PAEditorsBlog
Thomas Riggins
CNN likes to call itself "the most trusted name in news." What you call yourself and what you are often turn out to be quite different. Lou Dobbs, a "populist" champion of the angst ridden American middle class is a case in point. But first some comments on fascist disinformation techniques.
An old fascist trick is to rally support for regressive and racist causes by railing against "big government" from a "populist" point of view, pointing out how the middle class is "hurting" and the the interests of ordinary Americans are being ignored, while at the same time scapegoating another class or subgroup in society as being one of the sources of the problems facing "regular" people.
European fascists scapegoated Jews, gypsies, gay people, and foreigners at various times. Today, in the US one of the many groups targeted is likely to be immigrants, legal and/or illegal, (especially those of Mexican descent).
Lou Dobbs of CNN has managed to drive up the ratings of his show ("Lou Dobbs Tonight") by 72% in the last four years by using this tactic. He has even written a book "War on the Middle Class." CBS has gone so far as to hire him as a commentator for its "The Early Show." This means fascist techniques are going main stream.
The New York Times has called Dobbs "arguably this country's foremost populist." "Arguably" is the right word. I would argue no one is a true populist who bases his or her message on lies, slander and racism. This information is available in a Times article by David Leonhardt ("Truth, Fiction And Lou Dodds" in the Business Day section of 5-30-07.)
Here we find out that in 2005 Dobbs supported claims that immigrants had brought diseases to the US. He echoed the charge that there were 7000 cases of leprosy (Hansen's Disease) in the US between 2003 and 2005. This was not true but Dobbs and CNN refuse to retract it. This is in line with his belief that the main enemy of the "middle class" is illegal immigration.
"The invasion of illegal aliens," he said , "is threatening the health of many Americans." The Times reporter checked out the official figures and found out the 7000 cases were the figures for the last 30 not 3 years. This was pointed out to Dobbs. He was, as the Times put it, "flat-out wrong."
The test of a serious commentator or journalist or reporter, as opposed to a racist fear monger using fascist techniques against minority scapegoats, is his or her willingness to admit a mistake and apologize for the misunderstanding.
How did Dobbs do on this test of his integrity? He had presented this false information on his show at least two times. Once in 2005, and again this year when it was challenged. Leonhardt says "he has never acknowledged on the air that his program presented false information twice."
Leonhardt also checked transcripts of his shows and found out that Dobbs "has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality." He claimed "one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants." The truth is that its only 6%.
Leonhardt also found out that Dobbs gave airtime "to white supremacy sympathizers." The Times article concludes that Dobbs, with his mixtures of truth and lies, "is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as weapons against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans."
Don Imus lost his job for being stupid and insensitive. The racist filth spewed forth by someone like Dobbs is more deadly by far. That CNN and CBS both seek his services should let us know what type of society the corporations are preparing for our future.
Thomas Riggins can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
BUSH IS DELUSIONAL
PAEditorsBlog
BUSH IS DELUSIONAL
Thomas Riggins
The Congress should really gear up impeachment hearings. Reading today's AP reports [5/29] shows that the president has really lost it. He is quoted as saying only a "handful" of people oppose his war policies and think we should get out of Iraq. He is convinced that the majority of Americans support him. This is dangerous. If he is that disconnected from the polls and mood of the people he can engage in truly irrational actions under the impression that the "American people" are behind him.
Here is the AP lead: "Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President George W. Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him."
This is taking the maxim of "we make our own reality" too far. With the AP reporting that 55% of the American people want to see some or all of the troops pulled out of Iraq, Bush nevertheless maintains that the majority really wants to see them stay in theater and supports his military policy.
And what do the president's aides say when asked about negative poll numbers? They "say poll questions are asked so many ways that it is impossible to conclude that Americans really want to get out."
The way the Democratic leadership has caved in to Bush they must have arrived at the same conclusion.
BUSH IS DELUSIONAL
Thomas Riggins
The Congress should really gear up impeachment hearings. Reading today's AP reports [5/29] shows that the president has really lost it. He is quoted as saying only a "handful" of people oppose his war policies and think we should get out of Iraq. He is convinced that the majority of Americans support him. This is dangerous. If he is that disconnected from the polls and mood of the people he can engage in truly irrational actions under the impression that the "American people" are behind him.
Here is the AP lead: "Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President George W. Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him."
This is taking the maxim of "we make our own reality" too far. With the AP reporting that 55% of the American people want to see some or all of the troops pulled out of Iraq, Bush nevertheless maintains that the majority really wants to see them stay in theater and supports his military policy.
And what do the president's aides say when asked about negative poll numbers? They "say poll questions are asked so many ways that it is impossible to conclude that Americans really want to get out."
The way the Democratic leadership has caved in to Bush they must have arrived at the same conclusion.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
ARE THE WORLD BANK AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BECOMING IRRELEVANT?
ARE THE WORLD BANK AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BECOMING IRRELEVANT?
by Thomas Riggins
The Wolfowitz scandal has raised some questions about the relevance of the financial institutions set up to stabilize the world economy after W.W.II. It was in 1944, just before the end of the war, at Bretton Woods, N.H. that both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were set up.
Some critics maintain that in today’s world of Globalization these institutions, along with the World Trade Organization (the successor to 1947’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, G.A.T.T.), are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Last Wednesday a major article appeared in the “Business Day” section of The New York Times addressing just this issue. (“Cracks in the Financial Foundation: Roles of 3 Institutions Questioned in a Changing Global Economy,” by Steven R. Weisman, 5-23-2007).
For one thing, their roles don’t seem to be as important as they once were. World Bank loans, for example, to poor countries only account for about 7% of the aid they get from all sources. There are also questions being raised about the Bank’s policy of loaning money to midlevel developing countries.
Some eyebrows are being raised over $40 billion in loans to China (which has a trillion dollars as reserves). The Chinese, in fact have loaned out some $20 billion of their own to poor nations in Africa. The Bank likes these loans because it knows it will get paid back with interest and it uses this money to bankroll its staff and research projects. But is it really helping the poor?
Robert E. Rubin (a past Secretary of the Treasury) is quoted as saying, “The Bretton Woods system has become outmoded. It has served us [i.e., Western capitalists] very well for a long time, but these institutions haven’t changed with the times. They need to be rethought and restructured.”
The Wolfowitz scandal didn’t help. Eckhard Deutscher, one of the Bank’s directors, says, “The biggest challenge of the World Bank is to restore its credibility. But the international community also needs to look at the whole system. There are governance problems across the board.
It has been a tradition that the head of the Bank is nominated by the US President. But what happens, as with Wolfowitz, when an incompetent President nominates an incompetent political loyalist? Wolfowitz has resigned, but Bush will get to name his replacement. Many of the international directors would like to revisit the nomination process. Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard professor, maintains that, “The Wolfowitz situation exposed what an antediluvian system the bank has. But I’m worried that this crisis is going to set back the reform process.”
Many think the Bank has really fallen down on the job of helping the poor. These critics, looking at the China situation above, want the Bank to quit loaning money to middle income countries, and to begin just giving outright grants to the poor countries. At the present time about 93% of the aid that poor countries get from the governments in the more developed world is coming from some 230 different international agencies. The Bank’s role is rather modest in comparison. Everyone seems to agree that the Bank has become, in some sense, “marginal” but still important.
The same can be said about the International Monetary Fund. Former Secretary of State (and Secretary of the Treasury as well) George P. Shultz is quoted as saying, “In the past I have called for the abolition of the I.M.F. If it disappeared tomorrow, I don’t think people would miss it very much.”
The I.M.F. you may recall, gained notoriety for insisting that Asia and Latin American countries seeking aid sould cut back on all the programs they had for helping poor people-- so called “austerity measures” were insisted upon, leading to social unrest. The Fund is unpopular at the present time, basically because there is a booming global economy, at least for the capitalists. But this is capitalism, after all, and the good times won’t last forever.
Another Harvard professor admits as much. Richard N. Cooper maintains that, “We happen to be in a very quiet time at the moment. People are saying ‘Who Needs It [the I.M.F.]?’ I am morally certain that financial crises are not a thing of the past, and that we’ll see crises in the future. The I.M.F. is the obvious collaborative instrument to deal with them.” But what about the policy of “austerity?” That might just start off a revolutionary spark.
Finally, one last institution seems on the verge of a breakdown. This is the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.). The W.T.O. dates from 1995 when it replaced the G.A.T.T. But it has been bogged down in getting a new international trade regime in place for the last five years--- ever since it began talks in 2002 in Doha, Qatar.
These talks are on the verge of failure because the Third World nations are putting up stiff resistance to rules the U.S. and Europe are trying to push through which will significantly damage poor nations to the advantage of the rich.
“Many trade experts fear,” the article reports, “that if the talks fail, it could lead to a reversal of 60 years of opening the trading system to more goods and services.”
What is the issue? The U.S. and Europe want to protect their own domestic markets and at the same time are insisting that Third World countries open their domestic markets to them. This would lead to the destruction of small and midlevel producers throughout the Third World whose domestic markets would be taken over by First World producers who would simultaneously be blocking the entrance of Third World products into the markets of the First World.
As the Times reports, “The Doha talks are at an impasse because the United States and Europe are refusing to lower barriers on farm goods and both are demanding that India and other exporting countries lower barriers of their own.”
This is a typical capitalist squabble. One that the imperialist powers are used to winning. But they have not been able to advance their cause for the last five years. Third World bourgeoisies are turning out to have more staying power against the imperialist bourgeoisies than had been expected. This too is one of the major reasons that the international financial tools of the West, hammered out at Bretton Woods in 1944 are finding themselves to be increasingly irrelevant.
Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.
by Thomas Riggins
The Wolfowitz scandal has raised some questions about the relevance of the financial institutions set up to stabilize the world economy after W.W.II. It was in 1944, just before the end of the war, at Bretton Woods, N.H. that both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were set up.
Some critics maintain that in today’s world of Globalization these institutions, along with the World Trade Organization (the successor to 1947’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, G.A.T.T.), are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Last Wednesday a major article appeared in the “Business Day” section of The New York Times addressing just this issue. (“Cracks in the Financial Foundation: Roles of 3 Institutions Questioned in a Changing Global Economy,” by Steven R. Weisman, 5-23-2007).
For one thing, their roles don’t seem to be as important as they once were. World Bank loans, for example, to poor countries only account for about 7% of the aid they get from all sources. There are also questions being raised about the Bank’s policy of loaning money to midlevel developing countries.
Some eyebrows are being raised over $40 billion in loans to China (which has a trillion dollars as reserves). The Chinese, in fact have loaned out some $20 billion of their own to poor nations in Africa. The Bank likes these loans because it knows it will get paid back with interest and it uses this money to bankroll its staff and research projects. But is it really helping the poor?
Robert E. Rubin (a past Secretary of the Treasury) is quoted as saying, “The Bretton Woods system has become outmoded. It has served us [i.e., Western capitalists] very well for a long time, but these institutions haven’t changed with the times. They need to be rethought and restructured.”
The Wolfowitz scandal didn’t help. Eckhard Deutscher, one of the Bank’s directors, says, “The biggest challenge of the World Bank is to restore its credibility. But the international community also needs to look at the whole system. There are governance problems across the board.
It has been a tradition that the head of the Bank is nominated by the US President. But what happens, as with Wolfowitz, when an incompetent President nominates an incompetent political loyalist? Wolfowitz has resigned, but Bush will get to name his replacement. Many of the international directors would like to revisit the nomination process. Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard professor, maintains that, “The Wolfowitz situation exposed what an antediluvian system the bank has. But I’m worried that this crisis is going to set back the reform process.”
Many think the Bank has really fallen down on the job of helping the poor. These critics, looking at the China situation above, want the Bank to quit loaning money to middle income countries, and to begin just giving outright grants to the poor countries. At the present time about 93% of the aid that poor countries get from the governments in the more developed world is coming from some 230 different international agencies. The Bank’s role is rather modest in comparison. Everyone seems to agree that the Bank has become, in some sense, “marginal” but still important.
The same can be said about the International Monetary Fund. Former Secretary of State (and Secretary of the Treasury as well) George P. Shultz is quoted as saying, “In the past I have called for the abolition of the I.M.F. If it disappeared tomorrow, I don’t think people would miss it very much.”
The I.M.F. you may recall, gained notoriety for insisting that Asia and Latin American countries seeking aid sould cut back on all the programs they had for helping poor people-- so called “austerity measures” were insisted upon, leading to social unrest. The Fund is unpopular at the present time, basically because there is a booming global economy, at least for the capitalists. But this is capitalism, after all, and the good times won’t last forever.
Another Harvard professor admits as much. Richard N. Cooper maintains that, “We happen to be in a very quiet time at the moment. People are saying ‘Who Needs It [the I.M.F.]?’ I am morally certain that financial crises are not a thing of the past, and that we’ll see crises in the future. The I.M.F. is the obvious collaborative instrument to deal with them.” But what about the policy of “austerity?” That might just start off a revolutionary spark.
Finally, one last institution seems on the verge of a breakdown. This is the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.). The W.T.O. dates from 1995 when it replaced the G.A.T.T. But it has been bogged down in getting a new international trade regime in place for the last five years--- ever since it began talks in 2002 in Doha, Qatar.
These talks are on the verge of failure because the Third World nations are putting up stiff resistance to rules the U.S. and Europe are trying to push through which will significantly damage poor nations to the advantage of the rich.
“Many trade experts fear,” the article reports, “that if the talks fail, it could lead to a reversal of 60 years of opening the trading system to more goods and services.”
What is the issue? The U.S. and Europe want to protect their own domestic markets and at the same time are insisting that Third World countries open their domestic markets to them. This would lead to the destruction of small and midlevel producers throughout the Third World whose domestic markets would be taken over by First World producers who would simultaneously be blocking the entrance of Third World products into the markets of the First World.
As the Times reports, “The Doha talks are at an impasse because the United States and Europe are refusing to lower barriers on farm goods and both are demanding that India and other exporting countries lower barriers of their own.”
This is a typical capitalist squabble. One that the imperialist powers are used to winning. But they have not been able to advance their cause for the last five years. Third World bourgeoisies are turning out to have more staying power against the imperialist bourgeoisies than had been expected. This too is one of the major reasons that the international financial tools of the West, hammered out at Bretton Woods in 1944 are finding themselves to be increasingly irrelevant.
Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
CHILDHOOD ORIGINS OF ADULT RESISTANCE TO MARXISM
CHILDHOOD ORIGINS OF ADULT RESISTANCE TO MARXISM
by Thomas Riggins
Why is it so difficult to build a Marxist mass movement in the US? There are Marxist movements of considerable size, in comparison to the US, both in many Third World nations and in countries more advanced than the US. Not only is Marxism seemingly at a disadvantage in the US but a scientific world outlook is similarly hindered with respect to a favorable growth outlook. At the same time many views and outlooks characteristic of medieval obscurantism (fundamentalist religious beliefs-- for example), blatant superstition (astrology), superficial intellectually childish “philosophical” trends (Ayn Rand, Deepak Chopra, etc.), are flourishing.
There may be a scientific explanation for Adult Resistance to Marxism (ARM). In this article I will explore the causes of ARM and propose possible remedies to this serious mental deficiency which severely prevents those who are victims of this disorder from properly functioning in their social environment and maximizing their abilities to provide the best possible existential conditions for the flourishing of themselves and their loved ones.
The scientific information on which this article is based is critically culled from the article “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science” by Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg (SCIENCE 18 May 2007 VOL 316).
The authors of this article are concerned about the negative social consequences of the resistance that many American adults have to the acceptance of scientific ideas. I believe that ARM results from some of the same fundamental causes that Bloom and Weisberg list for the rejection of science and that the same negative results are involved with ARM.
The authors maintain that “a scientifically ignorant public is unprepared to evaluate policies about global warming, vaccination, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, and cloning.” There are social repercussions as a result of this ignorance.
I hasten to add, that as a result of ARM the public is also ignorant with respect to the proper attitudes to take on the issues of war and peace, racism, international relations, employment and unemployment, proper education polices and health issues, among many other social problems.
The authors use developmental psychology to suggest that two basic characteristics about children may make some resistance to ideas based on science “a human universal.” This would also explain the origin of ARM if their views are correct.
The authors claim that, "The main source of resistance concerns what children know before their exposure to science." We are told that "recent psychological research" shows that babies are not "blank slates" [the authors, however start with one year olds for their argument] and that children know all sorts of things about the world-- objects are solid, people react emotionally to appropriate situations, etc. What they call "naive" physics and psychology.
Bloom and Weisberg think this is a problem. Children don't have an accurate perception of the world in a scientific sense, according to them. Scientific views are so different from normal common sense (Einstein, Quantum Theory, Darwin, etc.). This makes it difficult to teach scientific theories to them.
This is hogwash. Children learn by trial and error and learn from their mistakes. They are natural born scientists using the empirical method and induction (as well some deduction after many experiences.) They learn the same way all mammals do. The scientific method is simply a more sophisticated extension of this "naive" common sense approach to understanding the world. They also have basic moral intuitions such as fairness and empathy which, if they were properly educated, would reinforce socialist ideals of equality and non-expoitation in adulthood.
The authors, however, think this intuitive approach leads to a resistance to science and ultimately to belief in things such as ESP, astrology, ghosts, fairies, divination, and creationism. None of these things, by the way, follow from the common sense view of the world any more than do scientific theories, indeed rather less so.
Children have natural developmental stages that they go through. If they are taught properly, at age appropriate levels, there will be no untoward resistance to science education and understanding. Almost all the examples the authors give of childhood scientific resistance is the result of bad educational methods and poor nurturing. If this "resistance" really were "inborn" science would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
The second fact, having, I hope, disposed of the bogus first factoid (what children spontaneously intuitively know), has more merit. This is "how children learn." This basically has to do with the fact that children trust the adults that raise them and tend to believe what they are told as long as it doesn't conflict completely with common sense.
The children of uneducated and ignorant adults will tend to be more ignorant and uneducated that those of knowledgeable educated adults-- and vice versa. This is hardly startling. Take the example of creationism versus evolution. Children trust their parents and their teachers. But if their parents are creationists, other things being equal, the children will likely be so too. This is because they spend far more time around their parents and their like-minded parent's friends, etc., than they do around their science teachers.
The authors hold that the evidence suggests these science resistant people maintain their beliefs for reasons "not necessarily rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments." But this surely a problem of nurture not nature.
The reason, they say, that this nonscientific, or even antiscientific group of people resists scientific rationality is "because they trust the people who say it [the unscientific explanation] is true." All of this can be explained by education, class and culture without recourse to any inborn psychological
propensities to be found in babies.
The authors finally arrive at the amazing conclusion that "recent studies" suggest that children, just as adults, "rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe." And if the educational system has done its job of providing a basic scientific analysis, I think, of the world system for people they will also be able to rely on the objective evidence for an assertion as well.
It is for the same reasons that Marxism is not objectively taught in the US that science is also played down. Namely, there are too many vested interests that benefit from the ignorance of the population. In our class riven society neither science nor a Marxist understanding are in the interests of the ruling corporate elites or the political parties and forces that control the levers of power.
The authors seem to recognize this when they write that unscientific beliefs in the US "are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities." But instead of having a Marxist analysis of why this so in a capitalist society, the authors fall back on the notion that "developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging intuitive expectations." This is a cop out as the so called "clash" can only take place when age inappropriate teaching methods are applied to the education of young children, or anti-scientific (also anti-socialist) attitudes are deliberately cultivated.
It is the fact that our ruling class is not committed to a universal scientific education for children, not "intuitive expectations" that is responsible for the backward educational climate in the US. The fact that the authors don't see that Marxism, or scientific socialism, is as important a part of education as neuroscience and evolutionary biology only shows that many scientists themselves have a resistance to science. Perhaps they should have entitled their paper "Adult Origins of Childhood Resistance to Science."
Finally, antiscientific outlooks, as well as ARM, will only be eliminated by a reorganization of the educational system, especially early childhood education, with an emphasis on independent critical thinking, scientific method, and the banning of religious propaganda.
Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.
by Thomas Riggins
Why is it so difficult to build a Marxist mass movement in the US? There are Marxist movements of considerable size, in comparison to the US, both in many Third World nations and in countries more advanced than the US. Not only is Marxism seemingly at a disadvantage in the US but a scientific world outlook is similarly hindered with respect to a favorable growth outlook. At the same time many views and outlooks characteristic of medieval obscurantism (fundamentalist religious beliefs-- for example), blatant superstition (astrology), superficial intellectually childish “philosophical” trends (Ayn Rand, Deepak Chopra, etc.), are flourishing.
There may be a scientific explanation for Adult Resistance to Marxism (ARM). In this article I will explore the causes of ARM and propose possible remedies to this serious mental deficiency which severely prevents those who are victims of this disorder from properly functioning in their social environment and maximizing their abilities to provide the best possible existential conditions for the flourishing of themselves and their loved ones.
The scientific information on which this article is based is critically culled from the article “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science” by Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg (SCIENCE 18 May 2007 VOL 316).
The authors of this article are concerned about the negative social consequences of the resistance that many American adults have to the acceptance of scientific ideas. I believe that ARM results from some of the same fundamental causes that Bloom and Weisberg list for the rejection of science and that the same negative results are involved with ARM.
The authors maintain that “a scientifically ignorant public is unprepared to evaluate policies about global warming, vaccination, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, and cloning.” There are social repercussions as a result of this ignorance.
I hasten to add, that as a result of ARM the public is also ignorant with respect to the proper attitudes to take on the issues of war and peace, racism, international relations, employment and unemployment, proper education polices and health issues, among many other social problems.
The authors use developmental psychology to suggest that two basic characteristics about children may make some resistance to ideas based on science “a human universal.” This would also explain the origin of ARM if their views are correct.
The authors claim that, "The main source of resistance concerns what children know before their exposure to science." We are told that "recent psychological research" shows that babies are not "blank slates" [the authors, however start with one year olds for their argument] and that children know all sorts of things about the world-- objects are solid, people react emotionally to appropriate situations, etc. What they call "naive" physics and psychology.
Bloom and Weisberg think this is a problem. Children don't have an accurate perception of the world in a scientific sense, according to them. Scientific views are so different from normal common sense (Einstein, Quantum Theory, Darwin, etc.). This makes it difficult to teach scientific theories to them.
This is hogwash. Children learn by trial and error and learn from their mistakes. They are natural born scientists using the empirical method and induction (as well some deduction after many experiences.) They learn the same way all mammals do. The scientific method is simply a more sophisticated extension of this "naive" common sense approach to understanding the world. They also have basic moral intuitions such as fairness and empathy which, if they were properly educated, would reinforce socialist ideals of equality and non-expoitation in adulthood.
The authors, however, think this intuitive approach leads to a resistance to science and ultimately to belief in things such as ESP, astrology, ghosts, fairies, divination, and creationism. None of these things, by the way, follow from the common sense view of the world any more than do scientific theories, indeed rather less so.
Children have natural developmental stages that they go through. If they are taught properly, at age appropriate levels, there will be no untoward resistance to science education and understanding. Almost all the examples the authors give of childhood scientific resistance is the result of bad educational methods and poor nurturing. If this "resistance" really were "inborn" science would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
The second fact, having, I hope, disposed of the bogus first factoid (what children spontaneously intuitively know), has more merit. This is "how children learn." This basically has to do with the fact that children trust the adults that raise them and tend to believe what they are told as long as it doesn't conflict completely with common sense.
The children of uneducated and ignorant adults will tend to be more ignorant and uneducated that those of knowledgeable educated adults-- and vice versa. This is hardly startling. Take the example of creationism versus evolution. Children trust their parents and their teachers. But if their parents are creationists, other things being equal, the children will likely be so too. This is because they spend far more time around their parents and their like-minded parent's friends, etc., than they do around their science teachers.
The authors hold that the evidence suggests these science resistant people maintain their beliefs for reasons "not necessarily rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments." But this surely a problem of nurture not nature.
The reason, they say, that this nonscientific, or even antiscientific group of people resists scientific rationality is "because they trust the people who say it [the unscientific explanation] is true." All of this can be explained by education, class and culture without recourse to any inborn psychological
propensities to be found in babies.
The authors finally arrive at the amazing conclusion that "recent studies" suggest that children, just as adults, "rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe." And if the educational system has done its job of providing a basic scientific analysis, I think, of the world system for people they will also be able to rely on the objective evidence for an assertion as well.
It is for the same reasons that Marxism is not objectively taught in the US that science is also played down. Namely, there are too many vested interests that benefit from the ignorance of the population. In our class riven society neither science nor a Marxist understanding are in the interests of the ruling corporate elites or the political parties and forces that control the levers of power.
The authors seem to recognize this when they write that unscientific beliefs in the US "are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities." But instead of having a Marxist analysis of why this so in a capitalist society, the authors fall back on the notion that "developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging intuitive expectations." This is a cop out as the so called "clash" can only take place when age inappropriate teaching methods are applied to the education of young children, or anti-scientific (also anti-socialist) attitudes are deliberately cultivated.
It is the fact that our ruling class is not committed to a universal scientific education for children, not "intuitive expectations" that is responsible for the backward educational climate in the US. The fact that the authors don't see that Marxism, or scientific socialism, is as important a part of education as neuroscience and evolutionary biology only shows that many scientists themselves have a resistance to science. Perhaps they should have entitled their paper "Adult Origins of Childhood Resistance to Science."
Finally, antiscientific outlooks, as well as ARM, will only be eliminated by a reorganization of the educational system, especially early childhood education, with an emphasis on independent critical thinking, scientific method, and the banning of religious propaganda.
Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.
Monday, May 21, 2007
TURKEY SHOULD BE IN THE E.U.
.On May 16 Nicolas Sarkozy became president of France. The prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan reacted to Sarkozy's anti-Turkish stance with respect to membership in the EU. Sarkozy doesn't want to let Turkey in because it's a culturally alien Asiatic country, according to him. (And the French are supposed to be rational and enlightened!)
PM Erdogan said: "This approach of Mr. Sarkozy comes from prejudices. Mr. Sarkozy has to overcome these prejudices. Turkey's E.U. membership is the peace project of the 21st century, an alliance of East and West."
The greatest blow that Islamic fundamentalism could get would be for the world's Islamic community to see Europeans welcome Islamic Turkey into the bourgeois democratic EU. It would completely wipe out the "clash of civilizations" nonsense and boost the national democratic aspirations of the people, as opposed to the ideology of fundamentalism, throughout the Muslim world. If would undo a wee bit of the damage done by the Great Leader Dubya and his oil crusade in Iraq.
Thomas Riggins
[based on a report by Sabrina Tavernise in the NYT]
(from PAEditorsBlog)
PM Erdogan said: "This approach of Mr. Sarkozy comes from prejudices. Mr. Sarkozy has to overcome these prejudices. Turkey's E.U. membership is the peace project of the 21st century, an alliance of East and West."
The greatest blow that Islamic fundamentalism could get would be for the world's Islamic community to see Europeans welcome Islamic Turkey into the bourgeois democratic EU. It would completely wipe out the "clash of civilizations" nonsense and boost the national democratic aspirations of the people, as opposed to the ideology of fundamentalism, throughout the Muslim world. If would undo a wee bit of the damage done by the Great Leader Dubya and his oil crusade in Iraq.
Thomas Riggins
[based on a report by Sabrina Tavernise in the NYT]
(from PAEditorsBlog)
Friday, May 18, 2007
STOP THE PRESSES
Thomas Riggins
An interesting sentence is buried in a page six NYT story “Death-Squad Scandal Circles Closer to Colombia’s President” [5-16-07] by Simon Romero.
The death squads are tools of the state and private interests to terrorize and kill the poor (to take their land), the workers ( to prevent unions) and indigenous peoples (to drive them out of areas rich in minerals and oil.) Colombian President Alvaro Uribe (an ultra-right Bush ally) is involved with these squads of right wing murderers.
The sentence I mentioned is the following: “But the scandal over the paramilitary ties now threatens a growing number of legislators, business executives, military leaders and AMERICAN CORPORATIONS over their collaboration with the paramilitary death squads, which are classified as terrorist organizations by the United States State Department.” [ my emphasis- tr]
Well, let’s see what the Great Leader of the War on Terror has to say about his buddy Alvaro and the American companies which are part of his (Bush's) “base.”
[from PAEditorsBlog]
An interesting sentence is buried in a page six NYT story “Death-Squad Scandal Circles Closer to Colombia’s President” [5-16-07] by Simon Romero.
The death squads are tools of the state and private interests to terrorize and kill the poor (to take their land), the workers ( to prevent unions) and indigenous peoples (to drive them out of areas rich in minerals and oil.) Colombian President Alvaro Uribe (an ultra-right Bush ally) is involved with these squads of right wing murderers.
The sentence I mentioned is the following: “But the scandal over the paramilitary ties now threatens a growing number of legislators, business executives, military leaders and AMERICAN CORPORATIONS over their collaboration with the paramilitary death squads, which are classified as terrorist organizations by the United States State Department.” [ my emphasis- tr]
Well, let’s see what the Great Leader of the War on Terror has to say about his buddy Alvaro and the American companies which are part of his (Bush's) “base.”
[from PAEditorsBlog]
LET JERRY FALWELL REST IN PEACE
Thomas Riggins
I’ve been reading a lot of comments on the passing of Falwell. The man had some strange ideas, from my perspective, about Jesus. He opposed civil rights for minorities, supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, and wanted to subject women’s bodies to the control of men, also rights of gay people to be treated as equal human beings was opposed by him. Most of his teachings on these issues don’t square with the teachings of Jesus. It makes me wonder if Falwell ever read the Sermon on the Mount.
The poor man could not help himself. Although he had the good luck to have had an atheist for a grandfather and a non-religious father, he fell under the spell of his bible toting mother. “It was my mother,” he said, who planted the seeds of faith in me from the moment I was born.” Some children never grow up to think for themselves. Falwell, had he been born in the middle east to a Muslim mother or in Japan to a Buddhist one, would certainly have been a Muslim or a Buddhist.
Sen. McCain [ before he saw how many votes he stood to lose and changed his mind] called Falwell one of the “forces for evil” and “agents of intolerance.” “Evil” is too metaphysical a concept for me, but he was a force for “intolerance” with respect to the rights of human beings to live happy and fruitful lives of their own choosing even when they were doing no harm to others. But millions of Americans, unfortunately, have been brought up in this society, just as he was, which has a great historical undertow of racism and violence left over from the era of slavery and the Indian wars.
Falwell and his fans were caught in this undertow: some like Jerry, from birth, and were simply swept along by it into the dark ocean of prejudice, ignorance, and hatred. In his own words he tells us that but for the accident of birth he well might have been a jihadist. The following words are from Falwell, but Osama bin Laden could have written them-- the beliefs are the same: “We are born into a war zone where the forces of God do battle with the forces of evil. Sometimes we get trapped, pinned down in the cross fire. And in the heat of that noisy, distracting battle, two voices call out for us to follow. Satan wants to lead us into death. God wants to lead us into life eternal.”
Falwell, as has bin Laden and many a confused soldier on that battlefield, did not understand what he heard above the din of battle and followed the wrong voice
[from PAEditorsBlog]
I’ve been reading a lot of comments on the passing of Falwell. The man had some strange ideas, from my perspective, about Jesus. He opposed civil rights for minorities, supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, and wanted to subject women’s bodies to the control of men, also rights of gay people to be treated as equal human beings was opposed by him. Most of his teachings on these issues don’t square with the teachings of Jesus. It makes me wonder if Falwell ever read the Sermon on the Mount.
The poor man could not help himself. Although he had the good luck to have had an atheist for a grandfather and a non-religious father, he fell under the spell of his bible toting mother. “It was my mother,” he said, who planted the seeds of faith in me from the moment I was born.” Some children never grow up to think for themselves. Falwell, had he been born in the middle east to a Muslim mother or in Japan to a Buddhist one, would certainly have been a Muslim or a Buddhist.
Sen. McCain [ before he saw how many votes he stood to lose and changed his mind] called Falwell one of the “forces for evil” and “agents of intolerance.” “Evil” is too metaphysical a concept for me, but he was a force for “intolerance” with respect to the rights of human beings to live happy and fruitful lives of their own choosing even when they were doing no harm to others. But millions of Americans, unfortunately, have been brought up in this society, just as he was, which has a great historical undertow of racism and violence left over from the era of slavery and the Indian wars.
Falwell and his fans were caught in this undertow: some like Jerry, from birth, and were simply swept along by it into the dark ocean of prejudice, ignorance, and hatred. In his own words he tells us that but for the accident of birth he well might have been a jihadist. The following words are from Falwell, but Osama bin Laden could have written them-- the beliefs are the same: “We are born into a war zone where the forces of God do battle with the forces of evil. Sometimes we get trapped, pinned down in the cross fire. And in the heat of that noisy, distracting battle, two voices call out for us to follow. Satan wants to lead us into death. God wants to lead us into life eternal.”
Falwell, as has bin Laden and many a confused soldier on that battlefield, did not understand what he heard above the din of battle and followed the wrong voice
[from PAEditorsBlog]
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
BALONEY, BROOKS AND BLAIR
by Thomas Riggins
Reading David Brooks, the ultra-right New York Times op-eder, never fails to amuse. He is able to take the simplest facts and twist them around to such a degree that they come out looking like the exact opposite of what they really mean. A recent case in point is his article on Tony Blair (NYT 5-11-07) which he entitled “The Human Community.”
His opening sentence reflects the “the conventional view” about Tony Blair, a view that is, incidentally, true so far as it goes-- i.e., Tony Blair “was a talented leader whose career was sadly over shadowed by Iraq.” Brooks thinks this view “is absurd.”
Brooks says that Blair wasn’t making an error of judgment when he went into Iraq along with Bush. His decision “grew out of the essence of who he is.” And that would be? Well Tariq Ali says Blair is a second rate politician with a third rate mind. That is one kind of essence.
He jumped into a war that was the result of lies and is responsible, along with Bush, for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. That is the essence of who he is. Now Brooks will pull out the baloney to try and turn this sad and rotten essence into one of shining purity. God will even play a role (via a theologian) in the redemption of a man with the essence of a mass murderer.
We are told that Blair believes that globalization is making us all more dependent on one another and that “the world will flourish only if the international community enforces shared, universal values.” Such values, I presume, as waging wars of aggression and occupation on other people’s countries without the sanction of the UN and clearly in violation of the wishes of the international community.
Actions speak louder than words. Blair believes nothing at all about a world of shared, universal values. He has his own values and if the world begs to differ, too bad.
Where do his values come from? It all began long ago when little Tony was 11 years old. His father had a stroke and Tony was led to the theologian John Macmurray. Brooks quotes Blair. “If you really want to understand what I’m all about you have to take a look at a guy called John Macmurray. It’s all there.”
So, lets take a look. By way of preface I can only say that the late John Macmurray would not take comfort in the thought that he was the inspiration for a war criminal.
There are certain themes running through the theology of Macmurray. One is that action should prevail over thinking. First comes the act, then reflection. Well, Blair did this in Iraq. First invade, then think about the consequences. It's not really a very good philosophy, or in Macmurray's case "theology."
Macmurray has written that science "is characteristically Christian." He calls it, "the intellectual life of faith." But science deals with the physical world and empirical evidence. Faith deals with hopes and unseen non-empirical pseudo-entities. This is also characteristic of Blair who believes in "Iraqi democracy" with reference to a militia dominated fundamentalist Iraqi government. Faith based politics, yes, scientific understanding, no.
Macmurray also bases his thinking on the "God of the Hebrews" (the genocidal demon that was worshiped in Old Testament days) not the God of the Greeks (Zeus had a libido problem but he didn't engage in genocide.) I think philosophical reason is really meant with respect to the Greeks.
More positively, Macmurray was interested in the "human community." For him ""community means a "common life" through religion while "society" means a "common purpose" to be found through "politics." Like many Islamists (and Blair's buddy George Bush), Macmurray thinks politics should be suborned to religion. If Blair is really a Macmurryite he is a strange ally for the US which was founded on the separation of church and state. Maybe not so strange since Britain has a state church and president Bush, in complete violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution has tried to break down the wall of separation between church and state.
Macmurray says life has two aspects. The first is the realm of the "functional" workaday world in which we live, it is a sphere of inequality (this view is amenable to conservative status quo thinking). The second is the realm of the "personal" where human equality reigns. In other words, as human persons we are all equal, but in the real world don't forget to salute officers and bow and scrape before your betters. Or, as Macmurray puts it: "The functional life is for the personal life: the personal life is through the functional life."
One of the great values celebrated by Macmurray is that of "freedom." And now we get to Brooks again, and the "essence" of Tony Blair. Macmurray tells us that: "We can preserve our freedom only by sharing it."
Tariq Ali is right. Only a third rate intellect would interpret this lofty theological abstraction as a license to wage an armed crusade against another people bringing them death and destruction and calling it "freedom."
This is how Brooks tries to dress up Blair's criminality and wretched chauvinistic beliefs. He quotes Blair on the war and aftermath of 9/11: "This is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization [i.e., we are civilized. our enemies are uncivilized]. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world [such as being able to launch aggressive wars of conquest] and those who reject its existence." Yes indeed. Tony Blair's world of war and death, which he shares with president Bush, should be rejected, it is definitely about civilization and Blair is no spokesman for the side of the civilized.
Brooks now outdoes himself in illogicality in describing how Blair concluded he must support Bush's middle eastern crusade. Blair "concluded that Britain had to combat those who would divide the human community even without the support of the multilateral institutions that he cherished."
But the multilateral institutions are the institutions that "the human community" has devised in order to help preserve itself from war and misadventure. What Brooks is saying is that Blair decided he must combat the human community to save the human community. Third rate thinking at its best. Brooks's baloney, on the other hand, is first rate.
Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.
Reading David Brooks, the ultra-right New York Times op-eder, never fails to amuse. He is able to take the simplest facts and twist them around to such a degree that they come out looking like the exact opposite of what they really mean. A recent case in point is his article on Tony Blair (NYT 5-11-07) which he entitled “The Human Community.”
His opening sentence reflects the “the conventional view” about Tony Blair, a view that is, incidentally, true so far as it goes-- i.e., Tony Blair “was a talented leader whose career was sadly over shadowed by Iraq.” Brooks thinks this view “is absurd.”
Brooks says that Blair wasn’t making an error of judgment when he went into Iraq along with Bush. His decision “grew out of the essence of who he is.” And that would be? Well Tariq Ali says Blair is a second rate politician with a third rate mind. That is one kind of essence.
He jumped into a war that was the result of lies and is responsible, along with Bush, for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. That is the essence of who he is. Now Brooks will pull out the baloney to try and turn this sad and rotten essence into one of shining purity. God will even play a role (via a theologian) in the redemption of a man with the essence of a mass murderer.
We are told that Blair believes that globalization is making us all more dependent on one another and that “the world will flourish only if the international community enforces shared, universal values.” Such values, I presume, as waging wars of aggression and occupation on other people’s countries without the sanction of the UN and clearly in violation of the wishes of the international community.
Actions speak louder than words. Blair believes nothing at all about a world of shared, universal values. He has his own values and if the world begs to differ, too bad.
Where do his values come from? It all began long ago when little Tony was 11 years old. His father had a stroke and Tony was led to the theologian John Macmurray. Brooks quotes Blair. “If you really want to understand what I’m all about you have to take a look at a guy called John Macmurray. It’s all there.”
So, lets take a look. By way of preface I can only say that the late John Macmurray would not take comfort in the thought that he was the inspiration for a war criminal.
There are certain themes running through the theology of Macmurray. One is that action should prevail over thinking. First comes the act, then reflection. Well, Blair did this in Iraq. First invade, then think about the consequences. It's not really a very good philosophy, or in Macmurray's case "theology."
Macmurray has written that science "is characteristically Christian." He calls it, "the intellectual life of faith." But science deals with the physical world and empirical evidence. Faith deals with hopes and unseen non-empirical pseudo-entities. This is also characteristic of Blair who believes in "Iraqi democracy" with reference to a militia dominated fundamentalist Iraqi government. Faith based politics, yes, scientific understanding, no.
Macmurray also bases his thinking on the "God of the Hebrews" (the genocidal demon that was worshiped in Old Testament days) not the God of the Greeks (Zeus had a libido problem but he didn't engage in genocide.) I think philosophical reason is really meant with respect to the Greeks.
More positively, Macmurray was interested in the "human community." For him ""community means a "common life" through religion while "society" means a "common purpose" to be found through "politics." Like many Islamists (and Blair's buddy George Bush), Macmurray thinks politics should be suborned to religion. If Blair is really a Macmurryite he is a strange ally for the US which was founded on the separation of church and state. Maybe not so strange since Britain has a state church and president Bush, in complete violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution has tried to break down the wall of separation between church and state.
Macmurray says life has two aspects. The first is the realm of the "functional" workaday world in which we live, it is a sphere of inequality (this view is amenable to conservative status quo thinking). The second is the realm of the "personal" where human equality reigns. In other words, as human persons we are all equal, but in the real world don't forget to salute officers and bow and scrape before your betters. Or, as Macmurray puts it: "The functional life is for the personal life: the personal life is through the functional life."
One of the great values celebrated by Macmurray is that of "freedom." And now we get to Brooks again, and the "essence" of Tony Blair. Macmurray tells us that: "We can preserve our freedom only by sharing it."
Tariq Ali is right. Only a third rate intellect would interpret this lofty theological abstraction as a license to wage an armed crusade against another people bringing them death and destruction and calling it "freedom."
This is how Brooks tries to dress up Blair's criminality and wretched chauvinistic beliefs. He quotes Blair on the war and aftermath of 9/11: "This is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization [i.e., we are civilized. our enemies are uncivilized]. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world [such as being able to launch aggressive wars of conquest] and those who reject its existence." Yes indeed. Tony Blair's world of war and death, which he shares with president Bush, should be rejected, it is definitely about civilization and Blair is no spokesman for the side of the civilized.
Brooks now outdoes himself in illogicality in describing how Blair concluded he must support Bush's middle eastern crusade. Blair "concluded that Britain had to combat those who would divide the human community even without the support of the multilateral institutions that he cherished."
But the multilateral institutions are the institutions that "the human community" has devised in order to help preserve itself from war and misadventure. What Brooks is saying is that Blair decided he must combat the human community to save the human community. Third rate thinking at its best. Brooks's baloney, on the other hand, is first rate.
Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.
Monday, May 14, 2007
BOTSWANA GOVERNMENT RESTRICTS UN ACCESS
For some reason the Botswana government is bound and determined to destroy the culture and way of life of the idigenous Bushmen people by taking their land from them. An African government acting like a colonial power against its own people does not set a good example for handling disputes with indigenous peoples. The Bushmen are the original inhabitants of Botswana, indeed, of all of southern Africa, and their rights should be respected. The government of Botswana should respect its own High Court and should also cooperate with the UN. It should be ashamed to persecute the Bushmen and try to take their land away!
Thomas Riggins
[from PAEditorsBlog]
SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
14 May 2007
BOTSWANA: GOVERNMENT RESTRICTS UN ACCESS
The Botswana government has announced that access to the country for
the top UN human rights spokesman for indigenous peoples will be
restricted.
Survival's director Stephen Corry said today, 'The Botswana
government clearly thinks it has something to hide from the UN
special rapporteur. And indeed it does - despite the Botswana High
Court's decisive ruling in the Bushmen's favour, the government is
still trying to stop them returning to their land.'
[for more info google Survival International]
Thomas Riggins
[from PAEditorsBlog]
SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
14 May 2007
BOTSWANA: GOVERNMENT RESTRICTS UN ACCESS
The Botswana government has announced that access to the country for
the top UN human rights spokesman for indigenous peoples will be
restricted.
Survival's director Stephen Corry said today, 'The Botswana
government clearly thinks it has something to hide from the UN
special rapporteur. And indeed it does - despite the Botswana High
Court's decisive ruling in the Bushmen's favour, the government is
still trying to stop them returning to their land.'
[for more info google Survival International]
Thursday, May 10, 2007
KHALIL GIBRAN AND RADICAL ISLAM
The news reports from New York City indicate that the Khalil Gibran International Academy set up to study Arabic (it is a public school, by the way) is facing opposition from some parents and conservative news columnists who fear it will “promote radical Islam.”
The press should inform the public that Gibran (1883-1931), the author of The Prophet, was an Arab-American of Lebanese descent. He was an artist and a poet. He studied in Paris with the sculptor Rodin, and his poetry influenced JFK, who lifted the line about not asking what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country from one of his works. He was also a Christian.
It seems unlikely that the New York City school system will allow this new public school to become a hot bed of radical Islam.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
The press should inform the public that Gibran (1883-1931), the author of The Prophet, was an Arab-American of Lebanese descent. He was an artist and a poet. He studied in Paris with the sculptor Rodin, and his poetry influenced JFK, who lifted the line about not asking what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country from one of his works. He was also a Christian.
It seems unlikely that the New York City school system will allow this new public school to become a hot bed of radical Islam.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
CAPITALISM, COMMUNISM AND CAT FOOD , PART TWO
Thomas Riggins
This is a follow up to the main article from PA on-line (5-9-07), see article below on this blog. It comes as "Breaking News" from today's Times (5-9-07).
It seems there was another chemical added to animal feed by the Chinese companies involved. This is called cyanuric acid. Its an industrial chemical that some people put in their swimming pools. It is supposed to be non-toxic, but when mixed with melamine (alone or perhaps with other compounds in pet food) a deadly combination results.
Like melamine, cyanuric acid is used to fake the protein content of pet food and animal feed. The Chinese government says that only two big wheat gluten exporting companies are responsible, according to the Times. The two, the Chinese said, "illegally added melamine" to their exports. But other Times reports indicate that up to 25 different companies were involved and that the two big exporters did not actually make any of the feed products.
The government says only the Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company and the Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Company were involved with the melamine. David Barboza, who wrote the Times article, reports that Chinese chemical producers have known for years that cyanuric acid is added to animal food. It is cheaper than melamine and has been "secretly used... to cheat buyers of animal feed." The makers of the chemicals knew, the government certainly knew about it as well, yet it went on for years.
Yu Luwei, who is the general manager of the Juancheng Ouya Chemical Company is quoted as saying, "Cyanuric acid scrap can be added to animal feed. I sell it to fish meal manufacturers and fish farmers. It can also be added to feed for other animals."
An executive at another chemical company said, "I've heard that people add cyanuric acid and melamine to animal feed to boost the protein level," What is meant, is to boost the apparent protein level. Neither product has any protein. In other words these chemicals are used to make counterfeit animal feed.
"The substance is nontoxic," Mr. Yu said, "it's legal to add it to animal feed. The practice has been around for many years. I often sell it to animal feed makers." The Chinese goverment better get on the ball. The "invisible hand" of capitalism should be made to show itself.
Thomas Riggins
This is a follow up to the main article from PA on-line (5-9-07), see article below on this blog. It comes as "Breaking News" from today's Times (5-9-07).
It seems there was another chemical added to animal feed by the Chinese companies involved. This is called cyanuric acid. Its an industrial chemical that some people put in their swimming pools. It is supposed to be non-toxic, but when mixed with melamine (alone or perhaps with other compounds in pet food) a deadly combination results.
Like melamine, cyanuric acid is used to fake the protein content of pet food and animal feed. The Chinese government says that only two big wheat gluten exporting companies are responsible, according to the Times. The two, the Chinese said, "illegally added melamine" to their exports. But other Times reports indicate that up to 25 different companies were involved and that the two big exporters did not actually make any of the feed products.
The government says only the Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company and the Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Company were involved with the melamine. David Barboza, who wrote the Times article, reports that Chinese chemical producers have known for years that cyanuric acid is added to animal food. It is cheaper than melamine and has been "secretly used... to cheat buyers of animal feed." The makers of the chemicals knew, the government certainly knew about it as well, yet it went on for years.
Yu Luwei, who is the general manager of the Juancheng Ouya Chemical Company is quoted as saying, "Cyanuric acid scrap can be added to animal feed. I sell it to fish meal manufacturers and fish farmers. It can also be added to feed for other animals."
An executive at another chemical company said, "I've heard that people add cyanuric acid and melamine to animal feed to boost the protein level," What is meant, is to boost the apparent protein level. Neither product has any protein. In other words these chemicals are used to make counterfeit animal feed.
"The substance is nontoxic," Mr. Yu said, "it's legal to add it to animal feed. The practice has been around for many years. I often sell it to animal feed makers." The Chinese goverment better get on the ball. The "invisible hand" of capitalism should be made to show itself.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
CAPITALISM, COMMUNISM AND CAT FOOD
by Thomas Riggins
So we have recently been reading about all that contaminated cat food (also dog food and feed for some other animals) that had to be recalled because it was full of Chinese wheat gluten. The NY Times reports (5/3/07) that thousands of animals have become sick or died (according to the FDA 4000 dogs and cats have died already). How did it happened?
We all know that capitalists guiding interest is to make the biggest possible profit. They hate regulations (bad for business) and when they are regulated will try to get around the regulations anyway they can.
The Bush administration, very capitalist friendly, has really helped the American capitalists by pushing deregulation, supporting “voluntary compliance” (i.e., no compliance), and failing to use the federal regulatory agencies to really regulate. Thus OSHA doesn’t inspect, the Labor Department doesn’t properly function, we don’t how much mad cow disease is in the country because of the Agriculture Department, unsafe drugs are on the market because of the FDA, etc., across the board. Bush is the best president for business, the worse for people.
Now the Chinese are finding out how capitalism works as well. The Times reported earlier that the same contaminant that is killing American pets is routinely put into people food in China as well as animal feed.
The chemical is melamine. Its has the wonderful property (besides making you sick and maybe killing you) of showing up on food testing not as melamine but as protein-- it is also very cheap. So, if the food product you are making to sell doesn't have enough protein so you could not past government inspection and sell it, just dump some melamine into it, definitely don’t list this in your ingredients, and Presto Change-O, your product now passes with flying colors as good nutritious food (just don’t eat any of it yourself, or, if its pet food, let you own pets near it.)
Even better, just use the melamine in your product because it is so cheap so you don’t have put so much expensive protein in your product in the first place.
This is par for the course for capitalism. The Times tells us that, "A similar practice once took place in the United States and in China involving a related compound called urea, but that compound is now more widely tested for and is banned from certain feeds in the United States."
The Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company, operating under the “its good to get rich slogan” is, the Times says, one of the two companies that sent the tainted wheat gluten to the US.
They got the stuff out of China by labeling it as nonfood so they were not inspected. That means they knew what was going on. They then sold it to the American pet food companies as a food additive. Goodbye Fluffy!
The theory is that the two firms that sold the food additive didn't even make it (although they are on record as having done so). They just bought it from many little companies around China (the Chinese government said 25 other companies were in on it), which indicates that there is wide spread food contamination going on in the country.
"This is simple greed," said Marion Nestle, an NYU professor of public health, food and nutrition. Its really not all that simple. It is rather just how capitalism works. It tries in every way to maximize its profits. That is why deregulation is a bad idea.
Capitalism is an inherently self destructive system, its leads to environmental pollution, wars to gain control of markets and resources, and exploitation of workers and consumers. The more government regulates it the less dangerous it is, but the danger will always be there until the day we can abolish the system altogether.
So we have recently been reading about all that contaminated cat food (also dog food and feed for some other animals) that had to be recalled because it was full of Chinese wheat gluten. The NY Times reports (5/3/07) that thousands of animals have become sick or died (according to the FDA 4000 dogs and cats have died already). How did it happened?
We all know that capitalists guiding interest is to make the biggest possible profit. They hate regulations (bad for business) and when they are regulated will try to get around the regulations anyway they can.
The Bush administration, very capitalist friendly, has really helped the American capitalists by pushing deregulation, supporting “voluntary compliance” (i.e., no compliance), and failing to use the federal regulatory agencies to really regulate. Thus OSHA doesn’t inspect, the Labor Department doesn’t properly function, we don’t how much mad cow disease is in the country because of the Agriculture Department, unsafe drugs are on the market because of the FDA, etc., across the board. Bush is the best president for business, the worse for people.
Now the Chinese are finding out how capitalism works as well. The Times reported earlier that the same contaminant that is killing American pets is routinely put into people food in China as well as animal feed.
The chemical is melamine. Its has the wonderful property (besides making you sick and maybe killing you) of showing up on food testing not as melamine but as protein-- it is also very cheap. So, if the food product you are making to sell doesn't have enough protein so you could not past government inspection and sell it, just dump some melamine into it, definitely don’t list this in your ingredients, and Presto Change-O, your product now passes with flying colors as good nutritious food (just don’t eat any of it yourself, or, if its pet food, let you own pets near it.)
Even better, just use the melamine in your product because it is so cheap so you don’t have put so much expensive protein in your product in the first place.
This is par for the course for capitalism. The Times tells us that, "A similar practice once took place in the United States and in China involving a related compound called urea, but that compound is now more widely tested for and is banned from certain feeds in the United States."
The Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company, operating under the “its good to get rich slogan” is, the Times says, one of the two companies that sent the tainted wheat gluten to the US.
They got the stuff out of China by labeling it as nonfood so they were not inspected. That means they knew what was going on. They then sold it to the American pet food companies as a food additive. Goodbye Fluffy!
The theory is that the two firms that sold the food additive didn't even make it (although they are on record as having done so). They just bought it from many little companies around China (the Chinese government said 25 other companies were in on it), which indicates that there is wide spread food contamination going on in the country.
"This is simple greed," said Marion Nestle, an NYU professor of public health, food and nutrition. Its really not all that simple. It is rather just how capitalism works. It tries in every way to maximize its profits. That is why deregulation is a bad idea.
Capitalism is an inherently self destructive system, its leads to environmental pollution, wars to gain control of markets and resources, and exploitation of workers and consumers. The more government regulates it the less dangerous it is, but the danger will always be there until the day we can abolish the system altogether.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Globalization and Child Deaths
Globalization and Child Deaths
Thomas Riggins
The 5-8-07 New York Times tells us that 28,000 children a day die as a result of disease (easily preventable) and starvation. That is 28,000 X 365 = 10,220,000 children a year. This report was on page A6, the front page was taken up by the problems Paul Wolfowitz is having trying to keep his World Bank job.
The ten million plus number is a great testimony to the successes of globalization. This info is from a report by Save the Children. Here is a quote from one of the report's health experts, David Oot: "In 2007, when we know what to do and how little it costs, that 28,000 kids are still dying each day is just plain wrong."
The World Bank President is more concerned with the fallout from his promotion of his girl friend than with those children, and the big powers, especially the US would rather waste its resources kiiling people in Iraq and elsewhere than helping those dying kids!
It was 25 years ago that the international drive to reduce infant deaths was initiated and there was some success at the start, but of late, the Times reports, "broad progress against infant and child mortality has flagged." Thanks to the US, Iraq has the highest increase in the child death rate-- its rate is up 150% since 1992 due to sanctions and war.
Last year 122,000 under 5s died in Iraq due to "deteriorating health services, rising inflation, and electricity shortages [which] have worsened living conditions" according to the report ("State of the World's Mothers: Saving the Lives of Children Under 5.")
That ten million plus a year is, by the way, worse than any genocide anywhere. It really represents a new kind of genocide, that of the rich industrial nations, the big capitalist powers, against the poor children of the world and their mothers. It is a genocide of indifference at best, at worse it is knowingly allowed to happen because natural resource exploitation and "free" trade, as well as wanting to maintain sources of cheap labor, rank as more important than these children-- cast aside to die as so much surplus population
[Reprinted from PAEditorsBlog]
Thomas Riggins
The 5-8-07 New York Times tells us that 28,000 children a day die as a result of disease (easily preventable) and starvation. That is 28,000 X 365 = 10,220,000 children a year. This report was on page A6, the front page was taken up by the problems Paul Wolfowitz is having trying to keep his World Bank job.
The ten million plus number is a great testimony to the successes of globalization. This info is from a report by Save the Children. Here is a quote from one of the report's health experts, David Oot: "In 2007, when we know what to do and how little it costs, that 28,000 kids are still dying each day is just plain wrong."
The World Bank President is more concerned with the fallout from his promotion of his girl friend than with those children, and the big powers, especially the US would rather waste its resources kiiling people in Iraq and elsewhere than helping those dying kids!
It was 25 years ago that the international drive to reduce infant deaths was initiated and there was some success at the start, but of late, the Times reports, "broad progress against infant and child mortality has flagged." Thanks to the US, Iraq has the highest increase in the child death rate-- its rate is up 150% since 1992 due to sanctions and war.
Last year 122,000 under 5s died in Iraq due to "deteriorating health services, rising inflation, and electricity shortages [which] have worsened living conditions" according to the report ("State of the World's Mothers: Saving the Lives of Children Under 5.")
That ten million plus a year is, by the way, worse than any genocide anywhere. It really represents a new kind of genocide, that of the rich industrial nations, the big capitalist powers, against the poor children of the world and their mothers. It is a genocide of indifference at best, at worse it is knowingly allowed to happen because natural resource exploitation and "free" trade, as well as wanting to maintain sources of cheap labor, rank as more important than these children-- cast aside to die as so much surplus population
[Reprinted from PAEditorsBlog]
Monday, May 07, 2007
HOW BUSH SABOTAGED RECONSTRUCTION IN IRAQ
HOW BUSH SABOTAGED RECONSTRUCTION IN IRAQ
by Thomas Riggins
Tucked away inside the the International Section of Thursday’s New York Times (5-3-07, page 14) is a small piece by Ian Austen in Ottawa (“Iraq Reconstruction Is Doomed, Ex-Chief of Global Fund Says.”)
This little piece shows very clearly how the Bush Administration is its own worse enemy ( we already know it is the enemy of the American and Iraqi people.)
What we find, big surprise, is, that while Bush makes his own “reality,” actual reality has been undercutting any chance for his having a “victory” in Iraq.
The most revealing part of this little piece is the quotes from a gentleman named Michael Bell who was the chairman of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq. Mr. Bell, a Canadian ended his two year stint in March.
This fund is very important. After the US destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, the population (most of whom now say they were better off under Saddam), were thrown upon hard times: no electricity, deteriorating living standards, etc. To keep the support of the people, and thus make an insurgency less likely or, at least, smaller and with less popular support, it was necessary to rapidly extend reconstruction aid to the population.
In order to do this you had to know what you were doing and have some idea about what the Iraqi people really wanted and needed. But the Bushites failed on both counts. They simply did what they wanted to do and assumed because that is what they wanted it would come about and the people would be happy and love us.
Instead our actions fueled the insurgency and destroyed any possibility that we could do meaningful reconstruction in Iraq. What did we do? I will just quote Mr. Bell, who tried his best to use the Fund on behalf of the Iraqi people. If Mr. Bush had just let him do his job the president might not be neck deep in the Big Muddy right now.
“Reconstruction,” Mr. Bell said, “is difficult enough in a relatively pacific environment. In this environment it is almost impossible, if not impossible. Over all, the picture is dire, dire.” He had read a recent report saying that seven big reconstruction “successes” touted by the Bush administration as evidence of its progress were, in fact, defunct. This is really symbolic of Bush’s policy as a whole including General Westmoreland’s, excuse me, I mean General Petraeus's [or is it Gen. Betray US?] big “surge.”
The failure of reconstruction was helped along, according to Mr. Bell, by both the US and UK because, instead of actually laying the foundations for sustainable reconstruction (training people for maintenance, for example) they insisted on expensive flashy propaganda coups, preferring instant gratification and currying domestic support for their war policies, but leaving the Iraqi people out of consideration except for trying to make them think they were getting real improvements.
“The objective,” Bell said, “was to improve the conditions of life for Iraqis through infrastructure so Iraqis would conclude that they were better off and prospering from the new situation. In retrospect, it was too much, to soon.” Since these “projects” did not make the people “better off” or “prosper”, the population became more hostile.
Bush also helped undermine his own propaganda by having as “an overriding objective” turning the infrastructure over to private, rather than public, ownership-- something the Iraqis were not too keen about. No doubt because the contractors were mostly foreign and taking reconstruction money out of Iraq without really providing anything for the Iraqis.
And, growing instability reversed the flow of Iraqi professionals and skilled workers who had returned to help in reconstruction. With no security and ill planned projects, they soon left.
The UK is getting out of Iraq as soon as it can. It declared “victory” (or at least self-management by the Iraqi forces allied with the US and UK) in Basra where British forces are being withdrawn.
“The city,” Bell remarked, “is controlled by gangs. It is self-managing in a very primitive way. It is self-managing if you call a protracted series of microwars in the city normal.” As Basra goes so, the US will find, goes Baghdad.
And don’t blame the pro-US government for the current mess, Bell says.
It's not a case of wanting or not wanting to deliver the goods on reconstruction. The “reality is that nobody can deliver the goods.” This, by the way, I think, is Bush's big problem.
The Iraqi government is dysfunctional and will fall apart the minute the US leaves. But staying only makes matters worse. Staying in a situation that is getting worse runs the risk of having the government fall apart all around you a la Vietnam. What to do? Hope and pray you can hold on until January 2009 and turn the mess over to the next president. Then whatever happens will be his or her fault. What about all the people that will killed in the meantime. Tough petootey!
Particularly upsetting is US behavior. Much of the aid has been wasted and many projects have failed because US officials want to control everything [even though they are ignorant of the language and the feelings of the people.]
The Americans “go in and tell their guys how to do things. It's a microcosm of what the Bush administration has tried to do with the intervention. But you can’t impose mindsets.”
But Bush still thinks he can impose his “mindset” on Iraq and the world. It is a narrow, fundamentalist, ignorant mindset. It is not the mindset of the majority of the American people. The Congress has the opportunity to send it packing. It should do so.
by Thomas Riggins
Tucked away inside the the International Section of Thursday’s New York Times (5-3-07, page 14) is a small piece by Ian Austen in Ottawa (“Iraq Reconstruction Is Doomed, Ex-Chief of Global Fund Says.”)
This little piece shows very clearly how the Bush Administration is its own worse enemy ( we already know it is the enemy of the American and Iraqi people.)
What we find, big surprise, is, that while Bush makes his own “reality,” actual reality has been undercutting any chance for his having a “victory” in Iraq.
The most revealing part of this little piece is the quotes from a gentleman named Michael Bell who was the chairman of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq. Mr. Bell, a Canadian ended his two year stint in March.
This fund is very important. After the US destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, the population (most of whom now say they were better off under Saddam), were thrown upon hard times: no electricity, deteriorating living standards, etc. To keep the support of the people, and thus make an insurgency less likely or, at least, smaller and with less popular support, it was necessary to rapidly extend reconstruction aid to the population.
In order to do this you had to know what you were doing and have some idea about what the Iraqi people really wanted and needed. But the Bushites failed on both counts. They simply did what they wanted to do and assumed because that is what they wanted it would come about and the people would be happy and love us.
Instead our actions fueled the insurgency and destroyed any possibility that we could do meaningful reconstruction in Iraq. What did we do? I will just quote Mr. Bell, who tried his best to use the Fund on behalf of the Iraqi people. If Mr. Bush had just let him do his job the president might not be neck deep in the Big Muddy right now.
“Reconstruction,” Mr. Bell said, “is difficult enough in a relatively pacific environment. In this environment it is almost impossible, if not impossible. Over all, the picture is dire, dire.” He had read a recent report saying that seven big reconstruction “successes” touted by the Bush administration as evidence of its progress were, in fact, defunct. This is really symbolic of Bush’s policy as a whole including General Westmoreland’s, excuse me, I mean General Petraeus's [or is it Gen. Betray US?] big “surge.”
The failure of reconstruction was helped along, according to Mr. Bell, by both the US and UK because, instead of actually laying the foundations for sustainable reconstruction (training people for maintenance, for example) they insisted on expensive flashy propaganda coups, preferring instant gratification and currying domestic support for their war policies, but leaving the Iraqi people out of consideration except for trying to make them think they were getting real improvements.
“The objective,” Bell said, “was to improve the conditions of life for Iraqis through infrastructure so Iraqis would conclude that they were better off and prospering from the new situation. In retrospect, it was too much, to soon.” Since these “projects” did not make the people “better off” or “prosper”, the population became more hostile.
Bush also helped undermine his own propaganda by having as “an overriding objective” turning the infrastructure over to private, rather than public, ownership-- something the Iraqis were not too keen about. No doubt because the contractors were mostly foreign and taking reconstruction money out of Iraq without really providing anything for the Iraqis.
And, growing instability reversed the flow of Iraqi professionals and skilled workers who had returned to help in reconstruction. With no security and ill planned projects, they soon left.
The UK is getting out of Iraq as soon as it can. It declared “victory” (or at least self-management by the Iraqi forces allied with the US and UK) in Basra where British forces are being withdrawn.
“The city,” Bell remarked, “is controlled by gangs. It is self-managing in a very primitive way. It is self-managing if you call a protracted series of microwars in the city normal.” As Basra goes so, the US will find, goes Baghdad.
And don’t blame the pro-US government for the current mess, Bell says.
It's not a case of wanting or not wanting to deliver the goods on reconstruction. The “reality is that nobody can deliver the goods.” This, by the way, I think, is Bush's big problem.
The Iraqi government is dysfunctional and will fall apart the minute the US leaves. But staying only makes matters worse. Staying in a situation that is getting worse runs the risk of having the government fall apart all around you a la Vietnam. What to do? Hope and pray you can hold on until January 2009 and turn the mess over to the next president. Then whatever happens will be his or her fault. What about all the people that will killed in the meantime. Tough petootey!
Particularly upsetting is US behavior. Much of the aid has been wasted and many projects have failed because US officials want to control everything [even though they are ignorant of the language and the feelings of the people.]
The Americans “go in and tell their guys how to do things. It's a microcosm of what the Bush administration has tried to do with the intervention. But you can’t impose mindsets.”
But Bush still thinks he can impose his “mindset” on Iraq and the world. It is a narrow, fundamentalist, ignorant mindset. It is not the mindset of the majority of the American people. The Congress has the opportunity to send it packing. It should do so.
Friday, May 04, 2007
WHALE WATCH
The New York Times reports that the Japanese government has added Humpbacked Whales to the list of whales that can be hunted by their
“scientific whaling fleets.”
In 1977 NASA sent Voyager 1 and 2 into space to travel beyond our solar system to the stars. In 40,000 years Voyager will be near the next star group where it might be found IF there is intelligent life in the neighborhood.
On Voyager is the Golden Record with the greetings from Earth. Among all the greetings are the music of Bach and the song of the Humpbacked Whale. NASA forgot to add a footnote that the Japanese government did not eat Bach.
Thomas Riggins, from PAEditorsBlog
“scientific whaling fleets.”
In 1977 NASA sent Voyager 1 and 2 into space to travel beyond our solar system to the stars. In 40,000 years Voyager will be near the next star group where it might be found IF there is intelligent life in the neighborhood.
On Voyager is the Golden Record with the greetings from Earth. Among all the greetings are the music of Bach and the song of the Humpbacked Whale. NASA forgot to add a footnote that the Japanese government did not eat Bach.
Thomas Riggins, from PAEditorsBlog
HOW TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND DEFEAT THE ULTRA-RIGHT
Psychologists and sexologists have long known that in our society a majority of young white males are conservative right-wingers and also a major market for large over sized cars such as Humvees and SUVs. In other words, they tend to vote, when they bother to vote at all, for the macho right wing candidates of the ultra right and drive gas guzzling, atmosphere polluting cars that increase green house gasses that threaten all life on earth.
How can this large segment of the population be reached and persuaded to abandon its self destructive political behavior (for the right wing politicians do nothing for them except recruit them into the ranks of the unemployed or the military) and its senseless pursuit after bigger and bigger cars and trucks (which financially burden them and leave them in hock to banks and credit card companies.)
The left has to realize that all previous attempts to reach this segment of the population have basically failed unless a major economic depression has taken place. We must become more proactive. We cannot wait for economic collapse or for the preaching of the tenants of Marxism-Leninism to enlighten this strategically important element of the population.
Science offers a solution. Psychologists have established that there is an inverse relation between penis size and the size of an automobile that men typically buy. The same inverse relation also exists between the organ in question and aggressive macho behavior and right wing attitudes.
There is also scientific evidence that when public programs have been established to modify self destructive behavior in individuals, such as free needles being distributed to prevent HIV, and free condoms being given out to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, they have been successful.
Therefore the left must advocate for both public and privately funded programs to provide free penis enhancements to these young destructive white males. Leaflets should be made available at car dealerships and at Republican and other conservative political rallies, public service announcements should be broadcast on Fox TV, the Super Bowl, Nascar events, and on radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh’s. Free penis enlargement clinics should also be established even though Christian fundamentalists will protest this program as one that goes against the Will of God in trying to improve on His creation.
Too much is at stake, we have to take this problem in hand for the sake of future generations!
Thomas Riggins
(reprinted from PAEditorsBlog)
How can this large segment of the population be reached and persuaded to abandon its self destructive political behavior (for the right wing politicians do nothing for them except recruit them into the ranks of the unemployed or the military) and its senseless pursuit after bigger and bigger cars and trucks (which financially burden them and leave them in hock to banks and credit card companies.)
The left has to realize that all previous attempts to reach this segment of the population have basically failed unless a major economic depression has taken place. We must become more proactive. We cannot wait for economic collapse or for the preaching of the tenants of Marxism-Leninism to enlighten this strategically important element of the population.
Science offers a solution. Psychologists have established that there is an inverse relation between penis size and the size of an automobile that men typically buy. The same inverse relation also exists between the organ in question and aggressive macho behavior and right wing attitudes.
There is also scientific evidence that when public programs have been established to modify self destructive behavior in individuals, such as free needles being distributed to prevent HIV, and free condoms being given out to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, they have been successful.
Therefore the left must advocate for both public and privately funded programs to provide free penis enhancements to these young destructive white males. Leaflets should be made available at car dealerships and at Republican and other conservative political rallies, public service announcements should be broadcast on Fox TV, the Super Bowl, Nascar events, and on radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh’s. Free penis enlargement clinics should also be established even though Christian fundamentalists will protest this program as one that goes against the Will of God in trying to improve on His creation.
Too much is at stake, we have to take this problem in hand for the sake of future generations!
Thomas Riggins
(reprinted from PAEditorsBlog)
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
BOOK NOTES: THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Thomas Riggins
“A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility,” by Taner Akcam, translated from Turkish, Metropolitan Books, 483pp., reviewed by Michael Oren, “The New York Review of Books,” May 10, 2007.
This was a good review. The reviewer really liked the book, mostly because of the research done in original Turkish sources. For my part, I appreciated the answers it gave to questions about this genocide that often pop up. Also, there is one big question which still isn’t answered.
But first, what is answered. Yes there was a genocide perpetrated by elements within the Turkish government against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1918. The American ambassador called it “race extermination.”
The Armenians were Christians living within the then Ottoman Empire. The Turks had been seeing their Empire broken up and take by the Christian West piecemeal for several centuries and they snapped and took out their frustrations on the Armenians since they could not do anything about the Russians, German, French, British, etc. who were picking them apart.
The Genocide has much in common with that of the Nazi’s thirty years later. It was sanctioned by powerful elements within the government, it was hidden from the public and done in secret “without the knowledge of the cabinet or the parliament.” It was seen as a final solution to the problem of an alien un-Turkish race living in Turkey, and it was cruel and inhumane. 1.5 million were killed men, women, babies, children, old people, without mercy.
Ataturk said it was a “shameful act” but, the reviewer says, he held that “the Turkish nation bore no collective responsibility” for it. The evidence suggests that it was only some elements in the government that carried it out-- some officials along with “provincial governors and gendarmes.”
The reviewer says, that unlike Germany, “the Republic of Turkey has never admitted its part in the mass murder of Armenians.” But there was no Republic when this happened. It was done by Ottoman officials at the end of the Ottoman Empire (and hidden from the cabinet and parliament.) The Republic overthrew Ottoman rule years later.
This Is what I don’t understand. Why the Turkish government doesn’t just admit that this was an Ottoman genocide [I’m not talking about “collective guilt”] and try to make up with the Armenians? What is the point of denying it ever happened (i.e., that it was genocide)? It makes Turkey look like it is acting in bad faith. It is surely correct to think that unless the Turks are mature enough to face their own history they will never have a fully bourgeois democratic government. The author writes, “Only full integration of Turkey’s past can set the country on the path to democracy.”
[Reprinted from PAEditorsBlog]
Thomas Riggins
“A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility,” by Taner Akcam, translated from Turkish, Metropolitan Books, 483pp., reviewed by Michael Oren, “The New York Review of Books,” May 10, 2007.
This was a good review. The reviewer really liked the book, mostly because of the research done in original Turkish sources. For my part, I appreciated the answers it gave to questions about this genocide that often pop up. Also, there is one big question which still isn’t answered.
But first, what is answered. Yes there was a genocide perpetrated by elements within the Turkish government against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1918. The American ambassador called it “race extermination.”
The Armenians were Christians living within the then Ottoman Empire. The Turks had been seeing their Empire broken up and take by the Christian West piecemeal for several centuries and they snapped and took out their frustrations on the Armenians since they could not do anything about the Russians, German, French, British, etc. who were picking them apart.
The Genocide has much in common with that of the Nazi’s thirty years later. It was sanctioned by powerful elements within the government, it was hidden from the public and done in secret “without the knowledge of the cabinet or the parliament.” It was seen as a final solution to the problem of an alien un-Turkish race living in Turkey, and it was cruel and inhumane. 1.5 million were killed men, women, babies, children, old people, without mercy.
Ataturk said it was a “shameful act” but, the reviewer says, he held that “the Turkish nation bore no collective responsibility” for it. The evidence suggests that it was only some elements in the government that carried it out-- some officials along with “provincial governors and gendarmes.”
The reviewer says, that unlike Germany, “the Republic of Turkey has never admitted its part in the mass murder of Armenians.” But there was no Republic when this happened. It was done by Ottoman officials at the end of the Ottoman Empire (and hidden from the cabinet and parliament.) The Republic overthrew Ottoman rule years later.
This Is what I don’t understand. Why the Turkish government doesn’t just admit that this was an Ottoman genocide [I’m not talking about “collective guilt”] and try to make up with the Armenians? What is the point of denying it ever happened (i.e., that it was genocide)? It makes Turkey look like it is acting in bad faith. It is surely correct to think that unless the Turks are mature enough to face their own history they will never have a fully bourgeois democratic government. The author writes, “Only full integration of Turkey’s past can set the country on the path to democracy.”
[Reprinted from PAEditorsBlog]
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Quotes and Notes: PA Editor's Blog April 2007
PAEDITORSBLOG ARCHIVES APRIL 2007
The following comments and brief remarks are from the new editor's blog instituted by PA Magazine.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Great Quote But Who Said It?
The May '07 Atlantic Monthly has a bit on page 30: "Stalin Was Right." It begins as follows: " 'A single death is a tragedy,' Joseph Stalin said. 'A million is a statistic.'" It has become almost an established "fact" that Stalin said this. But did he? I think not. It doesn't appear in any of his works or speechs, nor in the memoirs of people who knew him. A check of the internet will reveal that Russian historians don't know anything about this quote as being from JS. It is never given with an attribution. "JS said this while beating his mother as reported by so and so." So beware! This is a quote that appears to be completely bogus. Hey, if anyone knows the source-- let me know: for the sake of historical accuracy. Until then,when you read it in an article or posting as from JS you can assume the author hasn't done his homework.
Thomas Riggins
Sunday, April 8, 2007
The American People Are Pissed Off
I just watched Sunday NBC News-- the polls show 57% of the American people are pissed off at the way the Democrats in Congress are treating the war in Iraq. Thank goodness that 64% are pissed off at Bush. I think we should rally around our sloga"Out Now." Leave it to the Democrats-- by 2008 they will be neck on neck with their fellow monopoly capitalists the Republicans!
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Monday, April 9, 2007
Dump Don Imus
Racism doesn't belong on the airwaves folks. Google the NOW site and add your voice to the dump Imus movement.
or click here
Posted by Thomas Riggins
.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Don Imus: Human Sacrifice?
Radio Racist Don Imus has been shot down in flames. Does the mass media get it. If the New York Times is any indication, the answer is no. The Business day section 4-13-07 has an analysis by David Carr "Flying Solo Past the Point of No Return" [the implication that Imus is "solo" when in fact radio racism is entrenched in this country is ludicrous.]
The gist of the article can be found in these two quotes:
""By seeking absolution from people with their own political agenda [Sharpton and Jackson] , Mr. Imus lost custody of his apology."
"Mr. Imus never caught a breath because he was in the middle of a 24-hour news cycle that kept him in the cross hairs. Its the kind of media ceremony that generally ends in a human sacrifice."
Carr doesn't get it. It wasn't Sharpton's political agenda nor the news frenzy that brought Imus down. It wasn't even his racism, which is shared by most radio jocks, it was the outrage of millions of people who wrote letters, sent emails, and made phone calls protesting the racially and sexually vicious remarks that came out of Imus's mouth.
Without this outpouring of the people's rage Imus would still be on the air. I can understand why the mass media wants to play this down. The ruling class fears nothing more that a mass awakening of the people in this country. The left must keep up the struggle and remind everyone that Imus's firing is the beginning not the end of this sordid affair.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Beginning of the End
So Bush's surge to make Baghdad peaceful has resulted in the Parliament in the heart of the Green Zone being bombed. Now they can't even protect themseves in their maximun security area. Let's see a year from now, if the Green Zone is overrun with
suicide bombers, where the U.S. generals and Iraqi quislings will be hanging out.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Monday, April 16, 2007
The German Army After Hitler-- what has it learned?
Not much! I watched the news the other night (April 14) to find the German Army ( part of NATO) when it trains its troops says -- think like you are shooting Blacks in the Bronx. Don't think this is an isolated instance! The Times says we have to improve the picture of the Bronx! I’m sorry-- when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union he said- treat them as Red Indians. Its not the Bronx that has to improve its image. Its the residual Nazism that is still part of the German military, especially in its officer corps.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
CHIMPS AND HUMANS
Check out the NY Times Science section 4-17-07 for an article by James Noble Wilford (“Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter"). The primatologists have a new consensus about chimpanzees-- they have emotions and culture. Here are some highlights of the article:
1. Chimps make spears to hunt other primates (looks like our bad habits
go back away):
2. They use rocks to smash open nuts (the oldest chimp hammers yet found date to 2300 BC):
3. [Here is where they beat humans]-- the numbers 1 thru 9 can be randomly scattered over a computer screen (1, 2, 3, etc.), the Chimp get to look for a split second, the screen goes blank and the chimp can push the number buttons and recreate the random pattern by the numbers in order. This is something humans can’t do! Its is an immediate memory recall after a split second, something humans have lost in our evolutionary development. [I don’t know if Chimps are ready for computers but it must come in handy somehow.]
4. Chimps are caring. A chimp by the name of Knuckles was disabled by cerebral palsy. He had to get by as best he could in his group and, “No fellow chimp was seen to take advantage of his disability.” He was even “gently groomed” by the alpha male. [This also looks like an improvement on us.]
This research is important because the chimps are our nearest surviving relatives (our genome only differs by a little over 1%) so we can learn a lot about ourselves and our ancestors by knowing more about chimps.
The problem is they are on the way out! They are being killed for bush meat (this is quasi-canabalistic), and their habitat is being destroyed. In 1960 there a million chimps living in Africa. Today, there are about 150,000 and they are in decline.
I doubt we can save ourselves if we can’t save our closest relatives and evolutionary cousins
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
A Note on "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
David Morgan has a brief review of Ali’s book in the TLS for April 6, 2007.
He thinks it deserves to be read just for her life story. Born in Somalia (1969) Ali was subjected to genital mutilation [Morgan calls it “female circumcision”], ended up living with her family in exile in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya where she was, for a short time, a militant Islamicist. Eventually she fled to Holland to escape an arranged marriage, became politically active and ended up in the Dutch parliament. She is now in the US.
She has abandoned religion and is actively hostile to Islam as she experienced it. Morgan, and others, point out, however, that in her books (earlier she wrote “The Caged Virgin”) she over generalizes her experiences and applies them to the entire Muslim world. It would be as if one were to judge all Christians by how such nominal Christians as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell act.
She thinks 9/11 was caused “by Islam” and by Islam she means the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia, which the vast majority of the Islamic world rejects as extremist, even if President Bush holds hands with it. Morgan concludes that Ali's book “is so simplistic” that it “will contribute less than it could have towards” educating people about Islam.
Morgan fails to mention that Ali is now a fellow at the discredited American Enterprise Institute which is less a “think tank” (very little real thinking goes on there) than a propaganda tool funded by the most reactionary corporations and political forces in the country.
As long as she is associated with this neocon outfit she will, in my view, lack any moral or political credibility.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
jtrThursday, April 19, 2007
PERUVIAN GOVERNMENT IGNORES PLIGHT OF INDIANS
Thomas Riggins
The Peruvian government is sitting by while illegal loggers are invading parts of the Amazon rain forest supposedly set aside as Indian reserves. In the 1990s two hitherto unknown tribes were “discovered” by loggers cutting down mahogany trees for the US market.
They are the Murunahua and Mashco-Piro people. These people have no immunity to diseases of European origin so, just as in the days of Columbus and Pizarro, 50% of the Murunahua died after the initial contact.
The government set up two reserves in 1997 (on paper) to “protect” the survivors. After the die off, many Indians fled deep into the forest to avoid contact.
The mahogany market is booming (90% of the illegal trade goes to the US). The loggers are invading the Indian reserves and again coming into contact with the surviving Indians (the total for both tribes is about 600 people.)
One expert predicted the Indians would be totally wiped out in ten years if the do nothing Peruvian government doesn’t prevent logging in the reserves.
Its simple. Money vs the lives of these people who have only recently come into contact with our civilization. Who do you think will win-- the Indians or the US lumber market?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Follow Up Info on Peruvian Indians from Survival International
SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
23 April 2006
PERU: OIL CHIEF - DO UNCONTACTED TRIBES REALLY EXIST?
The president of Perupetro, the government body responsible for granting oil exploration licences, has caused outrage after calling into doubt the existence of uncontacted Indian tribes in the Peruvian Amazon.
The comments come after the Peruvian government recently opened up 70% of its rainforest to oil exploration. Some of this territory is inhabited by uncontacted tribes. A vast amount of evidence for their existence has been collected by Survival, local indigenous organisations and other researchers going back decades, ranging from the testimonies of other Indians to sightings, encounters, photographs, and even reports of violent clashes with loggers and oil workers.
Yet Perupetro's president, Daniel Saba, said during an interview on Peruvian TV, 'It's absurd to say there are uncontacted peoples when no one has seen them. So, who are these uncontacted tribes people are talking about?'
The uncontacted Indians have no immunity to outsiders' diseases because of their isolation from the rest of society and any form of contact, no matter how brief, can be fatal. Following oil exploration on their land in the 1980s, more than 50% of the Nahua tribe died.
Survival's director, Stephen Corry, said today, 'Doubtless Mr Saba would much rather there were no uncontacted Indians in the areas where he wants to explore for oil. Declaring they don't exist at all, however, is a shameful self-fulfilling prophecy. If Perupetro allows companies to go in, it's likely to destroy the Indians completely and then they really won't exist.'
-ENDS-
For further information contact Miriam Ross on (+44) (0)20 7687 8734 or email mr@survival-international.org
To read this press release online visit http://survival-international.org/news.php?id=2371
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Monday, April 23, 2007
HUMANITARIAN AID IS NEVER A CRIME
Thomas Riggins
Over 5000 people have died in the deserts of the Mexican-US border. NAFTA has resulted in the ruin of 1000s of Mexican peasant farmers who cannot compete with US government subsidized American agriculture. Economic necessity is driving tens of thousands of Mexicans to cross over into territory that was taken from the Mexican people by the US in a war of aggression in the 19th century. The US government is trying to prevent humanitarian aid that will help save people's lives. No More Deaths is an organization that goes out into the desert to rescue stranded people. This group has been targeted by the Bush administration which seems to go out of its way to oppose any group that shows itself to be in favor of simple human decency.
For more information google nomoredeaths.org
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
WE ARE ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS
Thomas Riggins
The magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (“Science” 20 April 2007) reported on the March meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Philadelphia.
The latest scientific evidence, based on DNA analysis, indicates that the original population of Europe was a brown skinned people of African origin. These people were the descendants of Africans who migrated to Europe tens of thousands of years ago.
These people are still living in Europe, only now they are a pale skinned African people instead of brown skinned. Pale skin can use sunlight better than brown skin to manufacture vitamin D and this vitamin was harder to come by in Europe naturally than in Africa. Also the Africans in Europe had to cover themselves more due to the weather and had less exposed skin to make the needed vitamin.
As a result there was a gene mutation favoring pale skin. Calculations of mutation rates and DNA analysis indicate that this gene began to rapidly spread in Europe and that by about 10,000 BC the European Africans were pale skinned instead of Brown skinned.
The USA has been colonized by people from all over the world, Africa, Europe, Asia, and originally by Asians, also of African descent, now called Amerindians.
So lets stop calling ourselves Italian Americans, Anglo Americans, Irish Americans, Spanish Americans, Russian Americans, etc. Italy, England, Ireland, Spain, Russia, etc., were only pit stops on our way from the African homeland. We are all AfrIcan Americans.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
OSHA FALLS DOWN ON JOB
The Headline says it all: “OSHA Leaves Worker Safety Largely in Hands of Industry.”
Thomas Riggins
The 4-25-07 New York Times tells the story of a rare potentially deadly lung disease that is showing up in workers at popcorn plants using the food flavoring diacetyl. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, set up to protect worker’s health, has become (under Bush) anti-worker and pro business regardless of the evidence of wrong doing by business interests and factory owners. OSHA is not regulating the use of diacetyl-- staying loyal to Bush’s ideal of Profits before People. How do Republicans get any votes from working people?
“The people at OSHA have no interest in running a regulatory agency,” Dr. D. Michaels, an expert on worker safety, is quoted by the Times as saying. The scientific evidence indicates that diacetyl is responsible for potentially deadly diseases in working people. Why isn’t it regulated? The head of OSHA (Edwin G. Foulke Jr.,) gives the standard bushite response whenever the administration wants to dump on the American people and give a hand to the big vested interests that own the Republicans. “The science is murky,” he said.
Its murky just as it is for global warming, or the value of stem cell research or how the world got here with all the different life forms. Its not “murky” for the leading doctors and scientists who have studied the issue. The real reason is that Foulke doesn’t want, it appears to me, to inconvenience the rich corporations that bankroll the Republican party.
The other reason, after the great respect shown for science (if not for scientists), is that Bushies also advocate a “voluntary compliance policy.” They think that is more workable than government regulations against free enterprise. If “voluntary compliance” is so great, why don’t they adopt that policy in the “war on drugs” and “illegal immigration.” The government could save a lot money and maybe take better care of wounded veterans.
Monday, April 30, 2007
DEMOCRACY AT WORK?
A new poll by CBS News and The New York Times shows that 66% of the American people favor tougher gun control laws. The breakdown by party shows that majorities in both major parties (78% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans) want stiffer laws. Despite this, neither party in considering reigning in our out of control gun culture. They are sitting on their hands waiting for the next Virginia Tech to come along. How can the Democratic Party call itself "democratic" while ignoring the wishes of such large majorities both in the country and their own party? Why are they afraid of the NRA when they have such mass support for stricter laws? If they come out of the 2008 elections with solid majorities, we must demand that they take action. Meanwhile, they should take some polls themselves. These majorities indicate that gun control may actually be viable a campaign issue.
Thomas Riggins
The following comments and brief remarks are from the new editor's blog instituted by PA Magazine.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Great Quote But Who Said It?
The May '07 Atlantic Monthly has a bit on page 30: "Stalin Was Right." It begins as follows: " 'A single death is a tragedy,' Joseph Stalin said. 'A million is a statistic.'" It has become almost an established "fact" that Stalin said this. But did he? I think not. It doesn't appear in any of his works or speechs, nor in the memoirs of people who knew him. A check of the internet will reveal that Russian historians don't know anything about this quote as being from JS. It is never given with an attribution. "JS said this while beating his mother as reported by so and so." So beware! This is a quote that appears to be completely bogus. Hey, if anyone knows the source-- let me know: for the sake of historical accuracy. Until then,when you read it in an article or posting as from JS you can assume the author hasn't done his homework.
Thomas Riggins
Sunday, April 8, 2007
The American People Are Pissed Off
I just watched Sunday NBC News-- the polls show 57% of the American people are pissed off at the way the Democrats in Congress are treating the war in Iraq. Thank goodness that 64% are pissed off at Bush. I think we should rally around our sloga"Out Now." Leave it to the Democrats-- by 2008 they will be neck on neck with their fellow monopoly capitalists the Republicans!
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Monday, April 9, 2007
Dump Don Imus
Racism doesn't belong on the airwaves folks. Google the NOW site and add your voice to the dump Imus movement.
or click here
Posted by Thomas Riggins
.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Don Imus: Human Sacrifice?
Radio Racist Don Imus has been shot down in flames. Does the mass media get it. If the New York Times is any indication, the answer is no. The Business day section 4-13-07 has an analysis by David Carr "Flying Solo Past the Point of No Return" [the implication that Imus is "solo" when in fact radio racism is entrenched in this country is ludicrous.]
The gist of the article can be found in these two quotes:
""By seeking absolution from people with their own political agenda [Sharpton and Jackson] , Mr. Imus lost custody of his apology."
"Mr. Imus never caught a breath because he was in the middle of a 24-hour news cycle that kept him in the cross hairs. Its the kind of media ceremony that generally ends in a human sacrifice."
Carr doesn't get it. It wasn't Sharpton's political agenda nor the news frenzy that brought Imus down. It wasn't even his racism, which is shared by most radio jocks, it was the outrage of millions of people who wrote letters, sent emails, and made phone calls protesting the racially and sexually vicious remarks that came out of Imus's mouth.
Without this outpouring of the people's rage Imus would still be on the air. I can understand why the mass media wants to play this down. The ruling class fears nothing more that a mass awakening of the people in this country. The left must keep up the struggle and remind everyone that Imus's firing is the beginning not the end of this sordid affair.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Beginning of the End
So Bush's surge to make Baghdad peaceful has resulted in the Parliament in the heart of the Green Zone being bombed. Now they can't even protect themseves in their maximun security area. Let's see a year from now, if the Green Zone is overrun with
suicide bombers, where the U.S. generals and Iraqi quislings will be hanging out.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Monday, April 16, 2007
The German Army After Hitler-- what has it learned?
Not much! I watched the news the other night (April 14) to find the German Army ( part of NATO) when it trains its troops says -- think like you are shooting Blacks in the Bronx. Don't think this is an isolated instance! The Times says we have to improve the picture of the Bronx! I’m sorry-- when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union he said- treat them as Red Indians. Its not the Bronx that has to improve its image. Its the residual Nazism that is still part of the German military, especially in its officer corps.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
CHIMPS AND HUMANS
Check out the NY Times Science section 4-17-07 for an article by James Noble Wilford (“Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter"). The primatologists have a new consensus about chimpanzees-- they have emotions and culture. Here are some highlights of the article:
1. Chimps make spears to hunt other primates (looks like our bad habits
go back away):
2. They use rocks to smash open nuts (the oldest chimp hammers yet found date to 2300 BC):
3. [Here is where they beat humans]-- the numbers 1 thru 9 can be randomly scattered over a computer screen (1, 2, 3, etc.), the Chimp get to look for a split second, the screen goes blank and the chimp can push the number buttons and recreate the random pattern by the numbers in order. This is something humans can’t do! Its is an immediate memory recall after a split second, something humans have lost in our evolutionary development. [I don’t know if Chimps are ready for computers but it must come in handy somehow.]
4. Chimps are caring. A chimp by the name of Knuckles was disabled by cerebral palsy. He had to get by as best he could in his group and, “No fellow chimp was seen to take advantage of his disability.” He was even “gently groomed” by the alpha male. [This also looks like an improvement on us.]
This research is important because the chimps are our nearest surviving relatives (our genome only differs by a little over 1%) so we can learn a lot about ourselves and our ancestors by knowing more about chimps.
The problem is they are on the way out! They are being killed for bush meat (this is quasi-canabalistic), and their habitat is being destroyed. In 1960 there a million chimps living in Africa. Today, there are about 150,000 and they are in decline.
I doubt we can save ourselves if we can’t save our closest relatives and evolutionary cousins
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
A Note on "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
David Morgan has a brief review of Ali’s book in the TLS for April 6, 2007.
He thinks it deserves to be read just for her life story. Born in Somalia (1969) Ali was subjected to genital mutilation [Morgan calls it “female circumcision”], ended up living with her family in exile in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya where she was, for a short time, a militant Islamicist. Eventually she fled to Holland to escape an arranged marriage, became politically active and ended up in the Dutch parliament. She is now in the US.
She has abandoned religion and is actively hostile to Islam as she experienced it. Morgan, and others, point out, however, that in her books (earlier she wrote “The Caged Virgin”) she over generalizes her experiences and applies them to the entire Muslim world. It would be as if one were to judge all Christians by how such nominal Christians as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell act.
She thinks 9/11 was caused “by Islam” and by Islam she means the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia, which the vast majority of the Islamic world rejects as extremist, even if President Bush holds hands with it. Morgan concludes that Ali's book “is so simplistic” that it “will contribute less than it could have towards” educating people about Islam.
Morgan fails to mention that Ali is now a fellow at the discredited American Enterprise Institute which is less a “think tank” (very little real thinking goes on there) than a propaganda tool funded by the most reactionary corporations and political forces in the country.
As long as she is associated with this neocon outfit she will, in my view, lack any moral or political credibility.
Posted by Thomas Riggins
jtrThursday, April 19, 2007
PERUVIAN GOVERNMENT IGNORES PLIGHT OF INDIANS
Thomas Riggins
The Peruvian government is sitting by while illegal loggers are invading parts of the Amazon rain forest supposedly set aside as Indian reserves. In the 1990s two hitherto unknown tribes were “discovered” by loggers cutting down mahogany trees for the US market.
They are the Murunahua and Mashco-Piro people. These people have no immunity to diseases of European origin so, just as in the days of Columbus and Pizarro, 50% of the Murunahua died after the initial contact.
The government set up two reserves in 1997 (on paper) to “protect” the survivors. After the die off, many Indians fled deep into the forest to avoid contact.
The mahogany market is booming (90% of the illegal trade goes to the US). The loggers are invading the Indian reserves and again coming into contact with the surviving Indians (the total for both tribes is about 600 people.)
One expert predicted the Indians would be totally wiped out in ten years if the do nothing Peruvian government doesn’t prevent logging in the reserves.
Its simple. Money vs the lives of these people who have only recently come into contact with our civilization. Who do you think will win-- the Indians or the US lumber market?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Follow Up Info on Peruvian Indians from Survival International
SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
23 April 2006
PERU: OIL CHIEF - DO UNCONTACTED TRIBES REALLY EXIST?
The president of Perupetro, the government body responsible for granting oil exploration licences, has caused outrage after calling into doubt the existence of uncontacted Indian tribes in the Peruvian Amazon.
The comments come after the Peruvian government recently opened up 70% of its rainforest to oil exploration. Some of this territory is inhabited by uncontacted tribes. A vast amount of evidence for their existence has been collected by Survival, local indigenous organisations and other researchers going back decades, ranging from the testimonies of other Indians to sightings, encounters, photographs, and even reports of violent clashes with loggers and oil workers.
Yet Perupetro's president, Daniel Saba, said during an interview on Peruvian TV, 'It's absurd to say there are uncontacted peoples when no one has seen them. So, who are these uncontacted tribes people are talking about?'
The uncontacted Indians have no immunity to outsiders' diseases because of their isolation from the rest of society and any form of contact, no matter how brief, can be fatal. Following oil exploration on their land in the 1980s, more than 50% of the Nahua tribe died.
Survival's director, Stephen Corry, said today, 'Doubtless Mr Saba would much rather there were no uncontacted Indians in the areas where he wants to explore for oil. Declaring they don't exist at all, however, is a shameful self-fulfilling prophecy. If Perupetro allows companies to go in, it's likely to destroy the Indians completely and then they really won't exist.'
-ENDS-
For further information contact Miriam Ross on (+44) (0)20 7687 8734 or email mr@survival-international.org
To read this press release online visit http://survival-international.org/news.php?id=2371
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Monday, April 23, 2007
HUMANITARIAN AID IS NEVER A CRIME
Thomas Riggins
Over 5000 people have died in the deserts of the Mexican-US border. NAFTA has resulted in the ruin of 1000s of Mexican peasant farmers who cannot compete with US government subsidized American agriculture. Economic necessity is driving tens of thousands of Mexicans to cross over into territory that was taken from the Mexican people by the US in a war of aggression in the 19th century. The US government is trying to prevent humanitarian aid that will help save people's lives. No More Deaths is an organization that goes out into the desert to rescue stranded people. This group has been targeted by the Bush administration which seems to go out of its way to oppose any group that shows itself to be in favor of simple human decency.
For more information google nomoredeaths.org
Posted by Thomas Riggins
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
WE ARE ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS
Thomas Riggins
The magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (“Science” 20 April 2007) reported on the March meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Philadelphia.
The latest scientific evidence, based on DNA analysis, indicates that the original population of Europe was a brown skinned people of African origin. These people were the descendants of Africans who migrated to Europe tens of thousands of years ago.
These people are still living in Europe, only now they are a pale skinned African people instead of brown skinned. Pale skin can use sunlight better than brown skin to manufacture vitamin D and this vitamin was harder to come by in Europe naturally than in Africa. Also the Africans in Europe had to cover themselves more due to the weather and had less exposed skin to make the needed vitamin.
As a result there was a gene mutation favoring pale skin. Calculations of mutation rates and DNA analysis indicate that this gene began to rapidly spread in Europe and that by about 10,000 BC the European Africans were pale skinned instead of Brown skinned.
The USA has been colonized by people from all over the world, Africa, Europe, Asia, and originally by Asians, also of African descent, now called Amerindians.
So lets stop calling ourselves Italian Americans, Anglo Americans, Irish Americans, Spanish Americans, Russian Americans, etc. Italy, England, Ireland, Spain, Russia, etc., were only pit stops on our way from the African homeland. We are all AfrIcan Americans.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
OSHA FALLS DOWN ON JOB
The Headline says it all: “OSHA Leaves Worker Safety Largely in Hands of Industry.”
Thomas Riggins
The 4-25-07 New York Times tells the story of a rare potentially deadly lung disease that is showing up in workers at popcorn plants using the food flavoring diacetyl. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, set up to protect worker’s health, has become (under Bush) anti-worker and pro business regardless of the evidence of wrong doing by business interests and factory owners. OSHA is not regulating the use of diacetyl-- staying loyal to Bush’s ideal of Profits before People. How do Republicans get any votes from working people?
“The people at OSHA have no interest in running a regulatory agency,” Dr. D. Michaels, an expert on worker safety, is quoted by the Times as saying. The scientific evidence indicates that diacetyl is responsible for potentially deadly diseases in working people. Why isn’t it regulated? The head of OSHA (Edwin G. Foulke Jr.,) gives the standard bushite response whenever the administration wants to dump on the American people and give a hand to the big vested interests that own the Republicans. “The science is murky,” he said.
Its murky just as it is for global warming, or the value of stem cell research or how the world got here with all the different life forms. Its not “murky” for the leading doctors and scientists who have studied the issue. The real reason is that Foulke doesn’t want, it appears to me, to inconvenience the rich corporations that bankroll the Republican party.
The other reason, after the great respect shown for science (if not for scientists), is that Bushies also advocate a “voluntary compliance policy.” They think that is more workable than government regulations against free enterprise. If “voluntary compliance” is so great, why don’t they adopt that policy in the “war on drugs” and “illegal immigration.” The government could save a lot money and maybe take better care of wounded veterans.
Monday, April 30, 2007
DEMOCRACY AT WORK?
A new poll by CBS News and The New York Times shows that 66% of the American people favor tougher gun control laws. The breakdown by party shows that majorities in both major parties (78% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans) want stiffer laws. Despite this, neither party in considering reigning in our out of control gun culture. They are sitting on their hands waiting for the next Virginia Tech to come along. How can the Democratic Party call itself "democratic" while ignoring the wishes of such large majorities both in the country and their own party? Why are they afraid of the NRA when they have such mass support for stricter laws? If they come out of the 2008 elections with solid majorities, we must demand that they take action. Meanwhile, they should take some polls themselves. These majorities indicate that gun control may actually be viable a campaign issue.
Thomas Riggins
Monday, April 30, 2007
"ARE WE BORN MORAL?"
SOME COMMENTS ON JOHN GRAY’S “ARE WE BORN MORAL?”
by Thomas Riggins
The above named article by John Gray appears in The New York Review of Books for May 10, 2007. It is a critical commentary on two new books-- Marc D. Hauser’s “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong” (Ecco, 458pp.) and Frans de Waal, et al, “Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved” (Princeton University Press, 209pp.)
I am only going to comment on the first book as I have previously discussed de Waal in “Marxism, Monkeys and Morality” which is in the archive.
Gray makes an important point early on in his article, and that is, that if evolution is correct, then the human capacity for morality must have come about “in some part from evolutionary processes.” Some might argue, I think, that this is true but all those processes arose after we split from the common ancestor we share with the chimps so that, as a result, morality is a purely human affair restricted to the genus Homo if not to our species alone.
There is evidence, however, that human morality can be traced back to our primate ancestors. This was Darwin’s view, and Gray quotes the following passage from “The Descent of Man”: “Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts.... would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed or nearly as well developed, as in man.”
And, Gray maintains, the idea that morality is something unique to humanity is ultimately based on the view that we are “exempt from the evolutionary laws that govern other animals.” Hauser, however, doesn't share this view. He thinks that "both moral judgment and behavior are largely the product of unconscious [inherited] processes."
He thinks, in other words, "that humans have an inborn moral faculty, parts of which they share with other animals." This is based on his research (he a professor of psychology at Harvard) on monkeys and other primates. I should point out that there is evidence of empathy, compassion, social awareness, tool use, sympathy and sharing exhibited by monkeys and chimps. Human moral systems are based on such feelings and behaviors and it is perfectly rational and scientific to see our moral systems as part of an evolutionary continuum reaching back and deriving from our prehuman ancient primate ancestors.
Gray points out that the world's major religions, at least in the western big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) think of morality as a system of principles to be followed which are unique to humans because revealed by a supernatural being. Gray calls this a morality of "acting on rational principles" shared by western religions and philosophy (Kant and Rawls both of whom influenced Hauser).
I don't agree, however, that religion acts on rational principles. The natural human compassion and empathy that we inherited is in fact repressed by religion and turned into their opposites. So-called religious people who use their "moral" beliefs to justify honor killings, repressing women's rights, or starting wars and invading other countries, or trying to steal the land from other people are not following a natural morality based on empathy, compassion, and social cooperation.
Gray is partial to David Hume's views on morality he quotes him (Treatise on Human Nature): "When any hypothesis... is advanc'd to explain a mental operation, which is common to men and beasts, we must apply the same hypothesis to both."
Gray says he agrees with Hauser on the evolutionary origin of morality, but not on an innate moral structure (analogous to Chomsky's views on language). "Applying principles," he writes, "remains a distinctive feature of moral life, but one that reflects human conventions rather than rules of conduct hardwired in the human brain."
In sum, Hauser's book is important and we can learn about the latest scientific consensus regarding our evolutionary inheritance from it, but that inheritance is more like a foundation upon which human morality has developed and expanded rather than as one that is built into us determining how we must act and behave within preconditioned parameters.
by Thomas Riggins
The above named article by John Gray appears in The New York Review of Books for May 10, 2007. It is a critical commentary on two new books-- Marc D. Hauser’s “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong” (Ecco, 458pp.) and Frans de Waal, et al, “Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved” (Princeton University Press, 209pp.)
I am only going to comment on the first book as I have previously discussed de Waal in “Marxism, Monkeys and Morality” which is in the archive.
Gray makes an important point early on in his article, and that is, that if evolution is correct, then the human capacity for morality must have come about “in some part from evolutionary processes.” Some might argue, I think, that this is true but all those processes arose after we split from the common ancestor we share with the chimps so that, as a result, morality is a purely human affair restricted to the genus Homo if not to our species alone.
There is evidence, however, that human morality can be traced back to our primate ancestors. This was Darwin’s view, and Gray quotes the following passage from “The Descent of Man”: “Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts.... would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed or nearly as well developed, as in man.”
And, Gray maintains, the idea that morality is something unique to humanity is ultimately based on the view that we are “exempt from the evolutionary laws that govern other animals.” Hauser, however, doesn't share this view. He thinks that "both moral judgment and behavior are largely the product of unconscious [inherited] processes."
He thinks, in other words, "that humans have an inborn moral faculty, parts of which they share with other animals." This is based on his research (he a professor of psychology at Harvard) on monkeys and other primates. I should point out that there is evidence of empathy, compassion, social awareness, tool use, sympathy and sharing exhibited by monkeys and chimps. Human moral systems are based on such feelings and behaviors and it is perfectly rational and scientific to see our moral systems as part of an evolutionary continuum reaching back and deriving from our prehuman ancient primate ancestors.
Gray points out that the world's major religions, at least in the western big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) think of morality as a system of principles to be followed which are unique to humans because revealed by a supernatural being. Gray calls this a morality of "acting on rational principles" shared by western religions and philosophy (Kant and Rawls both of whom influenced Hauser).
I don't agree, however, that religion acts on rational principles. The natural human compassion and empathy that we inherited is in fact repressed by religion and turned into their opposites. So-called religious people who use their "moral" beliefs to justify honor killings, repressing women's rights, or starting wars and invading other countries, or trying to steal the land from other people are not following a natural morality based on empathy, compassion, and social cooperation.
Gray is partial to David Hume's views on morality he quotes him (Treatise on Human Nature): "When any hypothesis... is advanc'd to explain a mental operation, which is common to men and beasts, we must apply the same hypothesis to both."
Gray says he agrees with Hauser on the evolutionary origin of morality, but not on an innate moral structure (analogous to Chomsky's views on language). "Applying principles," he writes, "remains a distinctive feature of moral life, but one that reflects human conventions rather than rules of conduct hardwired in the human brain."
In sum, Hauser's book is important and we can learn about the latest scientific consensus regarding our evolutionary inheritance from it, but that inheritance is more like a foundation upon which human morality has developed and expanded rather than as one that is built into us determining how we must act and behave within preconditioned parameters.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Lao Tzu: A Marxist Dialogue
Lao Tzu
DISCUSSION TWO--LAO TZU: A Marxist Dialogue
by Thomas Riggins
After finishing their discussion of Confucius,[check blog archive] Karl and Fred were ready to look at the philosophy of Lao Tzu. Karl, who knew more about Chinese philosophy than Fred, began by asking Fred what he knew about Lao Tzu.
“The philosophy of Lao Tzu is called Taoism, do you know much about it Fred?”
“ I have read a little Karl. I know that the philosophy of Lao Tzu is contained in a book called the Tao-te ching or The Way and its Virtue. Also that not much is really known about him. The Chinese think he lived around the time of Confucius, maybe twenty or so years before him. It is unlikely they ever met. It is also possible that he really lived hundreds of years after Confucius. Legend has it that he got tired of all the hassles in China and departed for the West riding on the back of an ox, but was stopped by the gatekeeper of the Western Pass and not allowed to proceed unless he wrote down his thoughts. That is how the Tao-te ching came about. Having complied, he disappeared over the mountains heading for India--or so they say.”
“Pretty good introduction seeing as we don’t even know if he was a real person or a mythical one! Well, you have the book, Chan’s translation, lets see if we can figure out what it means.” [A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy by Wing-Tsit Chan]
Fred picked up the book and began to read. “I, that’s Chapter One, of eighty six,--’The Tao (Way) that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; the Named is the mother of all things. Therefore let there always be non-being so we may see their subtlety, And let there always be being so we may see their outcome.’ Now what is that all about?”
“This is a mystical book. Taoism is a tradition at odds with what will develop out of the Analects. The TAO is incapable of being pinned down by human language. If someone thinks they know what it is you can be sure they are wrong because it will be even more than that. You know, Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed says that God is undefinable so that we really can’t say anything about him correctly--in just this sense is the TAO nameless.”
“OK, here is 2: ‘When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty, There arises the recognition of ugliness. When they all know the good as good, There arises the recognition of evil. Therefore: Being and non-being produce each other; Difficult and easy complete each other; Long and short contrast each other; high and low distinguish each other; Sound and voice harmonize with each other; Front and back follow each other. Therefore the sage manages affairs without action (wu-wei) And spreads doctrines without words.’ “
“ The term for ‘non-action’, i.e., wu-wei, means no action contrary to nature. I think Chan points this out. In general we see here a dialectical approach to reality. Everything has its opposite and complements that opposite. Until we know what the ‘good’ is we don’t know ‘evil.’ It looks like we have to use a lot of ‘names’ after all since ‘good.’ ‘evil,’ ‘beauty,’ ‘ugliness,’ etc., are all names. Thus while the TAO as ground of the world is ‘nameless’ the things in the world are known by names. This seems not to contradict Confucius's views about the Rectification of Names--remember Rule Two from our last discussion? [Cf. Confucius reference above. Rule Two- Language must be in accord with truth]. Also, note that Confucius did not allow himself to be drawn into discussions about the ultimate metaphysical basis of the world so he too seems not to be in disagreement with the view of the TAO as nameless. The part about spreading doctrines without words may mean that it is by EXAMPLE that influence is spread, and I don’t think Confucius would disagree with this.”
“I though you said Taoism was in conflict with Confucianism. It looks like they agree on everything!”
“What can I say? We have only looked at the first two chapters. I’m sure the big differences will soon manifest themselves.”
“3: ‘Do not display objects of desire, so that the people’s hearts shall not be disturbed. Therefore in the government of the sage He keeps their hearts [peaceful and pure] (hsü), Fills their bellies, Weakens their ambitions, And strengthens their bones, He always causes his people to be without knowledge (cunning) or desire, And the crafty to be afraid to act.’”
“I really don’t know what to make of this! The sage ruler evidently keeps his wealth under lock and key so the masses won’t see the class differences in the state. He provides bread and circuses as a Roman emperor so that the people remain content and don’t mess with the government. This is obviously the product of a feudal mentality.”
“5: ‘Heaven and Earth are not humane (jen). They regard all things as straw dogs. The sage is not humane. He regards all people as straw dogs.’ That doesn’t sound very good to me Karl.”
“Well lets not read too much into it. I remember Chan on this selection saying that it means that Nature and the Sage are really IMPARTIAL and not playing favorites unjustly. Heaven and Earth are just following Tao, as we would say, ‘the laws of nature’, and as you know the sun shines on the just and the unjust alike. The Sage too has to be impartial and examine things according to their merits. The Prime Directive! [Cf. Confucius article. The Prime Directive of philosophy is to ‘Always seek the truth by means of logic and reason without appeals to faith and emotion.’]
“7: ‘Heaven is eternal and Earth everlasting. They can be eternal and everlasting because they do not exist for themselves. And for this reason can exist forever. Therefore the sage places himself in the background but finds himself in the foreground’.”
“Now I understand the last part. Don’t toot your own horn and all that, lead by example, but the first part is just mystical excess as far as I can tell. Heaven and Earth not existing for themselves what can that mean? Perhaps he means they are manifestations of Tao, but this passage is all too mystical for me.”
“I like the following from 9: ‘To be proud with honor and wealth Is to cause one’s own downfall. Withdraw as soon as your work is done. Such is Heaven’s Way.’”
“Yes, don’t overstay your welcome. At least this counteracts the view that Taoists are recluses. You have a job or function to perform and you should stick with it until its done--but then leave!”
“Chapter Eleven is a little mysterious. ‘Doors and windows are cut out to make a room But it is on its non-being that the utility of the room depends. Therefore turn being into advantage, and turn non-being into utility.’”
“I think Lao is saying that the room is ‘empty’ hence ‘non-being’ and because it is empty it can be used for something--a dining room, bedroom, study, etc. The ‘being’ would be the material of the room from which the doors and windows were cut.”
“And what can this mean? 12:’Goods that are hard to get injure one’s activities. For this reason the sage is concerned with the belly and not the eyes, Therefore he rejects the one but accepts the other.’”
“Your guess is as good as mine Fred. But look at it this way. It is easy to get a bowl of rice to eat, all the simple fare required, really, for a Taoist sage but you can see palaces and treasures and things of that sort which others have and will never be yours so it is better to avoid that kind of ‘concern’ and stick to your proper activities.”
“Sounds good to me Karl. Here is 13: ‘If I have no body, What trouble could I have? Therefore he who values the world as his body may be entrusted with the empire.’”
“I remember this. Chan says something about it doesn’t he?”
“Here is his comment on page 145 of his Source Book:’On the basis of this attitude toward the body, it is difficult to accept the theory that Yang Chu who would preserve one’s own life under any circumstances, was an early Taoist, as Fung has maintained.’ Now what is all that about?”
“Well, here is a good time to tell you who Fung was. Chan means Fung Yu-lan who wrote the most important history of Chinese philosophy we have in English, it was translated from Chinese by one of his students, Dirk Bodde. This is the History of Chinese Philosophy in two volumes, also available abridged as A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. Yang Chu is a character we will run into if we ever make it to Mencius.”
“OK, and....”
“And Chan is, I think wrong. This passage from Lao is not putting down the body. He says we value it and even love it --otherwise there is trouble. Since this is the case the person who loves the world just as much as himself, since he will love himself, will be the best ruler. If Yang Chu thought as much of the world as he did of himself he would be a good ruler. He was, however, an egotist. Yang may not have been an admirable Taoist, a sage, but Fung has not been proven wrong by this comment by Lao. But we will have to wait till we meet Yang himself later in our discussions.”
“14: ‘We look at it and do not see it; Its name is the Invisible. We listen to it and do not hear it; Its name is the Inaudible. We touch it and do not find it; its name is the Subtle (formless). These three cannot be further inquired into, And hence merge into one.’”
“A typical mystical statement. The hidden ground of the universe is not available to our knowledge, at least not to our sense knowledge so we will have no direct empirical knowledge of it. “
“Chan says this view of the non-detectability of ultimate reality--the ‘formless’ is in contradistinction to the Confucian view that reality is ‘manifest.’ He also points out that as Chinese philosophy developed under the influence of Buddhism, centuries later, the so called Neo-Confucianists made a synthesis and he quotes a Neo-Confucianist Ch’eng I who wrote ‘there is no distinction between the manifest and the hidden.’”
“That is a very Hegelian type of synthesis. Hegel did not have a high regard for Chinese thought, perhaps because of limited access to it in his day. But Hegel taught that ‘Thought’ advances by developing concepts that engender counter concepts that then result in a synthesis of the two into a new ‘higher’ concept that combines what was the one-sidedness of the original concepts. This is quite a simplification, but from what you just read from Chan, I’m sure Ch’eng I’s unification of these two concepts the ‘hidden’ and the ‘manifest’--’there is no distinction’ would meet with Hegel’s approval.”
“I notice here a reference to p’u in 15 and ’uncarved wood’? What is that image about?”
“That, Fred, is one of the most famous Taoist images. A sage is like an ‘uncarved block of wood.’ I see it as meaning we are all ‘potential’. An uncarved block could become anything under the hands of an artist--a horse, a figure of a man, or any thing at all. But once carved that's it--the carved horse can’t later be a carved man. Also, Lao calls the uncarved block ‘genuine.’ So there is something artificial about the carved block. This somehow implies that human actions are not fully natural they contrast to the Tao. This is, I think, incorrect on Lao’s part! Everything is comprehended under the Tao so humans are too and the uncarved block and the carved block originate from the same universal process. There is an unresolved contradiction at the heart of Taoism which we will have to see played out. Sartre, in his Existentialism, would say humans have to live in the world even when trying not to interfere with it--they are committed to some ‘project’ or other so even being an ‘uncarved block’ is a form of being ‘carved’. For now, I’ll leave this as an unresolved ‘Hegelian’ contradiction.”
“18: ‘When the great Tao declined, The doctrines of humanity (jen) and righteousness (i) arose. When knowledge and wisdom appeared, There appeared great hypocrisy. When the six family relationships [father, son, elder and younger brother, husband and wife--Chan] are not in harmony, There will be the advocacy of filial piety and deep love to children. When a country is in disorder, There will be praise of loyal ministers,’”
“Pretty obvious. All of these things are a reflection that there are problems and imperfections, a sign that Tao is not working properly--the Tao of human affairs that is, the Tao of Nature is something else it seems. Look at our example. We like to think we care about the environment and other people--but look at the reality. It is just because we degrade both the environment and our fellow beings that we have to have so many laws to protect them. Big corporations such as GE, Exxon-Mobil, etc., spend millions in ad campaigns telling us how corporate America is environmentally conscious--but the fact that we need anti-pollution laws and regulations aimed at these very companies shows that what they claim they are and what they are are vastly different. Do you think that if there were freedom and equality in the United States we would need civil rights laws? And why did they pass a law in Texas against having sex with sheep? This is the message of Lao Tzu. “
“Lao goes on in 19: ‘Abandon sageliness and discard wisdom; then the people will benefit a hundredfold. Abandon humanity and discard righteousness; Then the people will return to filial piety and deep love. Abandon skill and discard profit; Then there will be no thieves or robbers. However these three things are ornament (wen) and not adequate. Therefore let people hold on to these: Manifest plainness, Embrace simplicity, Reduce selfishness, Have few desires.’”
“Its too late for this Taoist program I fear. Civilization was even so far advanced in Lao’s time that a program such as this, a going back to ‘nature’ program as it were, was not realistic. Taoism is reactionary--it reacts to the problems of the times by harking back to a mythical past when the Tao was not in decline and we didn’t need all the regulations and rules that have evolved along with our social development. Nevertheless, the four rules he gives at the end are not so bad--just on utilitarian grounds--if we all practiced them many of the negative aspects of our technological world system would be mitigated. I’m sure you can see how their application would bring this about.”
“Now this is really important Karl--Chapter 21, Chan says its the most important in the entire book--philosophically that is.”
“Well, lets hear it then!”
“ OK, here goes, ‘The all-embracing quality of the great virtue (te) follows alone from the Tao. The thing that is called Tao is eluding and vague. Vague and eluding, there is in it the form. Eluding and vague, in it are things. Deep and obscure, in it is the essence [intelligence, spirit, life-force]. The essence is very real; in it are evidences. From the time of old until now, its name (manifestations) ever remains, By which we may see the beginning of all things. How do I know the beginnings of all things are so? Through this (Tao).’”
“In itself this passage is too vague . What do we learn from saying ‘the Tao is all encompassing and is the ultimate explanation for everything?’ Not much. Chan thinks it so important because it is similar to passages in the Book of Changes [of which more later] which were utilized in NeoConfucianist metaphysics.”
“Here is 22, some more ‘mysticism’--’To have plenty is to be perplexed. Therefore the sage embraces the one and becomes the model of the world. He does not show himself; therefore he is luminous. He does not justify himself; therefore he becomes prominent. He does not boast of himself; therefore he is given credit. He does not brag; therefore he can endure for long.’”
“Next!”
“23: ‘Nature says few words. For the same reason a whirlwind does not last a whole morning, Nor does a rainstorm last a whole day. What causes them? It is Heaven and Earth (Nature). If Heaven and Earth cannot make them last long, How much less can man? Therefore he who follows Tao is identified with Tao.’”
“Very interesting. He seems to be saying don’t mess with Nature. You have heard of the ‘Three Gorges” dam project in China?”
“Its supposed to be the world’s largest dam project--displacing thousands of people and completely changing the face of land.”
“And you know that projects like this, and many other man made attempts to change the environment have ended in disasters. Think of the problems in the Everglades since we have monkeyed around with the water levels in Florida--and the extinction of many species throughout the world due to the destruction of habitats. I think those in power could learn a thing or two from this passage in Lao. Work with Nature, don’t try to completely rearrange the natural processes that have developed on the planet--that is following Tao.”
“This chapter,25, reminds me of the opening: ‘There was something undifferentiated and yet complete, Which existed before heaven and earth. Soundless, and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger. It may be considered the mother of the universe. I do not know its name; I call it Tao. If forced to give it a name; I call it great...Being far-reaching means returning to the original point. Therefore Tao is great.’”
“As Chan says, this passage is representative of the Chinese view that history and nature operate cyclically. [Of course, now that they are Marxists they are not supposed to believe this.] Whereas we in the West more or less think in terms of progress and continual betterment, the Chinese in classical times thought in terms of cycles rather than progress.”
“26: ‘The tranquil is the ruler of the hasty. Therefore the sage travels all day Without leaving his baggage....How is it that a lord with ten thousand chariots Should behave lightheartedly in his empire? If he is lighthearted, the minister will be destroyed. If he is hasty, the ruler is lost.’”
“Not really a Taoist paradox. The ruler is secure and tranquil being lighthearted is a sign of assuredness. On the other hand the function of the minister is to carry out his duties--lightheartedness ill behooves him.”
“This next chapter is interesting and I don’t think it really needs any explication--27: ‘A well-tied knot needs no rope and yet none can untie it. Therefore the sage is always good at saving men and consequently no man is rejected. He is always good in saving things and consequently nothing is rejected. This is called following the light (of Nature) Therefore the good man is the teacher of the bad, And the bad is the material from which the good may learn. He who does not value the teacher, Or greatly care for the material, Is greatly deluded although he may be learned. Such is the essential mystery.’”
“A lot of faith in the salvation power of the sage! Confucius wants to enlighten people, this is a form of salvation but a bit more limited than Lao here. Remember the ‘square’--if you don’t get the other three sides from the one Confucius gives to you, you get dropped!” [Cf. the Confucius dialogue]
“I remember. Here is something about the ‘sage’--28: ‘He will be proficient in eternal virtue, And returns to the state of simplicity (uncarved wood). When the uncarved wood is broken up, it is turned into concrete things (as Tao transformed into the myriad things). But when the sage uses it, he becomes the leading official. Therefore the great ruler does not cut up’”
“The Taoist Sage is using and not using the uncarved block it would seem. This is because he prefers things to remain in their original state of simplicity--he rules by not ruling. This is all very fine if you have a well ordered state in the first place but what if you come along in a ‘time of troubles’ and forceful action is needed? Would this Taoist minimalism work in that case, or must the Taoist wait for a natural cyclical return to simplicity? I don’t think Lao has an answer to this problem.”
“Well, we may find one later on in the book. This is chapter 29, it has relevance to your questions: ‘When one desires to take over the empire and act on it (interfere with it), I see that he will not succeed. The empire is a spiritual thing and should not be acted on.’ He then says, ‘...the sage discards the extremes, the extravagant, and the excessive.’”
“That last part is like Aristotle’s ‘mean’--you know, virtue is a mean between two extremes--e.g., ‘courage’ is a mean between ‘foolhardiness’ and ‘cowardice.’”
“But what about the other part, about not ‘acting’? What if the ‘empire’ needs some ‘action’--such as tax reform or an agricultural reform or something like that? I’m beginning to agree with what you just said a few minutes ago. This might be a real problem with Lao’s views.”
“I’m glad you agree. What is next?”
“Something our gun toting friends in the NRA will appreciate. 31: ‘Fine weapons are instruments of evil. They are hated by men. Therefore those who possess Tao turn away from them’”
“I remember this chapter. Forget the NRA, read some more and then try to reconcile Lao’s ideas with our government’s or any government’s obsession with military spending. This quote goes well beyond the NRA!”
“’Weapons are instruments of evil, not the instruments of a good ruler. When he uses them unavoidably, he regards calm restraint as the best principle. Even when he is victorious, he does not regard it as praiseworthy, For to praise victory is to delight in the slaughter of men....For a victory, let us observe the occasion with funeral ceremonies.’”
“This shows real understanding of the horrors of war on Lao’s part. Someting we have yet to understand, it seems. Yet he admits the ruler may not be able to avoid the use of weapons--think of trying to stop Hitler without them. Nevertheless, even when defeating Hitler it was wrong to celebrate with a Roman triumph. The fact that we did so shows how far we are from the real spirit of the Tao.”
“I wonder what Lao would think about our current and past warlike activities in the Balkans and Iraq.”
“We have not very good rulers I fear.”
“In 33 he says ‘He who dies but does not really perish enjoys long life.’ Is he talking about the immortality of the soul?”
“I don’t think so. If you read on you will find that Chan points out that the Chinese think of immortality not in terms of individual survival but in terms of an immortality of reputation--your writings and your deeds. Look at it this way--some older person helps a child, say by sending her to school, she grows up to be a doctor and saves the life of some one who later becomes a ruler, etc. etc., a causal sequence extending over a thousand years--these people in the sequence, their deeds have never really perished.”
“OK, now I’ll read parts of 34; ‘The Great Tao flows every -where....It clothes and feeds all things but does not claim to be master over them. Always without desires, it may be called The Small. All things come to it and it does not master them; it may be called The Great. Therefore (the sage) never strives himself for the great, and thereby the great is achieved.’”
“I can’t help but think of this in Western terms! It means, to my mind, that there is some universal ‘law’ or ‘power’ which is responsible for all that happens--but the expression ‘does not claim to be master’ allows for freedom of action at least on the part of self-conscious beings as ourselves, so Lao is not a Calvinist or Augustinian predestinationist. I admit, however, that this is a Western interpretation and may or may not coincide with what Lao had in mind.”
“Just when you think Lao isn’t so bad, he comes up with a recommendation that is just awful and shows how out of
line his views are to democratic thinkers today.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Listen to this from 36: ‘Fish should not be taken away from water. And sharp weapons of the state should not be displayed to the people.’”
“I see what you mean, but his advice is generally followed even today by so called democratic governments, although I don’t consider governments that practice this really democratic at all in the true sense of the term.”
“Now what are you talking about?”
“You know, all this stuff you read about in the papers about the FBI and the CIA how they run all kinds of secret operations without any seeming control trying to assassinate people they deem a threat to their power--or the really terrible secret weapons systems the military creates such as the poison gases and germ warfare toxins they have made--not to mention the nuclear weapons they have and now all this information coming out about depleted uranium weapons or the training of terrorists at the School of the Americas run by the military (even if they changed the name to further conceal what goes on there). Don’t you think all this falls under Lao’s dictum that sharp weapons shouldn’t be displayed to the people?”
“Its all very confusing to me. I would have thought that Lao would be against ‘sharp weapons’ and things like you described. He says in the same chapter ‘The weak and the tender overcome the hard and the strong’ so he should be against ‘sharp weapons’--the state should get what it wants by being ‘weak and tender’ that is by education and treating people as people and following the Tao.”
“So there seems to be a contradiction in his teachings, just look back at 31 when he attacks ‘fine weapons’ and says they go against the Tao! I’ll admit there can be a lot to argue about here.”
“And Chan points out that this doctrine of ‘deceit’ really upset the Confucianists. I guess Confucius would want the people to be educated and know what is going on in their state. After all, he thought government was for the benefit of the people and ultimately to be extended to the whole world so people who are not displaying their ‘sharp weapons’ must be up to no good!”
“So noted! What’s next?”
“I’ll read part of 38: ‘The man of superior virtue is (not conscious of) his virtue, And in this way he really possesses virtue. The man of inferior virtue never loses (sight of) his virtue, And in this way he loses his virtue. The man of superior virtue takes no action, but has no ulterior motive to do so. The man of inferior virtue takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior humanity takes action, but has no ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior righteousness takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior propriety takes action, And when people do not respond to it, he will stretch his arms and force it on them. Therefore, only when Tao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise...propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder...the great man...dwells in the fruit (reality), and does not rest with the flower (appearance). Therefore he rejects the one, and accepts the other.’”
“This is a passage which again puts forth the view that the simple and natural are best, closest to the Tao. This is almost like Rousseau in the rejection of the artificialities of civilization.”
“Here in 39 Lao talks about the ‘One’--which I take to be Tao-- he says ‘Heaven obtained the One and became clear.... If heaven had not thus become clear, It would soon crack.’ He makes similar remarks about the efficacy of the One with regard, for example to the earth (without the One ‘It would soon be shaken’) and about kings and barons who became rulers by it and ‘They would soon fall’ without it. But then he says ‘Therefore humble station is the basis of honor. The low is the foundation of the high.’ I just don’t understand the conclusion he draws!”
“Well, this isn’t a syllogism after all. If you equate the One with the Tao this implies again the power of the Tao to have the ultimate influence over reality. Lao is being ‘mystical’ not ‘logical’ by referring to the ‘humble’ and the ‘low’--you see he is using the ‘One’ as a symbol for the ‘low’--a low number--and the ‘humble’. The ‘One’ is the beginning but the ‘thousand’, so to speak, is ultimately dependent upon it.”
“OK Karl, here is a verse from 40--’All things in the world come from being. And being comes from non-being.’”
“Now is the time to bring in some outside assistance,” Karl said as he went to his bookcase and pulled down a book.
“What is this book,” Fred asked.
“This is A Short History of Chinese Philosophy by Fung Yu-Lan, edited by Derk Bodde. Its really required reading if we are interested in Chinese philosophy. Fung was a major philosopher in his own right and this is based on his great two volume work History of Chinese Philosophy. I think it is the best of the histories because it is by one of the most important philosophers in the modern Chinese tradition. It is similar to having A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell.”
“So now we can use Fung as well as Chan for clarification, why didn’t you bring it out earlier?”
“Its better to introduce these aids slowly, besides Confucius wasn’t into all this metaphysical speculation but Lao’s work is full of these kind of statements so where Chan does not give any clarification we can turn to Fung. I remember he had interesting comments to make on this Chapter from Lao Tzu.”
“Chapter 40?”
“That is correct,” said Karl, flipping through Fung’s book. “Ah, here is the passage I was looking for. Listen to this Fred, its on page 96: ‘...the being of all things implies the being of Being. This is the meaning of Lao Tzu’s saying [40].... The saying of Lao Tzu does not mean that there was a time when there was only Non-being, and that then there came a time when Being came into being from Non-being. It simply means that if we analyze the existence of things, we see there must first be Being before there can be any things. Tao is the unnamable, is Non-Being, and is that by which all things come to be. Therefore, before the being of Being, there must be Non-being, from which Being comes into being. What is here said belongs to ontology, not to cosmology. It has nothing to do with time and actuality. For in time and actuality, there is no Being; there are only beings.’”
“And you think that quote is helpful?”
“Well, it looked better when I was reading this book as a student. Fung was a metaphysician himself and sometimes requires to be explained even more than what he is explaining!”
“So why bring him up.”
“Because he brings all the latent issues to the fore.”
“Well then, what else is there besides ‘time and actuality’? Are not ‘time and actuality’ circumlocutions for ‘existence’ so that Fung is saying ‘in existence there is no Existence only existents’. And I would say that what is true of ‘cosmology’ is true of ‘ontology.’”
“Fred, I wouldn’t disagree with you. This passage from Fung is turning out to be nonsense! I think Fung should have said ‘Being’ is a logical category that precedes ‘being’ but even that is taking us far and away from the, I think, much more simple meaning of Lao Tzu’s words.”
“So, how would you explain 40?”
“First, I want to say these digressions are philosophically interesting. Second, I think the best way to look at Lao’s saying is to think of ‘all things come from being’ as meaning ‘whatever exists today comes from previously existing things’. Things just don’t pop up out of nothing. And ‘being comes from non-being’ means there is some principle or cause that is responsible for the state of the existing world as we know it and this is TAO which is not itself the same as the beings of this world which are ultimately dependent upon it and for this reason Lao calls it ‘non-being.’ “
“I’m moving on Karl, to Chapter 41.”
“OK”
“’When the highest type of men hear Tao, They diligently practice it. When the average type of men hear Tao, They half believe in it. When the lowest type of men hear Tao, They laugh heartily at it. If they did not laugh at it, it would not be Tao. Therefore there is the established saying: The Tao which is bright appears to be dark.’”
“Two observations about this Fred. How can the three types ‘hear Tao’ since (Chapter One) the Tao that can be spoken of isn’t the Tao. I mean, how would they know they actually knew what they heard was Tao? Second, since this is supposed to be Lao’s book introducing his views how can there be an ‘established view’? Anyway, since I’m not interested in the history of the text but the idea content, I will restrict myself to this idea of the ‘bright’ appearing as the ‘dark’. This view is right out of the the species of doctrines that gave rise to Plato’s views of the reception of philosophical ‘Truth” as he expressed it in The Republic. I mean this is at one with the Allegory of the Cave. The ultimate ‘Truth’ is the Tao, so if we replace ‘tao’ with ‘truth’ in the quote you read we have the exact meaning intended by Lao. We also have a theme which is common to almost all philosophy whether in China, India or Greece at this time and that is that philosophical truth is ultimately esoteric and limited to a few individuals. The great mass of humanity, hoi polloi, are unable, why is the big question, to grasp the truth and so while it is bright for the sage or philosopher it remains dark to them. The average sort of understand it but it really doesn’t motivate them. So we have three groups of people--a small group motivated by the truth (they get into a lot of trouble most of the time), a middle group that is neither motivated nor hostile (too busy living the every day problems of life) and a ‘low’ group that is hostile and prefers to continue along in a dark and ignorant and unthreatening life style based on unreflective acceptance of common ideas.”
“You seem to be giving a Confucian twist to this! Wouldn’t Lao praise the simple unreflective life style as the manifestation of the Tao? In fact, once you have the ‘highest type of men’ and the ‘lowest type’ of men hasn’t the Tao already been lost?”
“You know, you are right Fred. This is a bit of a contradiction. But the fact is the Tao has been lost from the point view of Lao--and a long time ago too. So we must make do with the world we live in. “
“Does Fung cast any light on this?”
“Actually he does and his comment is based on part of Chapter 40 you didn’t quote a few minutes ago.”
“What was that?”
“Go back and read the first line.”
“’Reversion is the action of Tao.’”
“Fung points out that this sums up Lao’s views on what we would call dialectics. He says ‘The idea is that if anything develops certain extreme qualities, those qualities invariability revert to become their opposites. This constitutes a law of nature.’”
“Sounds like Hegel or Marx.”
“In a way, but Lao’s ‘law’ is more mechanical than really dialectical in the Hegelian sense.”
“How so?”
“Well, in Lao the ‘hard’ becomes the ‘soft’ and then the ‘soft’ becomes the ‘hard’ or the ‘weak’ overcomes the ‘strong’ and then the ‘strong’ becomes the ‘weak’ etc. There appears to be just alteration going on but no advance. When Hegel or Marx and Engels say something like ‘things transform into their opposites’ they don’t intend by this mere alteration back and forth ad infinitum but an advance to a higher level or if you object to ‘higher’ a radically different level. An imaginative but simple example is Lao would give opposites as water-ice, ice-water whereas Hegel might say something like ‘hydrogen is the “opposite” of oxygen but the two opposites transform in to water’ (and other things as well). Fung says this ‘law’ is so paradoxical that hoi polloi can’t grasp it and that is why they laugh at it. Anything really ‘true’ about the world is like that--if hoi polloi grasp it it can’t be true! Of course Marxists would like it to be the other way around.”
“You know, Karl, for all his praise of the simple he is really a snob. This view of the ‘low’ never understanding anything, along with ‘hiding the sharp weapons of the state’ call into question Lao’s sincerity about the concern he is alleged to express for the ‘common people.’”
“A case can be made for this. It is Confucius who wants to educate as many people as possible seeing in education an almost universal panacea.”
“Yes, but he won’t show you the other three corners if you can’t get them yourself after he shows you the first.” [Cf. Confucius dialogue on my blog]
“Why don’t you read the next interesting tid-bit?”
“This is from 42: ‘Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things [i.e. everything] carry the yin and embrace the yang [Chan:’ Yin is the passive, female[!] cosmic principle or force while yang is the active[!] or male principle.’] {You can see males thought this one up!}, and through the blending of the material force (ch’i) [Chan:’Variously translated as matter, matter-energy, vital force, breath, etc.] they achieve harmony....What others have taught, I teach also:”Violent and fierce people do not die a natural death.” I shall make this the father (basis or starting point) of my teaching.’”
“I remember Chan on this passage. He made some good points. Why don’t you read the salient passages?”
“His main point is ‘...the natural evolution from the simple to the complex without any act of creation. This theory is common to practically all Chinese philosophical schools.’”
“The word ‘creation’ is confusing. In the West, following the developments of Neo-Platonism, the ‘ten thousand’ things also came about by emanation from the One or ‘God’ this is how they were ‘created’. I think Chan has in mind the Western notion of creation ex nihilo which was read back by Christians (and then Jews) into the Genesis creation account and has become a dogma. And out of the blue comes this new starting point--I mean, the comment about fierce people. I think it is better to retain the starting point as the Tao and regard this new passage as the starting point of his ethics or social or moral ideas.”
“44:’ Which is worse, gain or loss? Therefore he who has lavish desires will spend extravagantly. He who hoards will lose heavily. He who is contented suffers no disgrace. He who knows when to stop is free from danger. Therefore he can long endure.’ There is a string of quotable quotes here which I’ll just read to give more of a flavor of Taoism in these middle chapters. Go ahead and chime in, Karl, if you think any explication is needed.”
“I will.”
“46: ‘When Tao prevails in the world, galloping horses are turned back to fertilize (the fields with their dung). When Tao does not prevail in the world, war horses thrive in the suburbs.’”
“I guess the fact that we spend so much on the military and have such big budgets dedicated to killing and maiming our fellow human beings all over the world doesn’t say much for the prevalence of the Tao in the current world order.”
“47: ‘The further one goes, the less one knows. Therefore the sage knows without going about, Understands without seeing, And accomplishes without any action.’”
“That might have been true in the days of yore, Fred, before the development of the scientific method and the realization of the importance of research programs. If Lao thinks that knowledge and understanding come about just through contemplation and intution he is wrong, at least by our standards. Darwin would never have come up with his theory of evolution without his ‘going about’ on the HMS Beagle.”
“49: ‘The sage has no fixed (personal) ideas. He regards the people’s ideas as his own. I treat those who are good with goodness, And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. I am honest to those who are honest, And I am also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained.”
“I don’t see how this agrees with Chapter 41. The sage follows Tao on a higher level than ‘the people’ who appear to be indifferent if average or if ‘low’ laughing at it. So, it may be that the the sage, like the ideal scientist or philosopher, leaves him or herself out of the equation (knowlede being ideally objective) but the ‘people’ is too much of an abstraction nowadays, especially since the Tao is not prevailing, to believe the sage’s ideas are the same as the people’s. The only way this could be the case is if the sage represents the ‘general will’ in Rousseau’s sense, and this might, after all just be what Lao Tzu actually means.”
“51: ‘Tao produces them (the ten thousand things). Virtue fosters them. Matter gives them physical form. The circumstances and tendencies complete them. Therefore the ten thousand things esteem Tao and honor virtue. Tao is esteemed and virtue honored without anyone’s order. They always come spontaneously. Therefore Tao produces them and virtue fosters them.’”
“The word being used for ‘virture’ is 'te'--which also means ‘power’. Fung says that Tao is the ‘ground’ and the things come to be by the power manifested in them. Think of Tao as the laws of nature by which material things come to be what they are and manifest their ‘virtue’ or power. Its as when Aristotle said the virtue of a knife is its ability to cut. In this we see Spinoza’s universe reflected in the ideas of the Chinese sage.”
“54: ‘He who has a firm grasp (of Tao) cannot be separated from it.... When one cultivates virtue in the world, it becomes universal.’”
“The point of this chapter is that such cultivation begins with the person then extends to the family, then to the community, the country and finally the whole world.”
“You get the idea from this next quote of the remoteness of the sage from the concerns of most people. 56: ‘Become one with the dusty world. This is called profound identification. Therefore it is impossible either to be intimate and close to him or to be distant and indifferent to him.’ A little before this quote he says, ‘He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.’”
“A real problem since Lao has to ‘speak’ in order to give this bit of information to us!”
“57: ‘The more laws and orders are made prominent, The more thieves and robbers there will be. Therefore the sage says: I take no action and the people of themselves are transformed. I love tranquillity and the people of themselves become correct. I engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous. I have no desires and the people of themselves become simple.’ Chan says this laissez-faire attitude was also that of Confucius.”
“I can’t agree with Chan. How can Confucius say ‘I take no action’ and the people are transformed. This is an attack on Confucius. Confucians seek to take a lot of actions to improve the world and correct and make new laws to govern society. According to Fung this ‘laissez-faire’ attitude is preceded by the sage ruler first undoing ‘all the causes of trouble in the world’ which is very ‘proactive’--if I may use this pretentious and ridiculous word being currently substituted by the semi-literate for ‘active.’ After the troubles have been eliminated then the sage ruler rules by means of wu-wei--i.e., by non-action [meaning no unnatural action]. Fung says, ‘The Taoists agree with the Confucianists that the ideal state is one which has a sage as its head.’ They both agree with Plato on this. But they are different kinds of sages.
“ I feel another a rule coming on.”
“Why not? We can review our rules from the discussion on Confucius when we finish with Lao Tzu but now I am proposing Rule Four-’Always strive to have a philosopher-sage as the chief executive of the state.’”
“That's too abstract. What really qualifies a person as a philosopher-sage? Lao-Tzu’s ideas on this are different from those of Confucius.”
“I know, I know. This is just the framework the rule will have to be further discussed when we evaluate the different philosophies as we go along. I now want to make a comment about the laws being made leading to the conclusion that ‘the more thieves and robbers there will be.’ Of course there are some minimum laws that any society needs, but when the state begins to make more and more new laws it also makes criminals where there were none before.”
“What do you mean?”
“During the rise of Capitalism, for example, when the government closed off the commons to the peasants, as in England, many people were forced into criminal activity just to survive. By making new laws about who can use the commons then actions which were legal--grazing you animals on such and such land or hunting-- became illegal and you became a criminal for doing today what yesterday was a right. Prohibition in the United States turned millions of people technically into criminals and also fostered the development of criminal industries which became non-criminal as soon as prohibition was repealed. The criminalization of certain drugs in this country has filled the prisons with non-violent ‘offenders’--recreational pot smokers right along with drug gang lords. This is certainly an exemplification of Lao Tzu’s dictum.”
“Here are some more political views--58: ‘When the government is non-discriminative and dull, The people are contented and generous. When the government is searching and discriminative, The people are disappointed and contentious....The people have been deluded for a long time. Therefore the sage is as pointed as a square but does not pierce....He is as bright as light but does not dazzle.’”
“Well, Fred, that’s the way it is when the Tao is not being observed. Even in our world today special interest groups bombard the people with biased self serving messages. It is so easy to delude the people about what should be done with respect to the environment, fighting diseases such as AIDS or TB, fighting starvation in the world, or domestic homelessness. ‘Sages’, that is philosophers and scientists, may be able to devise solutions to these problems but with a ‘discriminative’ government catering to special interests rather than the general welfare how are the deluded people to know what to do to get the Tao of society back on track?”
“What do you think of this? 61: ‘A big country may be compared to the lower part of a river. It is the converging point of the world; It is the female of the world. The female always overcomes the male by tranquillity, and by tranquillity she is underneath. A big state can take over a small state if it places itself below the small state; And the small state can take over a big state if it places itself below the big state. Thus some, by being (naturally) low, take over (other states)....’”
“What is this--the political missionary position? The first part sounds like sexist nonsense, to be expected, I’m afraid, considering the time and place of Lao Tzu. I think big states treat little states in a more canine fashion. This appears to be some more ‘mysticism’ which is impracticable in our day. Yet the recommendation that small states will be better being ‘tranquil’--I mean by humoring and trying to get along with big states--is probably good advice. In our day, however, big states try to get their way by throwing around their ‘bigness’. “
“62: ‘Tao is the storehouse of all things.... Even if a man is bad, when has (Tao) rejected him? Therefore on the occasion of crowning an emperor or installing the three ministers [grand tutor, grand preceptor, and grand protector], Rather than present large pieces of jade preceded by teams of four horses, it is better to kneel and offer this Tao’”
“Well, this makes sense. Wisdom, knowledge of the Tao in so far as it is knowable, is to be preferred to the outward show of ceremony. Even Confucius would agree, though he liked the ceremonies.”
“The next chapter is interesting both in itself and because of Chan’s comment. 63: ‘Whether it is big or small, many or few, repay hatred with virtue... Difficult undertakings have always started with what is easy, And great undertakings have always started with what is small. Therefore the sage never strives for the great, and thereby the great is achieved... He who takes things too easily will surely encounter much difficulty. For this reason even the sage regards things as difficult, And therefore he encounters no difficulty.’ “
“What does Chan say?”
“He says this is the ‘Taoist doctrine of walking the second mile, which was unacceptable to Confucius.’ He means the comment about repaying hatred with virtue. Remember Analects 14:36? “
“Yes, Confucius said repay hatred with uprightness and virtue with virtue. But uprightness is the same as impartially and that is a virtue in itself (most of the time) so this difference between Confucius and Lao doesn’t amount to a whole lot in my opinion.”
“Now we go to 64: ‘A journey of a thousand li [ a li = about 1/3 mile] starts from where one stands.’ Hey! I always thought that was from Confucius--’A journey of a thousands miles starts with one step’....”
“What’s that from --a fortune cookie?”
“Not funny, Karl. Well, live and learn.One of my favorite quotes turns out to come from Lao Tzu instead of Confucius. I shall continue. ‘He who grasps things loses them. For this reason the sage takes no action and therefore does not fail. He grasps nothing and therefore does not lose anything... If one remains as careful at the end as he was at the beginning, there will be no failure. Therefore the sage desires to have no desire... He learns to be unlearned, and returns to what the multitude has missed (Tao). Thus he supports all things in their natural state but does not take any action.’ What do you make of all this?”
“Again, that ‘no action’ means no unnatural action. The sage tries to understand Tao--still a dubious prospect from his opening verses! And there is another negative thought about hoi polloi. I’m still pro-Confucius here. We can study the Tao and we should then try to impart it to the multitude. I think Lao doesn’t share this idea fully.”
“Karl, the very next chapter bears on this question--Chapter 65 I mean.”
“Excellent! Read it because Fung also comments on this chapter.
“65: In ancient times those who practiced the Tao well Did not seek to enlighten the people, but to make them ignorant. People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge. Therefore he who rules the state through knowledge is a robber of the state: He who rules a state not through knowledge is a blessing to the state.’ There is some more about returning to the natural standard, but what about this keeping the people ignorant?”
“A greater contrast to Confucius could not be found. But to understand this in the Chinese context, I’m going to read this passage from Fung. ‘”Ignorant” here is a translation of the Chinese yu, which means ignorance in the sense of simplicity and innocence. The sage not only wants his people to be yu, but wants himself to be so too....In Taoism yu is not a vice, but a great virtue’ And Fung goes on to say, however, that the yu of the sage is really higher than that of the common people. This means its not really yu at all! ‘The yu of the sage is the result of a conscious process of cultivation. It is something higher than knowledge, something more, not less. There is a common Chinese saying: “Great wisdom is like ignorance.” The yu of the sage is great wisdom, and not like the yu of a child or of ordinary people. The latter kind of yu is a gift of nature, while that of the sage is an achievement of the spirit. There is a great difference between the two. But in many cases the Taoists seem to have confused them.’”
“I’ll say! Using the same word for the uneducated ignorance of hoi polloi--and calling that a ‘gift of nature’! and the sophisticated understanding of the philosopher is no good. This is a clear case where a Confucian ‘rectification of names’ is needed!”
“I couldn’t agree more Fred. Naturally people become more difficult to govern the more they get away from the ‘gift of nature’ and find out what is really going on. Thinking of all the peasant uprisings in Chinese history, I image that the Chinese ruling class must have identified with this passage from Lao Tzu.”
“Yet they were officially Confucian and thus believed in education even if not to the extent of Confucius himself.”
“That’s right. It only shows how impractical Taoism is in the real world. People are not going to stay ignorant and you need knowledge and education and Confucian norms to make sure people are not ‘over exploited’ and thus rebel. When we look at more Confucians we will see this.”
“Here is Chapter 66: ‘The great rivers and seas are kings of all mountain streams Because they skillfully stay below them. That is why they can be their kings. Therefore, in order to be the superior of the people, one must, in the use of words, place himself below them. And in order to be ahead of the people, One must, in one’s own person, follow them. Therefore the sage places himself above the people and they do not feel his weight. He places himself in front of them and the people do not harm him. Therefore the world rejoices in praising him without getting tired of it. It is precisely because he does not compete that the world cannot compete with him.’”
“If this is interpreted as ‘learn from the people’ it would be acceptable. But with the doctrine of keeping people ignorant it looks more like a plan for simply making the ruler’s life easy. Considering the feudal system in China, I suspect that the latter interpretation may be more on the mark.”
“He says something incomprehensible to me in 69: ‘There is no greater disaster than to make light of the enemy. Making light of the enemy will destroy my treasures. Therefore when armies are mobilized and issues joined, The man who is sorry over the fact will win.’ Now how is being ‘sorry’ got anything to do with winning a battle?”
“This is mystical (that is, ‘meaningless’) to me, Fred. Unless to ‘win’ refers to some inner state. Anyway, a sage ought not to have ‘enemies’. If things come to blows, the Taoist sage must have screwed up royally!”
“70: ‘My doctrines are very easy to understand and very easy to practice, But none in the world can understand or practice them. My doctrines have a source (Nature); my deeds have a master (Tao). Few people know me, and therefore I am highly valued. Therefore the sage wears a coarse cloth on top and carries jade within his bosom.’”
“Lao seems to be preoccupied about being ‘highly valued’, but this chapter is expressing a truth that sages need to and do understand. Most people don’t understand ‘Nature’. That is, they have no conception of science or scientific method--not that Lao did either--and so really don’t understand the workings of the world around them and this is one of the great reasons why many people are not happy and cannot attain their ends. For Lao, I think this notion of ‘Nature’ is more like ‘fatalism’ but this is an advanced concept in itself for his age. The closest thing to understanding in a scientific way is the ‘Tao’ which operates in a law-like manner. The sage tries to live according to ‘Nature’ and understand the ‘Tao’. Thus far what Lao says makes sense. The question is whose Tao, Lao’s or Confucius’s?”
“OK Karl, here is 71: ‘To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.’” And Chan refers us to a part of the Analects we missed! Namely 2:17: ‘Confucius said, “Yu, shall I teach you [the way to acquire] knowledge? To say when you know that you do know and to say that you do not know when you do not know--that is [the way to acquire] knowledge.”’
“Sometimes I think sages are the same the world over! Remember that Socrate’s claim to wisdom was that he knew that he did not know.”
“And 72 has both a warning for the people and some sage advice or at least a motto for sages. ‘When the people do not have fear of what is dreadful, Then what is greatly dreadful will descend on them.’ The motto goes ‘...the sage knows himself but does not show himself. He loves himself but does not exalt himself.’”
“Sage advice indeed, Fred.”
“This is interesting, 73: ‘Who knows why Heaven dislikes what it dislikes?...Heaven’s net is indeed vast. Though its meshes are wide, it misses nothing.’ Chan says the idea of Heaven’s net greatly reinforced the Chinese idea about ‘retribution.’”
“Sounds like a Taoist version of karma. There is nothing directly related to the concept of karma in this quote, but it is easy to conjecture that after the arrival of Buddhism this concept was read back into Lao Tzu.”
“Next we have some good social commentary, actually not at all inconsistent with Confucian notions and must have endeared Lao to many of the more uptight emperors. 75: ‘The people starve because the ruler eats too much tax-grain. Therefore they starve.They are difficult to rule because their ruler does too many things. Therefore they are difficult to rule. The people take death lightly because their ruler strives for life too vigorously. Therefore they take death lightly.’”
“Yes, Fred, you’re on the money. It is certainly wrong to think that Taoists, at least of the Lao Tzu stripe, as not being interested in social questions. A Confucian could have easily stated the same ideas expressed in this passage.”
“How do you make sense of the following? Its number 76: ‘When man is born, he is tender and weak. At death, he is stiff and hard. All things, the grass as well as trees, are tender and supple while alive. When dead, they are withered and dried. Therefore the stiff and hard are companions of death. The tender and weak are companions of life. Therefore if the army is strong, it will not win. If a tree is stiff it will break. The strong and the great are inferior, while the tender and the weak are superior.’ I get most of it--but what can it mean to say a strong army won’t win?”
“I think this is very subtle, but I’ll give an example from Chinese history and you can try to think up examples from other historical periods. In 222 B.C. the first Chinese empire was created when the state of Ch’in vanquished all the rival petty states that existed at that time. Ch’in was led by a man called Cheng who was now called Shih-huang-ti or ‘First Emperor.’ He had a very strong army and ran his new empire practically like a ‘fascist’ dictator. He killed all his opponents violent and non-violent alike, and burned all the books by anyone whose philosophy he didn’t like--which was everyone except those who supported without question his government and personal rule. These methods were supposed to assure that his empire would last ten thousand generations. But he so alienated everyone that that after he died in 210 B.C. his whole empire was gone within three years. So much for having a strong army. If he had been more ‘tender’ and not so harsh perhaps his empire would have lasted and not fallen due to internal disintegration. You can perhaps make analogies to what happened to the ‘Thousand Year Reich’ and to the American Army in Vietnam which was defeated by the ‘weak’ because, while ‘strong’ it was harsh and cruel rather than showing a ‘tender’ side to the poor and impoverished peasants. So real ‘strength’ may be just the opposite of what those ignorant of the Tao think it is.”
“This makes sense, Karl, and seems reinforced by this from 77: ‘Heaven’s Way is indeed like the bending of a bow. When (the string) is high, bring it down. When it is low raise it up.... The Way of Heaven reduces whatever is excessive and supplements whatever is insufficient. The way of man is different. It reduces the insufficient to offer to the excessive. Who is able to have excess to offer to the world? Only the man of Tao. Therefore the sage acts, but does not rely on his own ability ‘ [i.e. he follows the Tao].”
“Absolutely, Fred. First Emperor was not following the Way of Heaven but that of man, that is of the man ignorant of Tao.”
“Right, and Lao continues in 78: ‘All the world knows that the weak overcomes the strong and the soft overcomes the hard. But none can practice it. Therefore the sage says: He who suffers disgrace for his country Is called the lord of the land. He who takes upon himself the country’s misfortunes Becomes the king of the empire. Straight words seem to be their opposite.’”
“I can only add, ‘in the long run.’”
“Now here is 79: ‘To patch up great hatred is surely to leave some hatred behind. How can this be regarded as good? Therefore the sage keeps the left-hand portion (obligation) of a contract And does not blame the other party.’ And he ends this passage with what Chan calls a ‘common ancient proverb’ to wit: ‘The Way of Heaven has no favorites. It is always with the good man.’”
“And the ‘good man’ is the one who follows the Tao of things of course.”
“Now here is an interesting quote having nothing to do with Taoism, other than Lao’s usual back to nature and down with civilization motif, I mean this from 80: ‘Let the people again knot cords and use them (in place of writing).’ What does that remind you of Karl?”
“It reminds me of the Inca.”
“That is correct. The Inca did not have a writing system and they kept records and even sent messages by means of knotted cords called quipu. I just find it very interesting that both ancient China and the Inca civilization had these methods of communication. It may even be pre-Inca. Who knows how far back in time this went?”
“Well it can certainly lead to interesting speculation. Are you suggesting some prehistoric contact between the Chinese and the Inca or their predecessors? The Inca were rather late you know, around 1200 AD or so.”
“Not really. I just thought it was a strange coincidence.”
“You know, Fred, if that quote was from 80 we have come to the end of the Tao-te ching. It only has 81 chapters.”
“Right you are Karl, and here is the last quote I’m going to read: ‘A good man does not argue; He who argues is not a good man. A wise man has no extensive knowledge; he who has extensive knowledge is not a wise man. The sage does not accumulate for himself. The more he uses for others, the more he has himself. The more he gives to others, the more he possesses of his own. The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure. The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.’”
“I see an altruistic moral sense at work here, but it contradicts some of the previous passages about keeping the people ignorant, etc., it can’t really benefit the people to be lacking in knowledge....”
“Ignorance is bliss.”
“When knowlede is folly--but you still need knowlede to be aware of folly. If Lao Tzu had been consistent he would have thought the Tao-te ching itself was folly and never have written it! And he is just wrong about the relation between the wise man and knowledge. Extensive knowledge of the uses of plants and herbs, etc., in medicine or how to take care of animals, or what foods to grow and how to do it, or how to read the weather signs to be able predict storms or floods, etc., are all examples of being ‘wise’ by accumulating ‘extensive knowledge.’ I can see why the Confucian sages were upset with many of the ideas floated about in this book. But I’m glad we went over it since it is so important in the history of Chinese thought.”
“Well, I’m game to forge ahead and continue this study. Why don’t we do Mo Tzu, someone neither Confucian nor Taoist?”
“Fine by me Fred. Our third discussion will be about Mo Tzu.
[Check out "Confucius: A Marxist Dialogue" in the archives of Thomas Riggins Blog]
DISCUSSION TWO--LAO TZU: A Marxist Dialogue
by Thomas Riggins
After finishing their discussion of Confucius,[check blog archive] Karl and Fred were ready to look at the philosophy of Lao Tzu. Karl, who knew more about Chinese philosophy than Fred, began by asking Fred what he knew about Lao Tzu.
“The philosophy of Lao Tzu is called Taoism, do you know much about it Fred?”
“ I have read a little Karl. I know that the philosophy of Lao Tzu is contained in a book called the Tao-te ching or The Way and its Virtue. Also that not much is really known about him. The Chinese think he lived around the time of Confucius, maybe twenty or so years before him. It is unlikely they ever met. It is also possible that he really lived hundreds of years after Confucius. Legend has it that he got tired of all the hassles in China and departed for the West riding on the back of an ox, but was stopped by the gatekeeper of the Western Pass and not allowed to proceed unless he wrote down his thoughts. That is how the Tao-te ching came about. Having complied, he disappeared over the mountains heading for India--or so they say.”
“Pretty good introduction seeing as we don’t even know if he was a real person or a mythical one! Well, you have the book, Chan’s translation, lets see if we can figure out what it means.” [A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy by Wing-Tsit Chan]
Fred picked up the book and began to read. “I, that’s Chapter One, of eighty six,--’The Tao (Way) that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; the Named is the mother of all things. Therefore let there always be non-being so we may see their subtlety, And let there always be being so we may see their outcome.’ Now what is that all about?”
“This is a mystical book. Taoism is a tradition at odds with what will develop out of the Analects. The TAO is incapable of being pinned down by human language. If someone thinks they know what it is you can be sure they are wrong because it will be even more than that. You know, Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed says that God is undefinable so that we really can’t say anything about him correctly--in just this sense is the TAO nameless.”
“OK, here is 2: ‘When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty, There arises the recognition of ugliness. When they all know the good as good, There arises the recognition of evil. Therefore: Being and non-being produce each other; Difficult and easy complete each other; Long and short contrast each other; high and low distinguish each other; Sound and voice harmonize with each other; Front and back follow each other. Therefore the sage manages affairs without action (wu-wei) And spreads doctrines without words.’ “
“ The term for ‘non-action’, i.e., wu-wei, means no action contrary to nature. I think Chan points this out. In general we see here a dialectical approach to reality. Everything has its opposite and complements that opposite. Until we know what the ‘good’ is we don’t know ‘evil.’ It looks like we have to use a lot of ‘names’ after all since ‘good.’ ‘evil,’ ‘beauty,’ ‘ugliness,’ etc., are all names. Thus while the TAO as ground of the world is ‘nameless’ the things in the world are known by names. This seems not to contradict Confucius's views about the Rectification of Names--remember Rule Two from our last discussion? [Cf. Confucius reference above. Rule Two- Language must be in accord with truth]. Also, note that Confucius did not allow himself to be drawn into discussions about the ultimate metaphysical basis of the world so he too seems not to be in disagreement with the view of the TAO as nameless. The part about spreading doctrines without words may mean that it is by EXAMPLE that influence is spread, and I don’t think Confucius would disagree with this.”
“I though you said Taoism was in conflict with Confucianism. It looks like they agree on everything!”
“What can I say? We have only looked at the first two chapters. I’m sure the big differences will soon manifest themselves.”
“3: ‘Do not display objects of desire, so that the people’s hearts shall not be disturbed. Therefore in the government of the sage He keeps their hearts [peaceful and pure] (hsü), Fills their bellies, Weakens their ambitions, And strengthens their bones, He always causes his people to be without knowledge (cunning) or desire, And the crafty to be afraid to act.’”
“I really don’t know what to make of this! The sage ruler evidently keeps his wealth under lock and key so the masses won’t see the class differences in the state. He provides bread and circuses as a Roman emperor so that the people remain content and don’t mess with the government. This is obviously the product of a feudal mentality.”
“5: ‘Heaven and Earth are not humane (jen). They regard all things as straw dogs. The sage is not humane. He regards all people as straw dogs.’ That doesn’t sound very good to me Karl.”
“Well lets not read too much into it. I remember Chan on this selection saying that it means that Nature and the Sage are really IMPARTIAL and not playing favorites unjustly. Heaven and Earth are just following Tao, as we would say, ‘the laws of nature’, and as you know the sun shines on the just and the unjust alike. The Sage too has to be impartial and examine things according to their merits. The Prime Directive! [Cf. Confucius article. The Prime Directive of philosophy is to ‘Always seek the truth by means of logic and reason without appeals to faith and emotion.’]
“7: ‘Heaven is eternal and Earth everlasting. They can be eternal and everlasting because they do not exist for themselves. And for this reason can exist forever. Therefore the sage places himself in the background but finds himself in the foreground’.”
“Now I understand the last part. Don’t toot your own horn and all that, lead by example, but the first part is just mystical excess as far as I can tell. Heaven and Earth not existing for themselves what can that mean? Perhaps he means they are manifestations of Tao, but this passage is all too mystical for me.”
“I like the following from 9: ‘To be proud with honor and wealth Is to cause one’s own downfall. Withdraw as soon as your work is done. Such is Heaven’s Way.’”
“Yes, don’t overstay your welcome. At least this counteracts the view that Taoists are recluses. You have a job or function to perform and you should stick with it until its done--but then leave!”
“Chapter Eleven is a little mysterious. ‘Doors and windows are cut out to make a room But it is on its non-being that the utility of the room depends. Therefore turn being into advantage, and turn non-being into utility.’”
“I think Lao is saying that the room is ‘empty’ hence ‘non-being’ and because it is empty it can be used for something--a dining room, bedroom, study, etc. The ‘being’ would be the material of the room from which the doors and windows were cut.”
“And what can this mean? 12:’Goods that are hard to get injure one’s activities. For this reason the sage is concerned with the belly and not the eyes, Therefore he rejects the one but accepts the other.’”
“Your guess is as good as mine Fred. But look at it this way. It is easy to get a bowl of rice to eat, all the simple fare required, really, for a Taoist sage but you can see palaces and treasures and things of that sort which others have and will never be yours so it is better to avoid that kind of ‘concern’ and stick to your proper activities.”
“Sounds good to me Karl. Here is 13: ‘If I have no body, What trouble could I have? Therefore he who values the world as his body may be entrusted with the empire.’”
“I remember this. Chan says something about it doesn’t he?”
“Here is his comment on page 145 of his Source Book:’On the basis of this attitude toward the body, it is difficult to accept the theory that Yang Chu who would preserve one’s own life under any circumstances, was an early Taoist, as Fung has maintained.’ Now what is all that about?”
“Well, here is a good time to tell you who Fung was. Chan means Fung Yu-lan who wrote the most important history of Chinese philosophy we have in English, it was translated from Chinese by one of his students, Dirk Bodde. This is the History of Chinese Philosophy in two volumes, also available abridged as A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. Yang Chu is a character we will run into if we ever make it to Mencius.”
“OK, and....”
“And Chan is, I think wrong. This passage from Lao is not putting down the body. He says we value it and even love it --otherwise there is trouble. Since this is the case the person who loves the world just as much as himself, since he will love himself, will be the best ruler. If Yang Chu thought as much of the world as he did of himself he would be a good ruler. He was, however, an egotist. Yang may not have been an admirable Taoist, a sage, but Fung has not been proven wrong by this comment by Lao. But we will have to wait till we meet Yang himself later in our discussions.”
“14: ‘We look at it and do not see it; Its name is the Invisible. We listen to it and do not hear it; Its name is the Inaudible. We touch it and do not find it; its name is the Subtle (formless). These three cannot be further inquired into, And hence merge into one.’”
“A typical mystical statement. The hidden ground of the universe is not available to our knowledge, at least not to our sense knowledge so we will have no direct empirical knowledge of it. “
“Chan says this view of the non-detectability of ultimate reality--the ‘formless’ is in contradistinction to the Confucian view that reality is ‘manifest.’ He also points out that as Chinese philosophy developed under the influence of Buddhism, centuries later, the so called Neo-Confucianists made a synthesis and he quotes a Neo-Confucianist Ch’eng I who wrote ‘there is no distinction between the manifest and the hidden.’”
“That is a very Hegelian type of synthesis. Hegel did not have a high regard for Chinese thought, perhaps because of limited access to it in his day. But Hegel taught that ‘Thought’ advances by developing concepts that engender counter concepts that then result in a synthesis of the two into a new ‘higher’ concept that combines what was the one-sidedness of the original concepts. This is quite a simplification, but from what you just read from Chan, I’m sure Ch’eng I’s unification of these two concepts the ‘hidden’ and the ‘manifest’--’there is no distinction’ would meet with Hegel’s approval.”
“I notice here a reference to p’u in 15 and ’uncarved wood’? What is that image about?”
“That, Fred, is one of the most famous Taoist images. A sage is like an ‘uncarved block of wood.’ I see it as meaning we are all ‘potential’. An uncarved block could become anything under the hands of an artist--a horse, a figure of a man, or any thing at all. But once carved that's it--the carved horse can’t later be a carved man. Also, Lao calls the uncarved block ‘genuine.’ So there is something artificial about the carved block. This somehow implies that human actions are not fully natural they contrast to the Tao. This is, I think, incorrect on Lao’s part! Everything is comprehended under the Tao so humans are too and the uncarved block and the carved block originate from the same universal process. There is an unresolved contradiction at the heart of Taoism which we will have to see played out. Sartre, in his Existentialism, would say humans have to live in the world even when trying not to interfere with it--they are committed to some ‘project’ or other so even being an ‘uncarved block’ is a form of being ‘carved’. For now, I’ll leave this as an unresolved ‘Hegelian’ contradiction.”
“18: ‘When the great Tao declined, The doctrines of humanity (jen) and righteousness (i) arose. When knowledge and wisdom appeared, There appeared great hypocrisy. When the six family relationships [father, son, elder and younger brother, husband and wife--Chan] are not in harmony, There will be the advocacy of filial piety and deep love to children. When a country is in disorder, There will be praise of loyal ministers,’”
“Pretty obvious. All of these things are a reflection that there are problems and imperfections, a sign that Tao is not working properly--the Tao of human affairs that is, the Tao of Nature is something else it seems. Look at our example. We like to think we care about the environment and other people--but look at the reality. It is just because we degrade both the environment and our fellow beings that we have to have so many laws to protect them. Big corporations such as GE, Exxon-Mobil, etc., spend millions in ad campaigns telling us how corporate America is environmentally conscious--but the fact that we need anti-pollution laws and regulations aimed at these very companies shows that what they claim they are and what they are are vastly different. Do you think that if there were freedom and equality in the United States we would need civil rights laws? And why did they pass a law in Texas against having sex with sheep? This is the message of Lao Tzu. “
“Lao goes on in 19: ‘Abandon sageliness and discard wisdom; then the people will benefit a hundredfold. Abandon humanity and discard righteousness; Then the people will return to filial piety and deep love. Abandon skill and discard profit; Then there will be no thieves or robbers. However these three things are ornament (wen) and not adequate. Therefore let people hold on to these: Manifest plainness, Embrace simplicity, Reduce selfishness, Have few desires.’”
“Its too late for this Taoist program I fear. Civilization was even so far advanced in Lao’s time that a program such as this, a going back to ‘nature’ program as it were, was not realistic. Taoism is reactionary--it reacts to the problems of the times by harking back to a mythical past when the Tao was not in decline and we didn’t need all the regulations and rules that have evolved along with our social development. Nevertheless, the four rules he gives at the end are not so bad--just on utilitarian grounds--if we all practiced them many of the negative aspects of our technological world system would be mitigated. I’m sure you can see how their application would bring this about.”
“Now this is really important Karl--Chapter 21, Chan says its the most important in the entire book--philosophically that is.”
“Well, lets hear it then!”
“ OK, here goes, ‘The all-embracing quality of the great virtue (te) follows alone from the Tao. The thing that is called Tao is eluding and vague. Vague and eluding, there is in it the form. Eluding and vague, in it are things. Deep and obscure, in it is the essence [intelligence, spirit, life-force]. The essence is very real; in it are evidences. From the time of old until now, its name (manifestations) ever remains, By which we may see the beginning of all things. How do I know the beginnings of all things are so? Through this (Tao).’”
“In itself this passage is too vague . What do we learn from saying ‘the Tao is all encompassing and is the ultimate explanation for everything?’ Not much. Chan thinks it so important because it is similar to passages in the Book of Changes [of which more later] which were utilized in NeoConfucianist metaphysics.”
“Here is 22, some more ‘mysticism’--’To have plenty is to be perplexed. Therefore the sage embraces the one and becomes the model of the world. He does not show himself; therefore he is luminous. He does not justify himself; therefore he becomes prominent. He does not boast of himself; therefore he is given credit. He does not brag; therefore he can endure for long.’”
“Next!”
“23: ‘Nature says few words. For the same reason a whirlwind does not last a whole morning, Nor does a rainstorm last a whole day. What causes them? It is Heaven and Earth (Nature). If Heaven and Earth cannot make them last long, How much less can man? Therefore he who follows Tao is identified with Tao.’”
“Very interesting. He seems to be saying don’t mess with Nature. You have heard of the ‘Three Gorges” dam project in China?”
“Its supposed to be the world’s largest dam project--displacing thousands of people and completely changing the face of land.”
“And you know that projects like this, and many other man made attempts to change the environment have ended in disasters. Think of the problems in the Everglades since we have monkeyed around with the water levels in Florida--and the extinction of many species throughout the world due to the destruction of habitats. I think those in power could learn a thing or two from this passage in Lao. Work with Nature, don’t try to completely rearrange the natural processes that have developed on the planet--that is following Tao.”
“This chapter,25, reminds me of the opening: ‘There was something undifferentiated and yet complete, Which existed before heaven and earth. Soundless, and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger. It may be considered the mother of the universe. I do not know its name; I call it Tao. If forced to give it a name; I call it great...Being far-reaching means returning to the original point. Therefore Tao is great.’”
“As Chan says, this passage is representative of the Chinese view that history and nature operate cyclically. [Of course, now that they are Marxists they are not supposed to believe this.] Whereas we in the West more or less think in terms of progress and continual betterment, the Chinese in classical times thought in terms of cycles rather than progress.”
“26: ‘The tranquil is the ruler of the hasty. Therefore the sage travels all day Without leaving his baggage....How is it that a lord with ten thousand chariots Should behave lightheartedly in his empire? If he is lighthearted, the minister will be destroyed. If he is hasty, the ruler is lost.’”
“Not really a Taoist paradox. The ruler is secure and tranquil being lighthearted is a sign of assuredness. On the other hand the function of the minister is to carry out his duties--lightheartedness ill behooves him.”
“This next chapter is interesting and I don’t think it really needs any explication--27: ‘A well-tied knot needs no rope and yet none can untie it. Therefore the sage is always good at saving men and consequently no man is rejected. He is always good in saving things and consequently nothing is rejected. This is called following the light (of Nature) Therefore the good man is the teacher of the bad, And the bad is the material from which the good may learn. He who does not value the teacher, Or greatly care for the material, Is greatly deluded although he may be learned. Such is the essential mystery.’”
“A lot of faith in the salvation power of the sage! Confucius wants to enlighten people, this is a form of salvation but a bit more limited than Lao here. Remember the ‘square’--if you don’t get the other three sides from the one Confucius gives to you, you get dropped!” [Cf. the Confucius dialogue]
“I remember. Here is something about the ‘sage’--28: ‘He will be proficient in eternal virtue, And returns to the state of simplicity (uncarved wood). When the uncarved wood is broken up, it is turned into concrete things (as Tao transformed into the myriad things). But when the sage uses it, he becomes the leading official. Therefore the great ruler does not cut up’”
“The Taoist Sage is using and not using the uncarved block it would seem. This is because he prefers things to remain in their original state of simplicity--he rules by not ruling. This is all very fine if you have a well ordered state in the first place but what if you come along in a ‘time of troubles’ and forceful action is needed? Would this Taoist minimalism work in that case, or must the Taoist wait for a natural cyclical return to simplicity? I don’t think Lao has an answer to this problem.”
“Well, we may find one later on in the book. This is chapter 29, it has relevance to your questions: ‘When one desires to take over the empire and act on it (interfere with it), I see that he will not succeed. The empire is a spiritual thing and should not be acted on.’ He then says, ‘...the sage discards the extremes, the extravagant, and the excessive.’”
“That last part is like Aristotle’s ‘mean’--you know, virtue is a mean between two extremes--e.g., ‘courage’ is a mean between ‘foolhardiness’ and ‘cowardice.’”
“But what about the other part, about not ‘acting’? What if the ‘empire’ needs some ‘action’--such as tax reform or an agricultural reform or something like that? I’m beginning to agree with what you just said a few minutes ago. This might be a real problem with Lao’s views.”
“I’m glad you agree. What is next?”
“Something our gun toting friends in the NRA will appreciate. 31: ‘Fine weapons are instruments of evil. They are hated by men. Therefore those who possess Tao turn away from them’”
“I remember this chapter. Forget the NRA, read some more and then try to reconcile Lao’s ideas with our government’s or any government’s obsession with military spending. This quote goes well beyond the NRA!”
“’Weapons are instruments of evil, not the instruments of a good ruler. When he uses them unavoidably, he regards calm restraint as the best principle. Even when he is victorious, he does not regard it as praiseworthy, For to praise victory is to delight in the slaughter of men....For a victory, let us observe the occasion with funeral ceremonies.’”
“This shows real understanding of the horrors of war on Lao’s part. Someting we have yet to understand, it seems. Yet he admits the ruler may not be able to avoid the use of weapons--think of trying to stop Hitler without them. Nevertheless, even when defeating Hitler it was wrong to celebrate with a Roman triumph. The fact that we did so shows how far we are from the real spirit of the Tao.”
“I wonder what Lao would think about our current and past warlike activities in the Balkans and Iraq.”
“We have not very good rulers I fear.”
“In 33 he says ‘He who dies but does not really perish enjoys long life.’ Is he talking about the immortality of the soul?”
“I don’t think so. If you read on you will find that Chan points out that the Chinese think of immortality not in terms of individual survival but in terms of an immortality of reputation--your writings and your deeds. Look at it this way--some older person helps a child, say by sending her to school, she grows up to be a doctor and saves the life of some one who later becomes a ruler, etc. etc., a causal sequence extending over a thousand years--these people in the sequence, their deeds have never really perished.”
“OK, now I’ll read parts of 34; ‘The Great Tao flows every -where....It clothes and feeds all things but does not claim to be master over them. Always without desires, it may be called The Small. All things come to it and it does not master them; it may be called The Great. Therefore (the sage) never strives himself for the great, and thereby the great is achieved.’”
“I can’t help but think of this in Western terms! It means, to my mind, that there is some universal ‘law’ or ‘power’ which is responsible for all that happens--but the expression ‘does not claim to be master’ allows for freedom of action at least on the part of self-conscious beings as ourselves, so Lao is not a Calvinist or Augustinian predestinationist. I admit, however, that this is a Western interpretation and may or may not coincide with what Lao had in mind.”
“Just when you think Lao isn’t so bad, he comes up with a recommendation that is just awful and shows how out of
line his views are to democratic thinkers today.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Listen to this from 36: ‘Fish should not be taken away from water. And sharp weapons of the state should not be displayed to the people.’”
“I see what you mean, but his advice is generally followed even today by so called democratic governments, although I don’t consider governments that practice this really democratic at all in the true sense of the term.”
“Now what are you talking about?”
“You know, all this stuff you read about in the papers about the FBI and the CIA how they run all kinds of secret operations without any seeming control trying to assassinate people they deem a threat to their power--or the really terrible secret weapons systems the military creates such as the poison gases and germ warfare toxins they have made--not to mention the nuclear weapons they have and now all this information coming out about depleted uranium weapons or the training of terrorists at the School of the Americas run by the military (even if they changed the name to further conceal what goes on there). Don’t you think all this falls under Lao’s dictum that sharp weapons shouldn’t be displayed to the people?”
“Its all very confusing to me. I would have thought that Lao would be against ‘sharp weapons’ and things like you described. He says in the same chapter ‘The weak and the tender overcome the hard and the strong’ so he should be against ‘sharp weapons’--the state should get what it wants by being ‘weak and tender’ that is by education and treating people as people and following the Tao.”
“So there seems to be a contradiction in his teachings, just look back at 31 when he attacks ‘fine weapons’ and says they go against the Tao! I’ll admit there can be a lot to argue about here.”
“And Chan points out that this doctrine of ‘deceit’ really upset the Confucianists. I guess Confucius would want the people to be educated and know what is going on in their state. After all, he thought government was for the benefit of the people and ultimately to be extended to the whole world so people who are not displaying their ‘sharp weapons’ must be up to no good!”
“So noted! What’s next?”
“I’ll read part of 38: ‘The man of superior virtue is (not conscious of) his virtue, And in this way he really possesses virtue. The man of inferior virtue never loses (sight of) his virtue, And in this way he loses his virtue. The man of superior virtue takes no action, but has no ulterior motive to do so. The man of inferior virtue takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior humanity takes action, but has no ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior righteousness takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior propriety takes action, And when people do not respond to it, he will stretch his arms and force it on them. Therefore, only when Tao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise...propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder...the great man...dwells in the fruit (reality), and does not rest with the flower (appearance). Therefore he rejects the one, and accepts the other.’”
“This is a passage which again puts forth the view that the simple and natural are best, closest to the Tao. This is almost like Rousseau in the rejection of the artificialities of civilization.”
“Here in 39 Lao talks about the ‘One’--which I take to be Tao-- he says ‘Heaven obtained the One and became clear.... If heaven had not thus become clear, It would soon crack.’ He makes similar remarks about the efficacy of the One with regard, for example to the earth (without the One ‘It would soon be shaken’) and about kings and barons who became rulers by it and ‘They would soon fall’ without it. But then he says ‘Therefore humble station is the basis of honor. The low is the foundation of the high.’ I just don’t understand the conclusion he draws!”
“Well, this isn’t a syllogism after all. If you equate the One with the Tao this implies again the power of the Tao to have the ultimate influence over reality. Lao is being ‘mystical’ not ‘logical’ by referring to the ‘humble’ and the ‘low’--you see he is using the ‘One’ as a symbol for the ‘low’--a low number--and the ‘humble’. The ‘One’ is the beginning but the ‘thousand’, so to speak, is ultimately dependent upon it.”
“OK Karl, here is a verse from 40--’All things in the world come from being. And being comes from non-being.’”
“Now is the time to bring in some outside assistance,” Karl said as he went to his bookcase and pulled down a book.
“What is this book,” Fred asked.
“This is A Short History of Chinese Philosophy by Fung Yu-Lan, edited by Derk Bodde. Its really required reading if we are interested in Chinese philosophy. Fung was a major philosopher in his own right and this is based on his great two volume work History of Chinese Philosophy. I think it is the best of the histories because it is by one of the most important philosophers in the modern Chinese tradition. It is similar to having A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell.”
“So now we can use Fung as well as Chan for clarification, why didn’t you bring it out earlier?”
“Its better to introduce these aids slowly, besides Confucius wasn’t into all this metaphysical speculation but Lao’s work is full of these kind of statements so where Chan does not give any clarification we can turn to Fung. I remember he had interesting comments to make on this Chapter from Lao Tzu.”
“Chapter 40?”
“That is correct,” said Karl, flipping through Fung’s book. “Ah, here is the passage I was looking for. Listen to this Fred, its on page 96: ‘...the being of all things implies the being of Being. This is the meaning of Lao Tzu’s saying [40].... The saying of Lao Tzu does not mean that there was a time when there was only Non-being, and that then there came a time when Being came into being from Non-being. It simply means that if we analyze the existence of things, we see there must first be Being before there can be any things. Tao is the unnamable, is Non-Being, and is that by which all things come to be. Therefore, before the being of Being, there must be Non-being, from which Being comes into being. What is here said belongs to ontology, not to cosmology. It has nothing to do with time and actuality. For in time and actuality, there is no Being; there are only beings.’”
“And you think that quote is helpful?”
“Well, it looked better when I was reading this book as a student. Fung was a metaphysician himself and sometimes requires to be explained even more than what he is explaining!”
“So why bring him up.”
“Because he brings all the latent issues to the fore.”
“Well then, what else is there besides ‘time and actuality’? Are not ‘time and actuality’ circumlocutions for ‘existence’ so that Fung is saying ‘in existence there is no Existence only existents’. And I would say that what is true of ‘cosmology’ is true of ‘ontology.’”
“Fred, I wouldn’t disagree with you. This passage from Fung is turning out to be nonsense! I think Fung should have said ‘Being’ is a logical category that precedes ‘being’ but even that is taking us far and away from the, I think, much more simple meaning of Lao Tzu’s words.”
“So, how would you explain 40?”
“First, I want to say these digressions are philosophically interesting. Second, I think the best way to look at Lao’s saying is to think of ‘all things come from being’ as meaning ‘whatever exists today comes from previously existing things’. Things just don’t pop up out of nothing. And ‘being comes from non-being’ means there is some principle or cause that is responsible for the state of the existing world as we know it and this is TAO which is not itself the same as the beings of this world which are ultimately dependent upon it and for this reason Lao calls it ‘non-being.’ “
“I’m moving on Karl, to Chapter 41.”
“OK”
“’When the highest type of men hear Tao, They diligently practice it. When the average type of men hear Tao, They half believe in it. When the lowest type of men hear Tao, They laugh heartily at it. If they did not laugh at it, it would not be Tao. Therefore there is the established saying: The Tao which is bright appears to be dark.’”
“Two observations about this Fred. How can the three types ‘hear Tao’ since (Chapter One) the Tao that can be spoken of isn’t the Tao. I mean, how would they know they actually knew what they heard was Tao? Second, since this is supposed to be Lao’s book introducing his views how can there be an ‘established view’? Anyway, since I’m not interested in the history of the text but the idea content, I will restrict myself to this idea of the ‘bright’ appearing as the ‘dark’. This view is right out of the the species of doctrines that gave rise to Plato’s views of the reception of philosophical ‘Truth” as he expressed it in The Republic. I mean this is at one with the Allegory of the Cave. The ultimate ‘Truth’ is the Tao, so if we replace ‘tao’ with ‘truth’ in the quote you read we have the exact meaning intended by Lao. We also have a theme which is common to almost all philosophy whether in China, India or Greece at this time and that is that philosophical truth is ultimately esoteric and limited to a few individuals. The great mass of humanity, hoi polloi, are unable, why is the big question, to grasp the truth and so while it is bright for the sage or philosopher it remains dark to them. The average sort of understand it but it really doesn’t motivate them. So we have three groups of people--a small group motivated by the truth (they get into a lot of trouble most of the time), a middle group that is neither motivated nor hostile (too busy living the every day problems of life) and a ‘low’ group that is hostile and prefers to continue along in a dark and ignorant and unthreatening life style based on unreflective acceptance of common ideas.”
“You seem to be giving a Confucian twist to this! Wouldn’t Lao praise the simple unreflective life style as the manifestation of the Tao? In fact, once you have the ‘highest type of men’ and the ‘lowest type’ of men hasn’t the Tao already been lost?”
“You know, you are right Fred. This is a bit of a contradiction. But the fact is the Tao has been lost from the point view of Lao--and a long time ago too. So we must make do with the world we live in. “
“Does Fung cast any light on this?”
“Actually he does and his comment is based on part of Chapter 40 you didn’t quote a few minutes ago.”
“What was that?”
“Go back and read the first line.”
“’Reversion is the action of Tao.’”
“Fung points out that this sums up Lao’s views on what we would call dialectics. He says ‘The idea is that if anything develops certain extreme qualities, those qualities invariability revert to become their opposites. This constitutes a law of nature.’”
“Sounds like Hegel or Marx.”
“In a way, but Lao’s ‘law’ is more mechanical than really dialectical in the Hegelian sense.”
“How so?”
“Well, in Lao the ‘hard’ becomes the ‘soft’ and then the ‘soft’ becomes the ‘hard’ or the ‘weak’ overcomes the ‘strong’ and then the ‘strong’ becomes the ‘weak’ etc. There appears to be just alteration going on but no advance. When Hegel or Marx and Engels say something like ‘things transform into their opposites’ they don’t intend by this mere alteration back and forth ad infinitum but an advance to a higher level or if you object to ‘higher’ a radically different level. An imaginative but simple example is Lao would give opposites as water-ice, ice-water whereas Hegel might say something like ‘hydrogen is the “opposite” of oxygen but the two opposites transform in to water’ (and other things as well). Fung says this ‘law’ is so paradoxical that hoi polloi can’t grasp it and that is why they laugh at it. Anything really ‘true’ about the world is like that--if hoi polloi grasp it it can’t be true! Of course Marxists would like it to be the other way around.”
“You know, Karl, for all his praise of the simple he is really a snob. This view of the ‘low’ never understanding anything, along with ‘hiding the sharp weapons of the state’ call into question Lao’s sincerity about the concern he is alleged to express for the ‘common people.’”
“A case can be made for this. It is Confucius who wants to educate as many people as possible seeing in education an almost universal panacea.”
“Yes, but he won’t show you the other three corners if you can’t get them yourself after he shows you the first.” [Cf. Confucius dialogue on my blog]
“Why don’t you read the next interesting tid-bit?”
“This is from 42: ‘Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things [i.e. everything] carry the yin and embrace the yang [Chan:’ Yin is the passive, female[!] cosmic principle or force while yang is the active[!] or male principle.’] {You can see males thought this one up!}, and through the blending of the material force (ch’i) [Chan:’Variously translated as matter, matter-energy, vital force, breath, etc.] they achieve harmony....What others have taught, I teach also:”Violent and fierce people do not die a natural death.” I shall make this the father (basis or starting point) of my teaching.’”
“I remember Chan on this passage. He made some good points. Why don’t you read the salient passages?”
“His main point is ‘...the natural evolution from the simple to the complex without any act of creation. This theory is common to practically all Chinese philosophical schools.’”
“The word ‘creation’ is confusing. In the West, following the developments of Neo-Platonism, the ‘ten thousand’ things also came about by emanation from the One or ‘God’ this is how they were ‘created’. I think Chan has in mind the Western notion of creation ex nihilo which was read back by Christians (and then Jews) into the Genesis creation account and has become a dogma. And out of the blue comes this new starting point--I mean, the comment about fierce people. I think it is better to retain the starting point as the Tao and regard this new passage as the starting point of his ethics or social or moral ideas.”
“44:’ Which is worse, gain or loss? Therefore he who has lavish desires will spend extravagantly. He who hoards will lose heavily. He who is contented suffers no disgrace. He who knows when to stop is free from danger. Therefore he can long endure.’ There is a string of quotable quotes here which I’ll just read to give more of a flavor of Taoism in these middle chapters. Go ahead and chime in, Karl, if you think any explication is needed.”
“I will.”
“46: ‘When Tao prevails in the world, galloping horses are turned back to fertilize (the fields with their dung). When Tao does not prevail in the world, war horses thrive in the suburbs.’”
“I guess the fact that we spend so much on the military and have such big budgets dedicated to killing and maiming our fellow human beings all over the world doesn’t say much for the prevalence of the Tao in the current world order.”
“47: ‘The further one goes, the less one knows. Therefore the sage knows without going about, Understands without seeing, And accomplishes without any action.’”
“That might have been true in the days of yore, Fred, before the development of the scientific method and the realization of the importance of research programs. If Lao thinks that knowledge and understanding come about just through contemplation and intution he is wrong, at least by our standards. Darwin would never have come up with his theory of evolution without his ‘going about’ on the HMS Beagle.”
“49: ‘The sage has no fixed (personal) ideas. He regards the people’s ideas as his own. I treat those who are good with goodness, And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. I am honest to those who are honest, And I am also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained.”
“I don’t see how this agrees with Chapter 41. The sage follows Tao on a higher level than ‘the people’ who appear to be indifferent if average or if ‘low’ laughing at it. So, it may be that the the sage, like the ideal scientist or philosopher, leaves him or herself out of the equation (knowlede being ideally objective) but the ‘people’ is too much of an abstraction nowadays, especially since the Tao is not prevailing, to believe the sage’s ideas are the same as the people’s. The only way this could be the case is if the sage represents the ‘general will’ in Rousseau’s sense, and this might, after all just be what Lao Tzu actually means.”
“51: ‘Tao produces them (the ten thousand things). Virtue fosters them. Matter gives them physical form. The circumstances and tendencies complete them. Therefore the ten thousand things esteem Tao and honor virtue. Tao is esteemed and virtue honored without anyone’s order. They always come spontaneously. Therefore Tao produces them and virtue fosters them.’”
“The word being used for ‘virture’ is 'te'--which also means ‘power’. Fung says that Tao is the ‘ground’ and the things come to be by the power manifested in them. Think of Tao as the laws of nature by which material things come to be what they are and manifest their ‘virtue’ or power. Its as when Aristotle said the virtue of a knife is its ability to cut. In this we see Spinoza’s universe reflected in the ideas of the Chinese sage.”
“54: ‘He who has a firm grasp (of Tao) cannot be separated from it.... When one cultivates virtue in the world, it becomes universal.’”
“The point of this chapter is that such cultivation begins with the person then extends to the family, then to the community, the country and finally the whole world.”
“You get the idea from this next quote of the remoteness of the sage from the concerns of most people. 56: ‘Become one with the dusty world. This is called profound identification. Therefore it is impossible either to be intimate and close to him or to be distant and indifferent to him.’ A little before this quote he says, ‘He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.’”
“A real problem since Lao has to ‘speak’ in order to give this bit of information to us!”
“57: ‘The more laws and orders are made prominent, The more thieves and robbers there will be. Therefore the sage says: I take no action and the people of themselves are transformed. I love tranquillity and the people of themselves become correct. I engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous. I have no desires and the people of themselves become simple.’ Chan says this laissez-faire attitude was also that of Confucius.”
“I can’t agree with Chan. How can Confucius say ‘I take no action’ and the people are transformed. This is an attack on Confucius. Confucians seek to take a lot of actions to improve the world and correct and make new laws to govern society. According to Fung this ‘laissez-faire’ attitude is preceded by the sage ruler first undoing ‘all the causes of trouble in the world’ which is very ‘proactive’--if I may use this pretentious and ridiculous word being currently substituted by the semi-literate for ‘active.’ After the troubles have been eliminated then the sage ruler rules by means of wu-wei--i.e., by non-action [meaning no unnatural action]. Fung says, ‘The Taoists agree with the Confucianists that the ideal state is one which has a sage as its head.’ They both agree with Plato on this. But they are different kinds of sages.
“ I feel another a rule coming on.”
“Why not? We can review our rules from the discussion on Confucius when we finish with Lao Tzu but now I am proposing Rule Four-’Always strive to have a philosopher-sage as the chief executive of the state.’”
“That's too abstract. What really qualifies a person as a philosopher-sage? Lao-Tzu’s ideas on this are different from those of Confucius.”
“I know, I know. This is just the framework the rule will have to be further discussed when we evaluate the different philosophies as we go along. I now want to make a comment about the laws being made leading to the conclusion that ‘the more thieves and robbers there will be.’ Of course there are some minimum laws that any society needs, but when the state begins to make more and more new laws it also makes criminals where there were none before.”
“What do you mean?”
“During the rise of Capitalism, for example, when the government closed off the commons to the peasants, as in England, many people were forced into criminal activity just to survive. By making new laws about who can use the commons then actions which were legal--grazing you animals on such and such land or hunting-- became illegal and you became a criminal for doing today what yesterday was a right. Prohibition in the United States turned millions of people technically into criminals and also fostered the development of criminal industries which became non-criminal as soon as prohibition was repealed. The criminalization of certain drugs in this country has filled the prisons with non-violent ‘offenders’--recreational pot smokers right along with drug gang lords. This is certainly an exemplification of Lao Tzu’s dictum.”
“Here are some more political views--58: ‘When the government is non-discriminative and dull, The people are contented and generous. When the government is searching and discriminative, The people are disappointed and contentious....The people have been deluded for a long time. Therefore the sage is as pointed as a square but does not pierce....He is as bright as light but does not dazzle.’”
“Well, Fred, that’s the way it is when the Tao is not being observed. Even in our world today special interest groups bombard the people with biased self serving messages. It is so easy to delude the people about what should be done with respect to the environment, fighting diseases such as AIDS or TB, fighting starvation in the world, or domestic homelessness. ‘Sages’, that is philosophers and scientists, may be able to devise solutions to these problems but with a ‘discriminative’ government catering to special interests rather than the general welfare how are the deluded people to know what to do to get the Tao of society back on track?”
“What do you think of this? 61: ‘A big country may be compared to the lower part of a river. It is the converging point of the world; It is the female of the world. The female always overcomes the male by tranquillity, and by tranquillity she is underneath. A big state can take over a small state if it places itself below the small state; And the small state can take over a big state if it places itself below the big state. Thus some, by being (naturally) low, take over (other states)....’”
“What is this--the political missionary position? The first part sounds like sexist nonsense, to be expected, I’m afraid, considering the time and place of Lao Tzu. I think big states treat little states in a more canine fashion. This appears to be some more ‘mysticism’ which is impracticable in our day. Yet the recommendation that small states will be better being ‘tranquil’--I mean by humoring and trying to get along with big states--is probably good advice. In our day, however, big states try to get their way by throwing around their ‘bigness’. “
“62: ‘Tao is the storehouse of all things.... Even if a man is bad, when has (Tao) rejected him? Therefore on the occasion of crowning an emperor or installing the three ministers [grand tutor, grand preceptor, and grand protector], Rather than present large pieces of jade preceded by teams of four horses, it is better to kneel and offer this Tao’”
“Well, this makes sense. Wisdom, knowledge of the Tao in so far as it is knowable, is to be preferred to the outward show of ceremony. Even Confucius would agree, though he liked the ceremonies.”
“The next chapter is interesting both in itself and because of Chan’s comment. 63: ‘Whether it is big or small, many or few, repay hatred with virtue... Difficult undertakings have always started with what is easy, And great undertakings have always started with what is small. Therefore the sage never strives for the great, and thereby the great is achieved... He who takes things too easily will surely encounter much difficulty. For this reason even the sage regards things as difficult, And therefore he encounters no difficulty.’ “
“What does Chan say?”
“He says this is the ‘Taoist doctrine of walking the second mile, which was unacceptable to Confucius.’ He means the comment about repaying hatred with virtue. Remember Analects 14:36? “
“Yes, Confucius said repay hatred with uprightness and virtue with virtue. But uprightness is the same as impartially and that is a virtue in itself (most of the time) so this difference between Confucius and Lao doesn’t amount to a whole lot in my opinion.”
“Now we go to 64: ‘A journey of a thousand li [ a li = about 1/3 mile] starts from where one stands.’ Hey! I always thought that was from Confucius--’A journey of a thousands miles starts with one step’....”
“What’s that from --a fortune cookie?”
“Not funny, Karl. Well, live and learn.One of my favorite quotes turns out to come from Lao Tzu instead of Confucius. I shall continue. ‘He who grasps things loses them. For this reason the sage takes no action and therefore does not fail. He grasps nothing and therefore does not lose anything... If one remains as careful at the end as he was at the beginning, there will be no failure. Therefore the sage desires to have no desire... He learns to be unlearned, and returns to what the multitude has missed (Tao). Thus he supports all things in their natural state but does not take any action.’ What do you make of all this?”
“Again, that ‘no action’ means no unnatural action. The sage tries to understand Tao--still a dubious prospect from his opening verses! And there is another negative thought about hoi polloi. I’m still pro-Confucius here. We can study the Tao and we should then try to impart it to the multitude. I think Lao doesn’t share this idea fully.”
“Karl, the very next chapter bears on this question--Chapter 65 I mean.”
“Excellent! Read it because Fung also comments on this chapter.
“65: In ancient times those who practiced the Tao well Did not seek to enlighten the people, but to make them ignorant. People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge. Therefore he who rules the state through knowledge is a robber of the state: He who rules a state not through knowledge is a blessing to the state.’ There is some more about returning to the natural standard, but what about this keeping the people ignorant?”
“A greater contrast to Confucius could not be found. But to understand this in the Chinese context, I’m going to read this passage from Fung. ‘”Ignorant” here is a translation of the Chinese yu, which means ignorance in the sense of simplicity and innocence. The sage not only wants his people to be yu, but wants himself to be so too....In Taoism yu is not a vice, but a great virtue’ And Fung goes on to say, however, that the yu of the sage is really higher than that of the common people. This means its not really yu at all! ‘The yu of the sage is the result of a conscious process of cultivation. It is something higher than knowledge, something more, not less. There is a common Chinese saying: “Great wisdom is like ignorance.” The yu of the sage is great wisdom, and not like the yu of a child or of ordinary people. The latter kind of yu is a gift of nature, while that of the sage is an achievement of the spirit. There is a great difference between the two. But in many cases the Taoists seem to have confused them.’”
“I’ll say! Using the same word for the uneducated ignorance of hoi polloi--and calling that a ‘gift of nature’! and the sophisticated understanding of the philosopher is no good. This is a clear case where a Confucian ‘rectification of names’ is needed!”
“I couldn’t agree more Fred. Naturally people become more difficult to govern the more they get away from the ‘gift of nature’ and find out what is really going on. Thinking of all the peasant uprisings in Chinese history, I image that the Chinese ruling class must have identified with this passage from Lao Tzu.”
“Yet they were officially Confucian and thus believed in education even if not to the extent of Confucius himself.”
“That’s right. It only shows how impractical Taoism is in the real world. People are not going to stay ignorant and you need knowledge and education and Confucian norms to make sure people are not ‘over exploited’ and thus rebel. When we look at more Confucians we will see this.”
“Here is Chapter 66: ‘The great rivers and seas are kings of all mountain streams Because they skillfully stay below them. That is why they can be their kings. Therefore, in order to be the superior of the people, one must, in the use of words, place himself below them. And in order to be ahead of the people, One must, in one’s own person, follow them. Therefore the sage places himself above the people and they do not feel his weight. He places himself in front of them and the people do not harm him. Therefore the world rejoices in praising him without getting tired of it. It is precisely because he does not compete that the world cannot compete with him.’”
“If this is interpreted as ‘learn from the people’ it would be acceptable. But with the doctrine of keeping people ignorant it looks more like a plan for simply making the ruler’s life easy. Considering the feudal system in China, I suspect that the latter interpretation may be more on the mark.”
“He says something incomprehensible to me in 69: ‘There is no greater disaster than to make light of the enemy. Making light of the enemy will destroy my treasures. Therefore when armies are mobilized and issues joined, The man who is sorry over the fact will win.’ Now how is being ‘sorry’ got anything to do with winning a battle?”
“This is mystical (that is, ‘meaningless’) to me, Fred. Unless to ‘win’ refers to some inner state. Anyway, a sage ought not to have ‘enemies’. If things come to blows, the Taoist sage must have screwed up royally!”
“70: ‘My doctrines are very easy to understand and very easy to practice, But none in the world can understand or practice them. My doctrines have a source (Nature); my deeds have a master (Tao). Few people know me, and therefore I am highly valued. Therefore the sage wears a coarse cloth on top and carries jade within his bosom.’”
“Lao seems to be preoccupied about being ‘highly valued’, but this chapter is expressing a truth that sages need to and do understand. Most people don’t understand ‘Nature’. That is, they have no conception of science or scientific method--not that Lao did either--and so really don’t understand the workings of the world around them and this is one of the great reasons why many people are not happy and cannot attain their ends. For Lao, I think this notion of ‘Nature’ is more like ‘fatalism’ but this is an advanced concept in itself for his age. The closest thing to understanding in a scientific way is the ‘Tao’ which operates in a law-like manner. The sage tries to live according to ‘Nature’ and understand the ‘Tao’. Thus far what Lao says makes sense. The question is whose Tao, Lao’s or Confucius’s?”
“OK Karl, here is 71: ‘To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.’” And Chan refers us to a part of the Analects we missed! Namely 2:17: ‘Confucius said, “Yu, shall I teach you [the way to acquire] knowledge? To say when you know that you do know and to say that you do not know when you do not know--that is [the way to acquire] knowledge.”’
“Sometimes I think sages are the same the world over! Remember that Socrate’s claim to wisdom was that he knew that he did not know.”
“And 72 has both a warning for the people and some sage advice or at least a motto for sages. ‘When the people do not have fear of what is dreadful, Then what is greatly dreadful will descend on them.’ The motto goes ‘...the sage knows himself but does not show himself. He loves himself but does not exalt himself.’”
“Sage advice indeed, Fred.”
“This is interesting, 73: ‘Who knows why Heaven dislikes what it dislikes?...Heaven’s net is indeed vast. Though its meshes are wide, it misses nothing.’ Chan says the idea of Heaven’s net greatly reinforced the Chinese idea about ‘retribution.’”
“Sounds like a Taoist version of karma. There is nothing directly related to the concept of karma in this quote, but it is easy to conjecture that after the arrival of Buddhism this concept was read back into Lao Tzu.”
“Next we have some good social commentary, actually not at all inconsistent with Confucian notions and must have endeared Lao to many of the more uptight emperors. 75: ‘The people starve because the ruler eats too much tax-grain. Therefore they starve.They are difficult to rule because their ruler does too many things. Therefore they are difficult to rule. The people take death lightly because their ruler strives for life too vigorously. Therefore they take death lightly.’”
“Yes, Fred, you’re on the money. It is certainly wrong to think that Taoists, at least of the Lao Tzu stripe, as not being interested in social questions. A Confucian could have easily stated the same ideas expressed in this passage.”
“How do you make sense of the following? Its number 76: ‘When man is born, he is tender and weak. At death, he is stiff and hard. All things, the grass as well as trees, are tender and supple while alive. When dead, they are withered and dried. Therefore the stiff and hard are companions of death. The tender and weak are companions of life. Therefore if the army is strong, it will not win. If a tree is stiff it will break. The strong and the great are inferior, while the tender and the weak are superior.’ I get most of it--but what can it mean to say a strong army won’t win?”
“I think this is very subtle, but I’ll give an example from Chinese history and you can try to think up examples from other historical periods. In 222 B.C. the first Chinese empire was created when the state of Ch’in vanquished all the rival petty states that existed at that time. Ch’in was led by a man called Cheng who was now called Shih-huang-ti or ‘First Emperor.’ He had a very strong army and ran his new empire practically like a ‘fascist’ dictator. He killed all his opponents violent and non-violent alike, and burned all the books by anyone whose philosophy he didn’t like--which was everyone except those who supported without question his government and personal rule. These methods were supposed to assure that his empire would last ten thousand generations. But he so alienated everyone that that after he died in 210 B.C. his whole empire was gone within three years. So much for having a strong army. If he had been more ‘tender’ and not so harsh perhaps his empire would have lasted and not fallen due to internal disintegration. You can perhaps make analogies to what happened to the ‘Thousand Year Reich’ and to the American Army in Vietnam which was defeated by the ‘weak’ because, while ‘strong’ it was harsh and cruel rather than showing a ‘tender’ side to the poor and impoverished peasants. So real ‘strength’ may be just the opposite of what those ignorant of the Tao think it is.”
“This makes sense, Karl, and seems reinforced by this from 77: ‘Heaven’s Way is indeed like the bending of a bow. When (the string) is high, bring it down. When it is low raise it up.... The Way of Heaven reduces whatever is excessive and supplements whatever is insufficient. The way of man is different. It reduces the insufficient to offer to the excessive. Who is able to have excess to offer to the world? Only the man of Tao. Therefore the sage acts, but does not rely on his own ability ‘ [i.e. he follows the Tao].”
“Absolutely, Fred. First Emperor was not following the Way of Heaven but that of man, that is of the man ignorant of Tao.”
“Right, and Lao continues in 78: ‘All the world knows that the weak overcomes the strong and the soft overcomes the hard. But none can practice it. Therefore the sage says: He who suffers disgrace for his country Is called the lord of the land. He who takes upon himself the country’s misfortunes Becomes the king of the empire. Straight words seem to be their opposite.’”
“I can only add, ‘in the long run.’”
“Now here is 79: ‘To patch up great hatred is surely to leave some hatred behind. How can this be regarded as good? Therefore the sage keeps the left-hand portion (obligation) of a contract And does not blame the other party.’ And he ends this passage with what Chan calls a ‘common ancient proverb’ to wit: ‘The Way of Heaven has no favorites. It is always with the good man.’”
“And the ‘good man’ is the one who follows the Tao of things of course.”
“Now here is an interesting quote having nothing to do with Taoism, other than Lao’s usual back to nature and down with civilization motif, I mean this from 80: ‘Let the people again knot cords and use them (in place of writing).’ What does that remind you of Karl?”
“It reminds me of the Inca.”
“That is correct. The Inca did not have a writing system and they kept records and even sent messages by means of knotted cords called quipu. I just find it very interesting that both ancient China and the Inca civilization had these methods of communication. It may even be pre-Inca. Who knows how far back in time this went?”
“Well it can certainly lead to interesting speculation. Are you suggesting some prehistoric contact between the Chinese and the Inca or their predecessors? The Inca were rather late you know, around 1200 AD or so.”
“Not really. I just thought it was a strange coincidence.”
“You know, Fred, if that quote was from 80 we have come to the end of the Tao-te ching. It only has 81 chapters.”
“Right you are Karl, and here is the last quote I’m going to read: ‘A good man does not argue; He who argues is not a good man. A wise man has no extensive knowledge; he who has extensive knowledge is not a wise man. The sage does not accumulate for himself. The more he uses for others, the more he has himself. The more he gives to others, the more he possesses of his own. The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure. The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.’”
“I see an altruistic moral sense at work here, but it contradicts some of the previous passages about keeping the people ignorant, etc., it can’t really benefit the people to be lacking in knowledge....”
“Ignorance is bliss.”
“When knowlede is folly--but you still need knowlede to be aware of folly. If Lao Tzu had been consistent he would have thought the Tao-te ching itself was folly and never have written it! And he is just wrong about the relation between the wise man and knowledge. Extensive knowledge of the uses of plants and herbs, etc., in medicine or how to take care of animals, or what foods to grow and how to do it, or how to read the weather signs to be able predict storms or floods, etc., are all examples of being ‘wise’ by accumulating ‘extensive knowledge.’ I can see why the Confucian sages were upset with many of the ideas floated about in this book. But I’m glad we went over it since it is so important in the history of Chinese thought.”
“Well, I’m game to forge ahead and continue this study. Why don’t we do Mo Tzu, someone neither Confucian nor Taoist?”
“Fine by me Fred. Our third discussion will be about Mo Tzu.
[Check out "Confucius: A Marxist Dialogue" in the archives of Thomas Riggins Blog]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)