I might be about to find out.
The time has come for me to take a short break from blogging while I finish the first draft of the book I am writing.
Postscript 1:
I would like to thank kvd for his comments, below, which have led me to attempt to articulate more clearly the main message in the book.
As I have been writing the book my perception of threats to human flourishing has changed somewhat. When I began, I thought that the main point I would be making would be that in order to be fully flourishing individual humans need to have control of their own lives. In other words, if governments relieve us of the need to exercise our powers of self-direction, then our skills in running our own lives can be expected to dissipate, resulting in character development failures. That is still an important message, but I think the more urgent message to convey is that when people come to expect governments to take the obstacles out of the obstacle course of life then they are likely to end up disappointed (i.e. unhappy). The gap that has emerged between what democratic governments are expected to deliver and what they can actually deliver cannot go on increasing indefinitely. An adjustment to reality must occur sooner or later. The larger the gap, the more painful the adjustment is likely to be. (That sounds a bit polemical, but I am writing a polemic!)
Postscript 2:
One week later, I can now answer the question posed above –
in case anyone thought it might be a serious question.
I’m not addicted to blogging. It is no more addictive than
any other hobby might be. The rewards are entirely intrinsic. I am not blogging
in order to achieve fame or fortune (just as well!) but for the satisfaction in
thinking my way through issues, writing about them and engaging in discussion
with other people.
As someone once told me, we always have enough time to do
the things that are most important to us. Blogging is fairly important to me,
but ‘other things’ sometimes have priority. It seems likely that over the next
few months ‘other things’ will often be more important to me than blogging, so
I do not expect to be blogging as regularly as in the past.
12 comments:
Well, in the words of Milton, "those also serve who only sit and read". Your cold turkey is a dish served to your readers, as well as yourself. Only two posts (14 days) ago you were discussing "the second chapter" and now you are "finishing the first draft"?
I consider that a most unseemly (and inconsiderate) haste.
Nevertheless, good luck!
kvd
Hello kvd
There is an explanation. As I write the final chapter, which draws together themes in earlier chapters, I find myself thinking about the changes required in the earlier chapters. So, I write about these issues on my blog. But that diverts me from finishing the final chapter.
A few days ago I was thinking tha I should also write something for the blog to summarize where my meanderings on democracy led me. I might still do that, but the main message would be to read the draft of Chapter 8 - and tell me whether you think the line of reasoning presented there makes sense.
Winton, I have started on your Chapter 8, but a couple of questions I'd appreciate brief answers to - if only to demonstrate that I haven't (yet) read earlier chapters:
1) Human flourishing is what?
2) Democracy is what?
Maybe you could point me simply to your earlier writings which make these terms clear. I won't argue your definitions even if they differ from mine, but to avoid misunderstanding you I'd appreciate knowing your ground rules.
kvd
Perhaps a comment on my own naive present view of what democracy presently is...
I think of our current system as fairly similar to that of BHP the company, where no single citizen (shareholder) has sufficient sway to exert control, and whose wellbeing/support is provided by handout (dividends) decided by an entrenched managerial elite (directors and GM's).
The entity BHP has annual elections, and reports (democracy?), but is basically now so sufficiently autonomous or insulated from the desires of its owners (citizens)that their opinion counts for nought.
Yes, changes in leadership and direction occur from time to time, but not specifically at the request of shareholders (citizens); more by mutual agreement between those within a very small circle of professional directors and managers (see Liberal and Labor parties).
As I said - naive.
kvd
Winton I've now read your ch8 a couple of times and to answer your above specific question, yes I accept your reasoning because it seems to make reasonable sense.
Perhaps covered earlier? but I'd have preferred to see a qualification of 'threat' as to timeframe, and permanence. On AGW you speak of adaptation - maybe that recognises some part of the second?
You can disregard my question as to democracy, but I'm still interested in the terms 'flourishing' and 'progress'. I take from your writing that there always will be a basic frustration (collision?) between the meaning of those terms as viewed from on the one hand, society, and on the other, individual. But I'm left wondering where you yourself see that 'collision' best balanced?
Forgive the ramble. I'm always conscious of possible trespass upon another's property - hence I use terms such as 'naive' to badly explain my reluctance to waste more than an absolute minimum of time when infesting any blog. (My failure, not anything you've indicated)
That said, I look forward to starting at the start, and now reading your book in full.
kvd
Hi kvd
I appreciate your efforts in reading and commenting and will respond as soon as possible (i.e. when my judgement is less affected by the combination of excessive golf and alcohol).
kvd: You have raised a good point about the time frame and permanence of the threat to progress posed by democratic governments taking on more responsibilities than they can cope with. Perhaps I need some discussion of the way the imminence and nature of the threat posed by this expectations gap differs among countries. For example, there seems to be an imminent threat to the basic institutions of democracy in some countries in southern Europe. The basic institutions seem stronger in other countries in Europe, but there is a painful adjustment taking place in some countries (e.g. Britain and Ireland) as public expectations are revised. France is still a fool’s paradise. The expectations gap in the US seems to me to be more about its ability to promote democracy etc. in other countries through the use of military power than about its ability to provide decent social safety net. Australians have good reasons to feel uneasy that the high expectations they have of government will not be met.
When I think about it further, the common thread in my concern about the ability of democracy to cope with increasing responsibilities is the idea of a growing expectations gap. If this continues, the possible outcomes range from painful adjustment to reality, with democratic institutions intact, to collapse of democratic institutions. If democratic institutions do collapse in some countries, I think past experience suggests that there are reasonable grounds to hope that they will be restored, but that could take decades.
As I have been writing the book my perception of threats to human flourishing has changed somewhat. When I began, I thought that the main point I would be making would be that in order to be fully flourishing individual humans need to have control of their own lives. In other words, if governments relieve us of the need to exercise our powers of self-direction, then our skills in running our own lives can be expected to dissipate, resulting in character development failures. That is still an important message, but I think the more urgent message to convey is that when people come to expect governments to take the obstacles out of the obstacle course of life then they are likely to end up disappointed (i.e. unhappy). The gap that has emerged between what democratic governments are expected to deliver and what they can actually deliver cannot go on increasing indefinitely. An adjustment to reality must occur sooner or later. The larger the gap, the more painful the adjustment is likely to be. (That sounds a bit polemical, but I am writing a polemic!)
As to the meaning of flourishing and progress, I hope that will become apparent as you read earlier chapters. Please let me know if you still think there may be a problem.
Thanks again for your efforts in reading the book. I look forward to receiving further comments.
Hi Winton
I realize I'm a bit of a late arrival at this discussion but, in my defense, I have been away - Japan and Vietnam - should you be interested to know, returning today, 15 Sep :).
To be honest, I don't feel qualified at all to be making comments on this discussion. For starters, I haven't even read your book or any of its chapters.
However, I'm here mainly to say how much I admire and appreciate your commitment to this great project of writing such a well researched and well considered book...and that your motivation is intrinsically driven is heart-warming!
That said, I can't help (or would it be more truthful to say 'I don't wish to stop myself) from raising this little (but to me a very big) point:
How indeed is reality constructed? This reality that you seem to be saying gnaws and yawns even more largely as it gets further and further away from the controlling hands of governments?
I am of course inviting you to consider that there is no 'given/set' reality. Rather, one that is constantly being constructed/adjusted (to use your word) EVEN AS IT IS BEING OBSERVED… (Einstein’s ‘observer effect’ rears its most inconvenient head yet again you might say :))
Anyway, more important than this last point are my congratulations on getting to where you are with your book! Super well done! And I hope you continue to deny your addiction to blogging. It just means that you will continue blogging :)
Hello TBT
Thanks for your kind remarks. I hope you enjoyed Japan and Vietnam.
Regarding the reality question, I do need to cover this in Chapter 9, where I talk about fantasies. I can readily acknowledge that our perceptions of reality are all subjective. Nevertheless there is a fair amount of agreement among humans about the nature of the reality of everyday life e.g. what it means to be rich, poor, healthy, unhealthy etc. There is a sense in which people need to come to terms with reality. If a friend suffers a major loss of income, for example, I might say that it would be wise for that person to come to terms with that reality rather than to go on spending as though nothing had happened. However, the way they come to terms with their new circumstances will influence their future circumstances. Feelings of deprivation might lead to despondency and make matters worse, whereas a more positive approach might direct thinking towards new personal goals and how they might be achieved.
I hope something along those lines would help to address the issue. I think that when people talk about constructing reality what they must be referring to is an internal 'reality' i.e. a frame of meaning.
Hi Winton
I believe that there is the personal construction of reality and a collective construction of reality. The latter, often referred to as consensus reality, isn't always accurate/truth-full.
Examples of this abound including the belief that the earth was flat, that the sun rose and set and that DNA is a fixed, unchanging, deterministic entity.
For me, reality is not a given. something that we first accept and then act upon. On the contrary, I play a critical role in the construction of any *reality* that I observe - individual and collective.
To the extent that I am aware of my role and my ability to construct reality, I can keep creating the reality I desire (or conversely, the reality that I most fear since the construction of reality relies on the ATTENTION I give something, whether intentionally or unintentionally).
There are MANY videos on youtube that may be of interest including this one (first of a series):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FYyM8ht0k
Hi TBT
I couldn't find much to object to in the first video. I might take a look at the next one.
The problem is that when we talk about ultimate reality, no coherent theory can be proved wrong. My intuitions tell me that any theory that puts human thinking near the centre of things is probably wrong. But I don't claim any insights.
By the way I accept your point about the provisional nature of scientific knowledge.
Winton, you may not wish to publish this 'comment' as it is really a link that I want to share with you. I don't have your email address so had to use this route :)
http://www.mindreality.com/matrixofmindreality.pdf
Post a Comment