Walker Percy Wednesday 102

percycovercroppea

It is a bad time for psychiatrists. Old-fashioned shrinks are out of style and generally out of work. We, who like our mentor Dr. Freud believe there is a psyche, that it is born to trouble as the sparks fly up, that one gets at it, the root of trouble, the soul’s own secret, by venturing into the heart of darkness, which is to say, by talking and listening, mostly listening, to another troubled human for months, years—we have been mostly superseded by brain engineers, neuropharmacologists, chemists of the synapses. And why not? If one can prescribe a chemical and overnight turn a haunted soul into a bustling little body, why take on such a quixotic quest as pursuing the secret of one’s very self?

*****

But accident or not, are there not signs of a suppression of cortical function in Mickey and Donna? I’m thinking particularly of the posterior speech center, Wernicke’s area, Brodmann 39 and 40, in the left brain of right-handed people. It is not only the major speech center but, according to neurologists, the locus of self-consciousness, the “I,” the utterer, the “self”—whatever one chooses to call that peculiar trait of humans by which they utter sentences and which makes them curious about how they look in a mirror—when a chimp will look behind the mirror for another chimp.

*****

Max laughs. “Well, don’t forget my practice is not here but in New Orleans, the city that care forgot. It has never been noted for either its anxiety or its sexual inhibitions.”

71xts9yjggl

Jew of Oklahoma

If you appreciate Kinky Friedman then you’ll certainly enjoy Mark Rubin of Bad Livers fame. The seamless confluence of many styles is an authentic distillation that marks this debut out for serious consideration, shot through with a wonderful self-deprecating sense of humor. The interesting/revealing thing is that given the prevailing (crude and superficial) social ontology, i.e., “basket of deplorables” — Mark would easily fall into that “category” (regardless of his actual politics). This brings to mind the Twain/Maslow quip that “it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail”. This then is the problem with vulgarly rationalistic identity politics — either a single irrelevant collecting feature is invoked, or there is a bloated ontological slum — as Quine said. One can’t even call it conceptual creep, there is no concept!

mark-rubin

The soft bigotry of low expectations

“Identity and power structure” type courses are ubiquitous across universities these days. It has fed the “activism masquerading as inquiry” expansion of the university underwritten by bureaucraps, mutually reinforcing each other and attracting students who prefer to regurgitate some off-the-peg easily digestible worldview to do their “teacher’s” bidding in the absence of critical thinking and evidence-based theorizing. Now I’m not at all saying that a Marxist lens has no value but in the hands of career grievance mongers (yes, that psychological disposition really is their shtick — they will never be satiated), one has the distinct sense that (a) their grip on Marx is weak or even vulgarized (they ain’t no Jerry Cohen or Croicks); (b) their invocation of “identity talk” is oblivious to the logic of sortals (yes, of course it is extremely tricky to extrapolate to social identity, vitiated by weasel words such as “multiculturalism” — I think it is Glenn that rightly says something like identity is a matrix); and (c) more often than not, the use of these terms intended as end-of-“discussion” slap-downs have been emptied of meaning and, as a consequence, effectiveness through conceptual creep: surely one must have a clearing of some distinctive conceptual space. That is, a given concept must display logical independence and not be analyzable in terms that presuppose that very concept. It must have extensional and intensional adequacy — in other words, it should enable one to pick out and identify all and only the things to which the concept applies. Lastly, one should question the functional adequacy of a given concept, i. e. why would we need a given concept — what work or role would a given concept have to fulfill? The upshot of these points is that you’d do far better intellectually by listening to the nuanced, finessed, subtle, credible, intellectually honest, and insightful discussion from people such as Glenn Lowry and John McWhorter and also a terrific discussion featuring Lowry and Sam Harris. If you’re tired of the bullshit that the mainstream media peddles and the knee-jerk idiocy of your social media contacts, I’d urge you to listen to both shows. In the last segment of The Glenn Show, they briefly discuss J. D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and a Culture in Crisis which has been getting a lot a press recently, two of the best pieces by Rod Dreher found here and here. (Both Glenn and John assent to the idea that it used to be the case that those of a Marxist sensibility had a reasonable claim to be interested in the underclass — they had empathy — but through the simplistic perversity and as a consequence the illiberality of identity politics, The Intellectual Yet Idiot now looks down on them as the disgusting enemy. This is shameful behavior on any religious or ethical outlook and is now coming back to bite them).

screen-shot-2016-09-17-at-11-52-35-am

The virtue epistemologist

The latest installment of Richard Marshall’s lovely interviews — here he’s talking with Ernest Sosa — a student of the wonderful Nicholas Rescher. It’s also worth listening to Sosa discussing the state of epistemology:

The Central Scrutinizers

Released on this day in ’79 Zappa’s target was, according to some sources, motivated by the banning of music in revolutionary Iran. The target we do know Zappa had in mind was the ascendancy of the fundamentalist Right of the ’80s and the idiotic PMRC proposal . . . but now the target is more appropriately applicable to the regressive Left. They are clearly on the back foot if one observes their lack of skepticism and critical thinking, pat virtue-signaling, pettiness, arrogance, literalism, lazy meaningless name-calling — revealing themselves to be humourless veriphobic authoritarians — despite their ostensible sophistication. Whichever butt-wipe becomes POTUS I think that our modern day Shakespearean fools such Lenny Bruce, Zappa, George Carlin, Peter Cook, Christopher Hitchens, and others would have been thoroughly entertained by what’s going down. Though these people are no longer with us, we now do have a loose coalition of luminaries such as Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Susan Haack, Douglas Murray, Glenn Lowry, John McWhorter, Richard Dawkins, Gad Saad, Maajid Nawaz, Hazem Farraj, Christina Sommers, Jonathan Haidt, Peter Boghossian and a raft of other fearless and clear thinking evidence-based LIBERALS pushing back. Whatever else I disagree with them on and what they lack in numbers, they more than adequately make up for with insight, ability and most importantly intellectual honesty: check out the bloody nose the regressives received earlier this year. One could sense that they thought the outcome of the debate was a shoo-in — so the victory was ever so sweet. One can tell that the regressives are circling the wagons with “journalism”, for the most part, being complicitous in their disingenuousness and their collective self-inflicted downfall.

Eventually it was discovered, that God did not want us to be all the same. This was Bad News for the Governments of The World, as it seemed contrary to the doctrine of Portion Controlled Servings. Mankind must be made more uniformly if The Future was going to work. Various ways were sought to bind us all together, but, alas, same-ness was unenforceable. It was about this time, that someone came up with the idea of Total Criminalization. Based on the principle, that if we were all crooks, we could at last be uniform to some degree in the eyes of The Law. […] Total Criminalization was the greatest idea of its time and was vastly popular except with those people, who didn’t want to be crooks or outlaws, so, of course, they had to be Tricked Into It… which is one of the reasons, why music was eventually made Illegal.

            – Joe’s Garage Acts II & III liner notes

b519255ee247d62e5df734154d94b5ba-1000x1000x1

Robert Musil and Nietzsche

The article examines several references to Friedrich Nietzsche made by Robert Musil in his non-fictional writings. An indication of Nietzsche’s significance for Musil is given by the fact that only one name occurs more often than Nietzsche’s in the collected works of Musil, where references to the philosopher span a period of more than forty years and the full name if often abbreviated, a habit which suggests familiarity. Musil attended two military academies, and the largely negative experiences he had there were to provide the stuff for the author’s first book. The schooling left Musil at the age of seventeen with a painful awareness of the inadequacies of his education in the humanities. In the few later sources in which he speaks of the great influences on his intellectual development in this early period, Nietzsche’s name is mentioned without fail. In an essay from 1926, he generalizes from his own experiences, listing Nietzsche among the new influences on writers of his era, who began writing around the turn of the century. Meanwhile, in May 1902, he records in his diary that he has borrowed two volumes of Nietzsche’s works and wonders how they will affect him this time. Musil admired Nietzsche’s literary genius and talent of expression and frequently quoted from his works. — Modern Language Review; Oct 1991, Vol. 86 Issue 4, p. 911

Walker Percy Wednesday 101

percycovercroppea

THE PLACE WHERE the strange events related in this book occur, Feliciana, is not imaginary. It was so named by the Spanish. It was and is part of Louisiana, a strip of pleasant pineland running from the Mississippi River to the Perdido, a curious region of a curious state. Never quite Creole or French or Anglo-Saxon or Catholic or Baptist like other parishes of Louisiana, it has served over the years as a refuge for all manner of malcontents. If America was settled by dissenters from various European propositions, Feliciana was settled by dissenters from the dissent, American Tories who had no use for the Revolution, disgruntled Huguenots and Cavaliers from the Carolinas, New Englanders fleeing from Puritanism, unionists who voted against secession, Confederate refugees from occupied New Orleans, deserters from the Confederate Army, smugglers from both sides, criminals holed up in the Honey Island Swamp.
Welcomed in the beginning by the hospitable and indolent Spanish of a decrepit empire, some of these assorted malcontents united long enough to throw out the Spanish and form an independent republic, complete with its own Declaration of Independence, flag, army, navy, constitution, and capital in St. Francisville. The new republic had no inclination to join French Louisiana to the south or the United States to the north and would as soon have been let alone. It lasted seventy-four days. Jefferson had bought Louisiana and that was that.
As pleasant a place as its name implies, it still harbors all manner of fractious folk, including Texans and recent refugees from unlikely places like Korea and Michigan, all of whom have learned to get along tolerably well, better than most in fact, who watch L.S.U. football and reruns of M*A*S*H, drink Dixie beer, and eat every sort of food imaginable, which is generally cooked in some thing called a roux.
The downside of Feliciana is that its pine forests have been mostly cut down, its bayous befouled, Lake Pontchartrain polluted, the Mississippi River turned into a sewer. It has too many malls, banks, hospitals, chiropractors, politicians, lawyers, realtors, and condos with names like Château Charmant.
Still and all, I wouldn’t live anywhere else.
It is strange, but these Louisianians, for all their differences and contrariness, have an affection for one another. It is expressed by small signs and courtesies, even between strangers, as if they shared a secret.
In what follows, the geography of the place has been somewhat scrambled. All of the people in Feliciana have been made up. The only real persons are the German and Austrian professors and physicians who were active in both the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich—Drs. de Crinis, Villinger, Schneider, Nitsche, Heyde—and the Swiss psychiatrist Dr. C. G. Jung. For this information about the Nazi doctors and their academic precursors in the Weimar Republic, I am indebted to Dr. Frederic Wertham’s remarkable book, A Sign for Cain.

71xts9yjggl

Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy

My chum and collaborator Roger Frantz is the founding editor of this new open access journal. So stay tuned for the first issue.

how-to-create-better-research-solutions-with-behavioral-data-640x360

Remembering Ken Minogue

Born on this day — see the themed issue of Cosmos + Taxis dedicated to Ken. Here is Ken at his elegant and wry best in Morals & the servile mind. I think Ken would have been chuffed by BREXIT not necessarily because of which side actually won, but because of which side was the most arrogant. Clue . . .

We must face up to the grim fact that the rulers we elect are losing patience with us.

The Engelsbergs Seminar 2011