (actually full of partridges) has been dammed, creating a small lake, and there is a path beside it part of the way. The result is what is know as an Hoz, a gully I suppose, with rocks rising on each side. It is not big, or high, or sweeping, or stunning, or anything particularly superlative, but to walk through it this morning, and clamber along the rock face at times (Mrs Hickory having left her vertigo at home, apparently) in a brilliant, though not warming sun, was very pleasant indeed.

The castle is of historical, rather than aesthetic interest. It was built in the 13th C and was defended by the Knights of Santiago. Aben Yucef attacked and besieged it in 1282, and even set fire to it, but it didn't fall. A friend of ours is in charge of the restoration, and is doing a good job of leaving it looking fresh and imposing, inside and out.

All of this is, naturally, an excuse to post a couple of photos. Of the castle and of the lake.

A Bit of Freedom Would be Nice

A couple of thoughts, and I am not the first to say this, but I have never seen an answer: Why is it that I cannot make a private phone call unless I go to a call box and wear gloves? In Spain, and I believe in Britain as well, it is not possible to buy a phone without attaching the number to a name, address and NIF. The only reason for this can be that someone may want to know who we have called at any time, and the assumption is that they are perfectly entitled to know. Why is this assumption accepted by everyone? Why can I not talk to a friend, or try to sell something, or discuss business of some sort, or call a tart, without leaving a record somewhere? You are thinking you have nothing to hide, but neither do I; but I don't understand why anything I do is automatically the business of anyone.
This is not a personal complaint; it is general. And most people don't care because no one will have any reason to follow up what they do, but someone might, and you may never even know.

Unfair tax competition is surely a phrase that can only be uttered by those who do not understand what tax is, who believe that tax is a penalty that government legitimately imposes on anyone who dares to earn a living. Taxes, in the sense that they are legitimate at all, are needed to pay for those things that the public in general thinks necessary. The amount of tax paid depends on the demand on the public purse. The idea that tax rates can be a duty owed by one country to another is quite perverse. It is a symptom of fundamentalist socialism, and like all such ideas, will cost the rest of us a lot of heartache and a lot of money.

Why am I wrong? I would like to be wromg. I could sleep more easily if I knew we were all in good hands.

Who the Hell Loves Teeth?

Can anyone (perhaps a dentist) explain why dentists say things like, 'I am now going to shove this bloody great needle into the root of your left number 7', 'Just relax, Mr Smith... you're not relaxing, Mr Smith...', 'The large object approaching the pulsating mass that was once your third molar is a 5-gauge drill, which spins at 4,000 revs per minute and whines in that horrible fashion not for technical reasons but because we are sadists', (the last bit they don't say out loud, of course)? Wouldn't it be better if they just shut up? And above all, why do they say it won't hurt?