Traffic Isn't Moving...

Traffic isn't moving. We're stuck - again. Not moving when we're supposed to be somewhere. No worries. Look around at the other drivers who seem almost used to it by now, resigned, complacent. They've done this a million times. They know the drill. We'll get there eventually. But for now we're stuck. More on that later. Since there's nowhere to go at the moment, consider the role that Fate plays in all this. At moments like these, I always do. And I use that word advisedly, because something like Fate seems involved. Just think about all the strangely fated, "predestined routines" that we go along with because we have no choice, because someone else, it seems, has made the decision for us, presumably on our behalf, that THIS is what works best, that THIS is how IT should be, this is how it will play out in the best of all possible worlds. We're stuck in traffic and it has to be that way because what's the alternative?  Got any bright ideas? It's rush hour; it's busy outside; millions of motorists are mobilizing at once, trying to get to the same little green patch of earth using the same narrow swath of concrete.  So what are you gonna do? Are you visualizing this scenario? Good. We're stuck, remember. Now repeat after me: it's already been decided. It's sort of like Fate has already spoken, but you weren't consulted somehow.  In large measure, it's already been decided what you will do today, what you will be able to do, where you will go, how and by what means; it's also been decided which destinations you will not venture to arrive at, and which plans, enterprises, excursions you will leave on the cutting-room floor. It's already been decided:  what clothes you will be wearing along with the passengers who will ride along with you to the places you will go. Already been decided. And where these clothes come from and what other people will think of you when you try them on, and what car you'll be driving (it won't be a horse, mind you...) to and from the clothing store, what brand of coffee you'll be sipping, and the food-court victuals you will consume before, during and after a long, hard shopping all day; and what late breaking news you'll hear on the radio, what topics you'll latch onto, which definition of style or beauty or health or joie de vivre you will subscribe to (automatically) as a result of your quixotic quest; to some degree, likewise,  it's already been decided what gadgets you will need for this excursion, which movie or music or youtube "prompts" will influence these "choices" of yours - which books you will end up reading to expand your  temporarily constricted horizons... what other big ventures you will envision for the new year; where you will dream of settling down eventually (whether in a city or a suburb or a farm) - driven there by some strange spiritual imperative - and the hyper-restricted, this-or-that "options" that will be waiting there for you to make... it's already been decided....That's what it feels like at least. So far so good...but when it comes to traffic patterns and gridlock on the roads, this too having already been decided by some anonymous cabal of planners and developers who shun the spotlight for good reason... here I must put my foot down and demand to meet the committee of geniuses who invented these beltways and turnpikes and toll roads and narrow, winding vertigo-inducing highways and bridges leading from "bumper-to-bumper snail's pace" traffic to "let's-park-here-for-the-night-might-as-well" congestion; not to mention those drab, dreary frontage roads overloaded with row after row of chain hotels, restaurants, shopping malls, gas stations, business parks, etc. etc.. It's already been decided that we will travel in this manner with these traffic patterns, traffic jams, traffic derailments, traffic meltdowns, traffic absurdist theater, traffic zombie caravans...but what happens when what has been decided upon just isn't working any longer...What then?

Political Biography Anyone?

The fourth installment of Robert Caro's monumental, magisterial biography on Lyndon Johnson is set to be released on May 1st. I would expect that this volume, dealing with the Johnson presidency, will be hailed as the greatest one yet - and it's only 736 pages long!

And while we're at it, let's not forget Eisenhower in War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith.

Theory and Practice

The awareness that logic alone does not help to solve our biggest problems in life is something of a disappointment to put it midly; the knowledge that "thoughtfulness" is a sign of weakness, that being "reasonable" and "sensible" is often a recipe for disaster; that trying to think and act "above the fray" and expecting others to do likewise can seem like a childish request, preventing us from confronting the messiness of a situation, while increasing our frustration with those ugly, unforeseen "outcomes" that occur so frequently; that having constant expectations of order and design in the world can leave a person feeling "naive" and "ineffectual" when it comes to "dealing with" a stubborn, incorrigible, non-pliable, non-harmonious entity; that the upbeat rhetoric employed to describe our shared social environment is typically at odds with the more sordid, haphazard, bare-bone facts (of human beings running amok from their restless, overwrought, I-want-this-I-want-that!, crash-and-burn impulses); that the ideals and precepts that inspire so many of us are shamelesly invoked by hucksters, thieves, marketeers, politicos, con artists et al. who abuse them to the hilt (!) leading many others to become cynical and jaded from an early age; that the relentless chasm between how things could be (if everyone happened to care about the same thing at the same time and agreed upon a particular goal or solution without the law of brute force or the lowest common denominator winning out) and how things typically turn out  (decidedly opposite that of the aforementioned description) - continues to widen; all this constitutes the essential dilemma, the "grand theme" of philosophy, otherwise known as the divide between theory and practice, which, if I had all day to discuss it within the imaginary confines of the "donut shop of utopian conversation," I probably would, or at least would sit there (in some dilapidated, yet actually-existing donut shop) and day-dream about such a conversation taking place with a rarefied list of most worthy interlocutors (munching on glazed and chocolate sprinkle delights). But just for the sake of continuing this thought experiment, if you happen to be one of those people who has the same sinking feeling of always wanting to apply logic and common sense to a situation, yearning for the ideal scenario to play out among rational beings, that is, yet knowing in advance that your plans will be thwarted by the entropies of ignorance, iniquity, incompetence, and illogic, then you have come to the right place. I not only salute you, I congratulate and affirm you and your rational tendencies. Bless you for being there and for reading this humble post. You are amazing as far as that goes. True, it appears that certain voluminous snares have been set in our path and that the universe doth resist our demands for order and logic (at least here in the lower echelons), but all is not lost, as long as we know that we exist with this peculiar malady - which, although frustrating and pathetic - does have its merits. For lo, when we consider how the soul itself seems woefully outmatched by passion (thumos) and appetite (epithumia)  - i.e. to "blind wilfulness" per se -  is it not shocking how REASON, the so-called pilot or captain of the ship*, is able to manage at all, to chart a path under the stars, being surrounded by such a wild, impulsive and raucous crew! [See Plato's Republic, Book 6]

Spring Break (April 16-20)

Bonnard's Cat

Rulers, Enforcers, Ascetics (Pt. 1)

My big problem with politics (and believe me, not the only one), has always been the coercive element - the fact that you need enforcers to keep people in line - strong alpha males and females along with certain ascetic types - a "priestly caste" as it were - to hold up the prevailing orthodoxies. And, oftentimes (not always but often) these same "enforcers" have been some of the prime beneficiaries of whatever "privileges" the group has to offer,  these members of the ruling elite who are, in theory at least, the presumed  exemplars of what's in vogue - morally, aesthetically, economically - and who take upon themselves to decide what the standard of excellence is for everyone else,  letting those who dissent do so at their own peril. (Irritating - yes, but not my main complaint.) Yet in the case of the ascetics, whenever these become the preeminent enforcers -  ergo when the ruling elite grows slack, relying on "mercenary soldiers" or an independent "priest caste" as an  auxiliary force, an element of metabole/disharmony is introduced; the possibility of a critique of the ruling order reaches the level of conscious awareness along with a possible rift between classes. For even if these auxiliaries come to  identify strongly with the rationale given by the elite for their claim to rule, they still see opportunities  for themselves waiting in the wings; notwithstanding this roughly-sketched hierarchy of  aristocrats/soldiers  or aristocrats/soldiers/clerics - we are still left with a majority of commoners and have-nots living on the margins.  Strange that the workers who make up the bulk of the demos, should be so vulnerable to manipulation or exploitation, but there it is. (I speak of ancient societies here. And medieval societies...and some modern societies...) Still - the centripetal force of the majority's bulk is not kept down entirely in that from their ranks will rise up orators, populists, demagogues, unruly slaves, muckrakers, artists, poets, philosophers, journalists, revolutionaries to champion the rights of the people.  And so we have revolutions and slave revolts and serf rebellions dating from time immemorial, from the Helots of Sparta to Spartacus and his crew to Nat Turner.

And over many, many centuries (I'm talking aeons!)  of the franchise being gradually extended and expanded to include more of those previously left out of the equation, we reach a stage of history where it becomes somewhat impossible to justify a ruling class as such (on the basis of some over-arching principle of merit that the ruling class supposedly embodies) or a ruling orthodoxy per se - except by some sort of all-inclusive promise (of prosperity? freedom? opportunity? dignity? equality?) or some some other means of vicarious participation in the feast (winning lotto ticket? instant celebrity? king-for-a-day status?). Everyone is equal nowadays in theory; therefore those who claim superior title to wealth, status, power must do so on a time-limit or by some means of implied consent (?) Confusing, yes, because still so unclear. Our erstwhile leaders and representatives on some level accept their role as glorified puppets with multiple invisible strings attached to public opinion. Thus do the people at large - the vast "middle" classes and average Janes and Joes become aware of themselves as ultimate "judges" - "arbiters" - "voters" - "deciders" - who give their "thumbs up, thumbs down" verdicts to this or that administration and to whatever shifting paradigm of truth happens to be stealing the spotlight for a season.  But in such a milieu as ours, can the rationale for a ruling class ever rise to some sublime principle of worth or merit? Do we not continue to assign merit by means of market forces measured in $, with a litmus test of popularity added on top of that? As a result, is it surprising to notice the discourse of modern life marked by a discursiveness that takes for granted the lack of value in the object itself, beyond what the subject grants, and even then, knowingly (!) grants only for a fleeting moment. They say canaries die in coal mines... and leaden thoughts sink to the bottom...

Pithy Quotation

"The amount of verbal pomposity, elaboration of the obvious, repetition, trivia, low-grade statistics, tedious factification, drudging recapitulations of the half-comprehended, and generally inane and laborious junk that one encounters suggests that the thinkers of earlier ages had one decisive advantage over those of today: they could draw on very little research." - Dwight MacDonald (describing modern "academic prose")