Re: Paul Begala (and quibbling in general). Before I start this rather long article, I am compelled to address some intellectual housekeeping. A few weeks ago, Erin Burnett interviewed Eric Schmidt of Google. During their tour of the New York HQ of Google, she at one point mentioned the variety of activities that his company engaged in (search, alternative energy, etc.-I think there was even mention of a puppy farm upstate, but I’d have to check the transcript to be sure) and opined the variety could be viewed either as a sign of strength or a lack of focus. ES responded to the thrust of the question but ignored the philosophical underpinning: all things are interconnected at some level; the more one is involved in a particular endeavor, the easier it is to see those interrelationships and the points at which they connect.
I realize this is a quibble, the first of many, but I’ve noticed as I’ve watched her that while she’s asking a question, the person she’s interviewing is busy formulating the answer but the answer typically comes out as a variation of gushing and/or chest-thumping. I’d be willing to bet, in a post-interview, there would be a lot of, “What I really wanted to say was…”
And I get that.
(Note: I’ve taken the first quibble out because the subject of the paragraph made Erin laugh and rendered the statement empty. That’s just how it worked out.)
Quibbling with Paul Begala (btw, a great name for a show): These are based on the post-State of the Union speech show on CNN. The statement was, “Physics IS Math and Politics IS Government…” which I wish to quibble with independently, last thing first. Accepting Feuerbach’s inversion of Hegel, that the state necessarily reflects the electorate’s relationship with the material world (whether in a spiritual [Hegelian] sense or a material [Feuerbachian] sense) I would agree with PB that our current, static and ineffectual, Congress (as the voice of the people) reflects the current, static and ineffectual, state of our political discourse HOWEVER this is the result of the failure of the current discourse to reflect the voice of the people and certainly not the desired state of affairs, philosophically or practically. In practice, politics should be governance but not as either are currently being expressed. If we don’t begin to define these terms as they now differ in practice, the philosophies they purport to represent are meaningless.
Of course, Hegel and Feuerbach are reactionary in response to dysfunction in the state, solely from their principles of the absolute primacy of the government in the expression of the common will, and if you really want to delve into a dialectical dissection of the ever widening chasm between the sentiment and content of our political speech, well…I first want to repeat for the any-numberth time that I am, and plan to remain, a capitalist (just for the sake of the pure, progressive nature of the concept)… go down to your local used bookstore and pick up a copy of “The Communist Manifesto” and “Capital”-and remember to pay cash so you don’t end up on any “watch lists” (not that I have anything against the “watch list” folks, they’re just doing their jobs. I just suddenly had a random flash on Nuremberg, isn’t that odd?) And if you ever are looking for a thorough critique of yourself, don’t ask your friend, don’t ask a shrink, ask someone who really, truly, deeply hates your guts. If they’re that passionate about you, you’re going to get some good information.
Not everybody likes that much honesty, though. I get that, too.
(I’m not implying I hate PB, not even some. Just feel like busting his hump. It’s Wednesday, after all.)
Part 2.
Look, I know we’re all busy people here so my suggestion of reading Marx is most likely to fall on deaf ears but the good thing about having read Hegel and Feuerbach is knowing that capitalism is self-correcting, ultimately. The whole call to action and violent revolution inherent in Marx tells me he missed the point of Feuerbach, in the realization that the self-interest of the individuals in the society will call-out inequities in the system on a continuous basis, and he missed the point of Hegel, that the society will ultimately reflect that. Maybe he missed it or, more probably, it stemmed from the circumstances of Marx’s own life, spent in retched poverty, never realizing that not everybody likes that much honesty.
If you do take the time to read Marx, however, you will come to comprehensive understanding of the mechanizations of capitalism and where the particular circumstances unique to each stage will ultimately lead. In this, he extremely illuminating, with his simple, dialectical analysis leading to logical, and predicable, concerns relevant to their times. However, his conclusions, based on those analyses, are more driven by his personal psychology than any of the arguments. Or you can sit-back and wait for Hegel’s “Owl of Minerva” (wisdom) to arrive, which, even Hegel admits, is too late. The quote, “The Owl of Minerva spreads its wings and takes flight only when the shades of night are falling,” is quite poetic and, if you are so inclined, can be dismissed on that basis.
Sorry, that’s my personal psychology at work.
The sharp-eyed among you may have noticed I jumped from politics to economics. I want you to know that I understand the difference and see a point of intersection between the two not often expressed. Several years ago, while watching Erin on one of her CNBC
Later in that same day, I heard the characterization of Washington as “the marketplace of ideas” at which time my mind began, subconsciously, to link those seeming disparate concepts together. Given that it falls neatly into the definition of a duopoly (Republican/Democratic), there is no incentive for the two parties to innovate ideas so long as there are outside entities willing to subsidize any shortfall of innovation. In other words, there is no incentive for Washington to change anything, ever, when they can just sit there, do nothing and get paid by lobbyists on both sides to do so. So long as bills are presented in either partisan fashion, or constructed in such a way that no plurality can be reached, the balance is maintained by the influence of lobbying, Congress-people continue to be paid to do nothing and the country struggles on with the burden of unaddressed issues. While there is a philosophical basis to the idea of corporations being people and money equaling speech, this is the end result of its practice: a government that functions on the margin.
If one were to look at the Tea party movement or the eventual political arm of the Occupy movement, it’s becoming clear that these market-controlling entities, the Republican and Democratic parties, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to challenge from the outside, just as Feuerbach or Hegel would have predicted. As time passes, what will become evident is whether the rising power of the American oligopoly will render those philosophers moot and if the dialectical criticism of Marx and Occupy will take their place.
Either way, it’s the Owl of Minerva and the poetry of that expression, my psychology.
Part 3.
As much fun as “Politics IS Government” was for me, it’s really the “Physics IS Math” part of Paul Begala’s statement that set my teeth on edge, and that isn’t really a quibble for me, it’s more of a pet peeve. Interestingly, it is very similar to the “Politics IS Government” statement in that it is very much in the practice of the individual pursuits and the definition of the terms that the difficulties of their tautological conjoining appears.
More years ago than I wish to admit, I was invited to take a high-placement math course designed by the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell. On the very first day, the teacher led a discussion of the logical concept of Modus Ponens. At the end of the lecture, he turned to the class and asked if we were all in agreement on the idea, to which we, somewhat stunned by the significance and intensity of his question, mumbled our acquiescence. At which point, he stopped, removed his glasses, stared back at us and asked, “Are you sure?…”, which only made us suspect we had answered incorrectly the first time, so our mumbling response fell to a barely audible murmur.
And then he smiled.
Modus Ponens states, “If A, then B: A, therefore B.” Modus Ponens is a logical summation of cause and effect, when cause A creates effect B, whenever A exists, B exists. Modus Ponens is the embodiment of the philosophical concept of object and subject. Modus Ponens is the basis of Newton’s action and reaction equivalency. Modus Ponens is the glue that holds every rational consideration in sway with its consequence. Accept that premise and you embrace the philosophical, logical, mathematical, scientific, rational universe of Russell’s “Principia Mathematica” and its deceptively powerful construction of all sciences as a consequence of that premise. It almost seems odd, looking back at the world before Russell, that there was any science before this realization, as it would all have be based on a supposition of a logical tenet. Unfortunately, or not, this warm, fuzzy moment between math and science wouldn’t last very long.
Wittgenstein pointed out that Modus Ponens only functioned with the supposition of A, in other words, cause and effect presupposed the existence of cause BUT mathematics could function perfectly well without existence as the abstract concept it was before Russell. As quibbling goes, perhaps the ultimate one, but it creates a separation between logical constructs and mathematics large enough for God to dwell in or, as Einstein cleverly observed, “It is impossible to remove God from any equation.” Russell had boxed God into a corner of a rational universe and Wittgenstein let Him back out.
As powerful a tool as mathematics is, it is still only a tool, not reality, because it doesn’t need to be real and, as a consequence, neither do its conclusions. As powerful as logic is, it can not function, in practice, without the abstractions of arithmetic. Math remains an objective, synthetic abstraction incapable of subjective analysis and logic remains a subjective, organic process limited in objective expression. It seems never the twain shall meet, less some concrete proof of existence, which, ironically, would seem like an act of God.
This is my point: physics, and all the sciences, can only function with the application of mathematics in practice BUT mathematics are not specifically logical, may or may not be, and trying to construct logical theories from mathematical models based on mathematical observations, such as the discrete phenomena created in an accelerator, will never progress without a logical framework to make this discrimination.
So, physics IS math, in practice, but be very careful about math in physical theory because physical theory is the pursuit of the perfect balance, the intimate and the ultimate, the workings of the mind of the God it seeks to replace, the God of the objective and the subjective realms.
As I observed after a long meditation one day, everything you think ultimately stems from something you believe if you just question yourself, “Why” enough times and are honest with yourself. From this dichotomy, spirit and substance, the fullness of our lives arrives and the neglect of either is ignorance.
At the end of it all, you are back at that simple question, ”Are you sure?…”
And hopefully the smile.
Part 4.
And it gets worse.
The other logical basis of mathematics is the idea of substitution, that if something is equivalent to A it can take the place of A in an equation. In arithmetic, 5 can be used in the place of 3+2, and vice-versa. Where the difficulties arise is in irrational mathematical concepts that, because of their nature as logical abstractions within the occasionally illogical construct of mathematics, can not be substituted for except as an approximation. The logical, subjective concept of pi is perfect, the mathematical, objective use of it is imperfect and approximate. Far, far more damning is the implication of the Uncertainty Principle, one of its corollaries being, that because no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time, all things are inherently unique, making the basic concept of counting, and arithmetic, irrelevant and approximate on their face. Taking things out to fine point, there really is only one of each thing. I’m guessing one is the exact number of each thing the universe must require though, so no worries there.
But not everybody likes that much honesty. We couldn’t live in a world that fully embraced the chaos that the universe really is, so we put everything on Procrustes Bed until it’s manageable. It’s not a character flaw-it simply has to be done, and the basis of this is often referred to as “hubris”, a self-directed cataloging of experience, the sophistication of which I interpret as intelligence, or intellectual honesty, or individual success. Simply, the more open you are about what you don’t know largely displays what you do know and the more rigid and intractable your thoughts are, not only shows your limits but, inhibits more nuanced integration of new experiences.
So be careful about equivalencies because there really aren’t any. Just busting your hump, Paul Begala.
In my defense, it is a principled busting, I’m not just “taking you out for a ride” and I’m doing this to a particular end. The hubris necessary to enable the individual to function is unique to each of us, as is the cataloging that springs from it. The exploitation of this necessary separation between spirit and senses, theory and practice, object and subject, God and People, by the processes of the state necessitates the state’s critique and the lack of that critique is either stupidity or sin.
Or both.
Part 5.
As our conscious minds awake, we spring forward from the certainty of our childish mind, from the certainty of the shore to the warm, welcoming lake and set off to the distant shore. Looking back, after only a few strokes, we find the shore we sprang from has receded and is no longer any more accessible than the distant one, all shores become equidistant, but, no matter, we are resolute to journey and see what awaits. We notice about us, every other person and call out to them, though, no matter how close, they remain at a distance and only partially hear what we say. We may choose to swim with another that shares our vision of the common shore and, at times, carry each other so one may rest as the other labors, as a group to break through the waves or follow a powerful leader, confident of the way, though nothing seems to draw the shore closer. Noticing this, we may stop and question our decisions, curse the lake and all around us who are of no use and not accept we each made the decision to journey for we had outgrown our certainty and wished for knowledge.
But we swim well, are born for this task and the more we struggle the stronger and more expert we become until, as our strength fails us, our courage leaves us or that desire for that distant shore is replaced by the dull ache of the journey, we sink-only to find again the certainty of the shore we sprang from beneath us on the distant shore…
From which we set off again.
I realize this is a quibble, the first of many, but I’ve noticed as I’ve watched her that while she’s asking a question, the person she’s interviewing is busy formulating the answer but the answer typically comes out as a variation of gushing and/or chest-thumping. I’d be willing to bet, in a post-interview, there would be a lot of, “What I really wanted to say was…”
And I get that.
(Note: I’ve taken the first quibble out because the subject of the paragraph made Erin laugh and rendered the statement empty. That’s just how it worked out.)
Quibbling with Paul Begala (btw, a great name for a show): These are based on the post-State of the Union speech show on CNN. The statement was, “Physics IS Math and Politics IS Government…” which I wish to quibble with independently, last thing first. Accepting Feuerbach’s inversion of Hegel, that the state necessarily reflects the electorate’s relationship with the material world (whether in a spiritual [Hegelian] sense or a material [Feuerbachian] sense) I would agree with PB that our current, static and ineffectual, Congress (as the voice of the people) reflects the current, static and ineffectual, state of our political discourse HOWEVER this is the result of the failure of the current discourse to reflect the voice of the people and certainly not the desired state of affairs, philosophically or practically. In practice, politics should be governance but not as either are currently being expressed. If we don’t begin to define these terms as they now differ in practice, the philosophies they purport to represent are meaningless.
Of course, Hegel and Feuerbach are reactionary in response to dysfunction in the state, solely from their principles of the absolute primacy of the government in the expression of the common will, and if you really want to delve into a dialectical dissection of the ever widening chasm between the sentiment and content of our political speech, well…I first want to repeat for the any-numberth time that I am, and plan to remain, a capitalist (just for the sake of the pure, progressive nature of the concept)… go down to your local used bookstore and pick up a copy of “The Communist Manifesto” and “Capital”-and remember to pay cash so you don’t end up on any “watch lists” (not that I have anything against the “watch list” folks, they’re just doing their jobs. I just suddenly had a random flash on Nuremberg, isn’t that odd?) And if you ever are looking for a thorough critique of yourself, don’t ask your friend, don’t ask a shrink, ask someone who really, truly, deeply hates your guts. If they’re that passionate about you, you’re going to get some good information.
Not everybody likes that much honesty, though. I get that, too.
(I’m not implying I hate PB, not even some. Just feel like busting his hump. It’s Wednesday, after all.)
Part 2.
Look, I know we’re all busy people here so my suggestion of reading Marx is most likely to fall on deaf ears but the good thing about having read Hegel and Feuerbach is knowing that capitalism is self-correcting, ultimately. The whole call to action and violent revolution inherent in Marx tells me he missed the point of Feuerbach, in the realization that the self-interest of the individuals in the society will call-out inequities in the system on a continuous basis, and he missed the point of Hegel, that the society will ultimately reflect that. Maybe he missed it or, more probably, it stemmed from the circumstances of Marx’s own life, spent in retched poverty, never realizing that not everybody likes that much honesty.
If you do take the time to read Marx, however, you will come to comprehensive understanding of the mechanizations of capitalism and where the particular circumstances unique to each stage will ultimately lead. In this, he extremely illuminating, with his simple, dialectical analysis leading to logical, and predicable, concerns relevant to their times. However, his conclusions, based on those analyses, are more driven by his personal psychology than any of the arguments. Or you can sit-back and wait for Hegel’s “Owl of Minerva” (wisdom) to arrive, which, even Hegel admits, is too late. The quote, “The Owl of Minerva spreads its wings and takes flight only when the shades of night are falling,” is quite poetic and, if you are so inclined, can be dismissed on that basis.
Sorry, that’s my personal psychology at work.
The sharp-eyed among you may have noticed I jumped from politics to economics. I want you to know that I understand the difference and see a point of intersection between the two not often expressed. Several years ago, while watching Erin on one of her CNBC
Later in that same day, I heard the characterization of Washington as “the marketplace of ideas” at which time my mind began, subconsciously, to link those seeming disparate concepts together. Given that it falls neatly into the definition of a duopoly (Republican/Democratic), there is no incentive for the two parties to innovate ideas so long as there are outside entities willing to subsidize any shortfall of innovation. In other words, there is no incentive for Washington to change anything, ever, when they can just sit there, do nothing and get paid by lobbyists on both sides to do so. So long as bills are presented in either partisan fashion, or constructed in such a way that no plurality can be reached, the balance is maintained by the influence of lobbying, Congress-people continue to be paid to do nothing and the country struggles on with the burden of unaddressed issues. While there is a philosophical basis to the idea of corporations being people and money equaling speech, this is the end result of its practice: a government that functions on the margin.
If one were to look at the Tea party movement or the eventual political arm of the Occupy movement, it’s becoming clear that these market-controlling entities, the Republican and Democratic parties, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to challenge from the outside, just as Feuerbach or Hegel would have predicted. As time passes, what will become evident is whether the rising power of the American oligopoly will render those philosophers moot and if the dialectical criticism of Marx and Occupy will take their place.
Either way, it’s the Owl of Minerva and the poetry of that expression, my psychology.
Part 3.
As much fun as “Politics IS Government” was for me, it’s really the “Physics IS Math” part of Paul Begala’s statement that set my teeth on edge, and that isn’t really a quibble for me, it’s more of a pet peeve. Interestingly, it is very similar to the “Politics IS Government” statement in that it is very much in the practice of the individual pursuits and the definition of the terms that the difficulties of their tautological conjoining appears.
More years ago than I wish to admit, I was invited to take a high-placement math course designed by the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell. On the very first day, the teacher led a discussion of the logical concept of Modus Ponens. At the end of the lecture, he turned to the class and asked if we were all in agreement on the idea, to which we, somewhat stunned by the significance and intensity of his question, mumbled our acquiescence. At which point, he stopped, removed his glasses, stared back at us and asked, “Are you sure?…”, which only made us suspect we had answered incorrectly the first time, so our mumbling response fell to a barely audible murmur.
And then he smiled.
Modus Ponens states, “If A, then B: A, therefore B.” Modus Ponens is a logical summation of cause and effect, when cause A creates effect B, whenever A exists, B exists. Modus Ponens is the embodiment of the philosophical concept of object and subject. Modus Ponens is the basis of Newton’s action and reaction equivalency. Modus Ponens is the glue that holds every rational consideration in sway with its consequence. Accept that premise and you embrace the philosophical, logical, mathematical, scientific, rational universe of Russell’s “Principia Mathematica” and its deceptively powerful construction of all sciences as a consequence of that premise. It almost seems odd, looking back at the world before Russell, that there was any science before this realization, as it would all have be based on a supposition of a logical tenet. Unfortunately, or not, this warm, fuzzy moment between math and science wouldn’t last very long.
Wittgenstein pointed out that Modus Ponens only functioned with the supposition of A, in other words, cause and effect presupposed the existence of cause BUT mathematics could function perfectly well without existence as the abstract concept it was before Russell. As quibbling goes, perhaps the ultimate one, but it creates a separation between logical constructs and mathematics large enough for God to dwell in or, as Einstein cleverly observed, “It is impossible to remove God from any equation.” Russell had boxed God into a corner of a rational universe and Wittgenstein let Him back out.
As powerful a tool as mathematics is, it is still only a tool, not reality, because it doesn’t need to be real and, as a consequence, neither do its conclusions. As powerful as logic is, it can not function, in practice, without the abstractions of arithmetic. Math remains an objective, synthetic abstraction incapable of subjective analysis and logic remains a subjective, organic process limited in objective expression. It seems never the twain shall meet, less some concrete proof of existence, which, ironically, would seem like an act of God.
This is my point: physics, and all the sciences, can only function with the application of mathematics in practice BUT mathematics are not specifically logical, may or may not be, and trying to construct logical theories from mathematical models based on mathematical observations, such as the discrete phenomena created in an accelerator, will never progress without a logical framework to make this discrimination.
So, physics IS math, in practice, but be very careful about math in physical theory because physical theory is the pursuit of the perfect balance, the intimate and the ultimate, the workings of the mind of the God it seeks to replace, the God of the objective and the subjective realms.
As I observed after a long meditation one day, everything you think ultimately stems from something you believe if you just question yourself, “Why” enough times and are honest with yourself. From this dichotomy, spirit and substance, the fullness of our lives arrives and the neglect of either is ignorance.
At the end of it all, you are back at that simple question, ”Are you sure?…”
And hopefully the smile.
Part 4.
And it gets worse.
The other logical basis of mathematics is the idea of substitution, that if something is equivalent to A it can take the place of A in an equation. In arithmetic, 5 can be used in the place of 3+2, and vice-versa. Where the difficulties arise is in irrational mathematical concepts that, because of their nature as logical abstractions within the occasionally illogical construct of mathematics, can not be substituted for except as an approximation. The logical, subjective concept of pi is perfect, the mathematical, objective use of it is imperfect and approximate. Far, far more damning is the implication of the Uncertainty Principle, one of its corollaries being, that because no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time, all things are inherently unique, making the basic concept of counting, and arithmetic, irrelevant and approximate on their face. Taking things out to fine point, there really is only one of each thing. I’m guessing one is the exact number of each thing the universe must require though, so no worries there.
But not everybody likes that much honesty. We couldn’t live in a world that fully embraced the chaos that the universe really is, so we put everything on Procrustes Bed until it’s manageable. It’s not a character flaw-it simply has to be done, and the basis of this is often referred to as “hubris”, a self-directed cataloging of experience, the sophistication of which I interpret as intelligence, or intellectual honesty, or individual success. Simply, the more open you are about what you don’t know largely displays what you do know and the more rigid and intractable your thoughts are, not only shows your limits but, inhibits more nuanced integration of new experiences.
So be careful about equivalencies because there really aren’t any. Just busting your hump, Paul Begala.
In my defense, it is a principled busting, I’m not just “taking you out for a ride” and I’m doing this to a particular end. The hubris necessary to enable the individual to function is unique to each of us, as is the cataloging that springs from it. The exploitation of this necessary separation between spirit and senses, theory and practice, object and subject, God and People, by the processes of the state necessitates the state’s critique and the lack of that critique is either stupidity or sin.
Or both.
Part 5.
As our conscious minds awake, we spring forward from the certainty of our childish mind, from the certainty of the shore to the warm, welcoming lake and set off to the distant shore. Looking back, after only a few strokes, we find the shore we sprang from has receded and is no longer any more accessible than the distant one, all shores become equidistant, but, no matter, we are resolute to journey and see what awaits. We notice about us, every other person and call out to them, though, no matter how close, they remain at a distance and only partially hear what we say. We may choose to swim with another that shares our vision of the common shore and, at times, carry each other so one may rest as the other labors, as a group to break through the waves or follow a powerful leader, confident of the way, though nothing seems to draw the shore closer. Noticing this, we may stop and question our decisions, curse the lake and all around us who are of no use and not accept we each made the decision to journey for we had outgrown our certainty and wished for knowledge.
But we swim well, are born for this task and the more we struggle the stronger and more expert we become until, as our strength fails us, our courage leaves us or that desire for that distant shore is replaced by the dull ache of the journey, we sink-only to find again the certainty of the shore we sprang from beneath us on the distant shore…
From which we set off again.
