From: Michael S. Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 08:17:25 MST
Hey kids, check out his latest response in our ongoing conversation:
(I think I'll leave it to others to continue this conversation, since
he's acheived his goal of using far too many buzzwords for me to keep
complete track of. ;-)
"Dr. Ian Irvine" wrote:
>
>
> > I understand what you are saying,
>
> *I'm not sure, from your letter you do. The Leftist assumptions and
> assumptions about my commitment to Natural Man ala reconstituted Rousseau
> suggest you do not.
>
> however, you apparently seem to
> > approach the book with the blinders typical of leftist luddites (which I
> > thank you for confessing your prejudice about).
>
> *Not all Luddites are pidgeonholeable leftists. As a poet I often tend
> toward the metaphoric ... my Ludditism is thus purely cosmetic. The word
> roles well of the tongue.
>
> Framing the longevity
> > issue and its science with blithe and tired dismissals like 'western
> > materialism' 'capitalist opression' and other dead cliches of the failed
> > communist/socialist movements of the past does you no credit, and
> > nullifies the validity of your criticism.
>
> * In fact I am a curious blend of intellectual movemets with the radom
> subjectivity that goes with poetry - 'Leftist' in the strictly socialist
> Communist sense is not my ideological bag I'm afraid - Jungianism, Object
> Relations Theory, Transpersonal Psychology as per Grof, Western Marxism (as
> per Habermas and Giddens), Post-colonial Theory, mythopoetic (aimistic)
> feminism, existentialism are some of the main strands of my thinking ... I
> also have a professional interest in developmental psychology,
> neuropsychology (especially the workings of the endorphin system) and the
> history of psychology/psychiatry,... if these are to be "classified" and
> "dismissed" out of hand (in a sweeping 'grand narrative' gesture) as
> "Leftist" you would have to admit that they are nevertheless far removed
> from the dreary either/or (commuism/Capitalism) you accuse me of. Your use
> of the possibly offensive term 'primitivist fascism' (I'll reserve my
> judgement right now) I will come to in a moment.
>
> > I find it odd that leftists like yourself tirelessly try to delineate
> > between the 'natural' characteristics of the natural kingdom while
> > separating anything regarding man as 'artificial', and thus not natural.
>
> * See notes RE: dreary commuism/capitalism debates above. I do actually
> make this delineation at all. Nothing is "artificial" to me - except most
> US television shows, all is natural (even US TV shows) since they occur
> naturally in nature. However, many things in nature are inhuman/anti-human
> which I think is what many of those 'Lefties' Maye be getting at. The
> problem with much scientific thinking - and Broderick deals with some of
> the monstrous aspects of science well in his book without properly
> developing a systematic theory as to the reasons why so much science has
> turned into human suffering - is that its idealistic universalistic claims
> to be the saviour of mankind exhibit a kind of dangerous niavety and thus
> lack self-reflexiveness.
>
> The reason it lacks reflexiveness, I fancy, is because it has attempted at
> every turn to disengage itself from the methodologies of the humanities, it
> is irritated by talk of science being accountable to morals, (what you call
> "political correctness"), democracy, long term evaluation, psychohistory,
> etc. It is also incapable of accepting the possibility that it's own way of
> thinking may in fact be the outcome of a species neurosis - despite being
> implicated in some of the worst acts of inhumanity every perpetrated - who
> will forget easily the scientists of the death camps? The scientists who
> developed the Atom Bomb and who right this mometn devote all their
> 'creative energies" to developing news ways of destroying human life?
>
> Here Ellul is useful ... and Kuhn ... "science is always ambivalent -
> science is never disconnected from the scientific observer ... it is always
> positioned never the whole truth". Which is to say it is always positioned
> within a cultural web - which is also to say it often creates as many
> problems as it solves ... its an "eat the spider to catch the fly " sort of
> an invention of culture. When science - I'm going to quote a tired old
> conservative poet here, Coleridge - refuses engagement with the humanities
> out of arrogance it risks becoming inhuman - it risks objectifying and
> reifying the lifeworlds of real people and it pursues knowledge not for the
> betterment of humankind but for the purposes of the death instinct.
>
> Here in is my real critique of the kind of naive 'idealism' displayed in
> parts of Broderick's book in regard to the 'old age' question and other
> recent scientific advances. I am not, however, to be placed with those who
> would hold that the suffering of old age should not be lessened. I am only
> very sceptical about the dehumanised reasoning that scientists use in order
> to tell me 'All will be well if we just get more funding to do as we please
> ... we have the Holy Grail' (of this or that) 'in our sights and it will
> fix everything". As you said in your email - "old age is the cause of the
> greatest suffering known to humankind" and what caused the modern suffering
> of old age? ... sad to say it was the 'advances' of science. Ellul is
> proved worthy of engagement by your own logic.
>
> The real issue for me - the source of my uease about the scientists
> described in Broderisk's book - is the memetic infection doing the rounds
> of many scientists - put another way, "the personal and cultural neuroses
> of the scientist". When the unquestioning idealism of this memetic
> infection is allied with the conservative "dump the losers on the streets
> to beg" 'individualism' of predatory capitalism
> (corporatism/priviatisation/New Right conservatism etc.) we have a truly
> toxic "green house gas" type of mix.
>
> > If you are to hold to this premise, you cannot conversely claim that man
> > 'shouldn't' live longer than his 'natural span'. By your own logic, man
> > is a creature of artifice. We are self taught, not trapped by instinct,
> > and all of civilization is an exercise in letting lamarckian evolution
> > supplant darwinian evolution. It should be, therefore, the natural
> > consequence that man should seek to, and achieve, victory over death,
> > just as he has transcended his natural limits of speed, strength,
> > endurance, immunity to disease and sickness, information processing and
> > storage, and gravity.
>
> *Ah, you have returned to the Old Age debate after neatly pidgeonholing me
> as a communist-Rousseauian Leftist Luddite with a tired old adherance to
> 20thC socialist grand narratives. See above notes. I do not hold the
> naturalist premise, therefore it is not my logic. the memetic disease
> affecting many scientists is natural but must be opposed. Likewise, my
> critique of Broderick extended only to asking him and other apostles of the
> creed of science to take a more serious look at the moral, ethical,
> socio-psychological issues surrounding not only the immortality quest but
> the underlying motivations of much that passes for science these days. If,
> at the end of the day, there is genuine full debate and airing of all
> arguments, concerns, etc. and it can be proved that suffering really will
> be decreased, and quality of life will be increased and there are no
> Ellullian side effects and we will not be creating Frankensteins for the
> sake of our morbid Western fear of death (and living?) - which came with
> Christianity and the scourges of the 14th C - then the scientists might
> have a case.
>
> Under the philosophy of western liberalism, it is
> > accepted that man is a transcendental being,
>
> Well, as they say "Clockwork Kant was beloved of a Rant", but he was not
> the only philosopher of Liberalism and, as they say, "his noumenals are far
> too ephemeral" for many liberalists. Hume, Locke, Hegel, Russell, etc. ...
> the philsophers of Liberalism are manifold and many are atheistic and thus
> anti-transcedentalist ... God help them <grins>
>
> yet modern humanism is
> > showing less and less commonality to the liberal tradition, and what is
> > the political left has drifted toward primitivist fascism.
>
> *I assume you are talking about Neitzsche's influence on postmodernist
> Leftism - I do not find this critique offensive, just beside the point. The
> only concern I have is that you are idealising a American style Ayn Randian
> form of humanism with its absurdly inhuman attitudes toward the individual.
> However, if you are referring to the post-colonial strand in postmodernism
> as 'primitivist' and 'fascist' ... then I do believe the infected memes are
> calling ... the battle for Reconciliation in Australia by Aboriginal people
> against 'progress' drunk White Australia is a particularly galling example
> how the ew corporate conservatism can become barbarous, inhumane etc.. The
> feminist postmodernists, as an aside, are are often found in bed, some
> would say 'wearing the ring', of that old Nazi Neitzsche ... the man who
> said "If you are going out and are likely to end up in the company of women
> ... remember your whip." Here the progress drunk side of feminism matched
> the progress drunk side of capitalism matched the progress drunk side of
> communism.
>
> This has
> > resulted in leftist opposition to genetic engineering to feed the hungry
> > or cure the sick, space exploration to find new resources or to colonize
> > space, or any sort of technological development that is not vetted by
> > the star chambers of political correctness as 'appropriate technology'.
>
> * See above notes on the innate fascism of many scientists who have zero
> respect for democratic institutions (prefering to 'influence' them through
> corporate lobbying of politicians), also zero respect for community
> concerns about the ecological, social, etc. consequeces (risks?) of many
> so-called scientific 'advances', and instead behave like kids with matches
> whenever they spot something that hasn't been tried (they often use the
> word 'conquered' much as you favour the word 'colonising' when it comes to
> space) and though potentially dangerous to humanity might also turn a
> profit for the corporations they increasigly turn tricks for. Also, to wear
> a leftist hat for a moment, the GEngineering debate in Australian has been
> a classic of this kind of 'Techo-Eco Rationalist fascism" Consumers were
> told "Eat it or else ... we invented it so you'll eat it ... and you'll eat
> it without us having to tell you what we've mutated it with ..." and so
> "That corn tastes kind of spidery!"
>
> > I really don't want to get into one more tired debate over capitalism
> > versus communism or any of its less completely malignant pathologies. I
> > will leave it with the statement that there is no 'pathology' described
> > above which has not demonstrated itself to be more malignant under
> > communist or socialist sytems, and you will not find any evidence to
> > contradict this.
>
> *And that is because Communism, like Information Age, anti-democratic
> capitalism, does not respect truly transparent democracy ... it (Karl M)
> was also far too idealistic about science - 19th century science at that
> with all its dreary mechanistic conceptions. A recipe for disaster - since
> the dictatorialism of Enlightment spawned communism became allied with the
> innate dictatorialism of Bacon's scientific method.
>
> Moreover, as any advocate for the elderly can
> > tell you, old age is, in fact, the greatest scourge on our society.
> > After some point health care costs nearly double with each additional
> > year of life. This drain of resources to maintain an unproductive member
> > of society (far in excess of those resources contributed in the past to
> > that society, in fact, since the average retiree consumes their lifetime
> > Social Security savings in less than 3.5 years) stagnates the ecnonomy,
> > retards investment in improving technology to be less stressful on the
> > environment, and increases unemployment, illiteracy, child and spouse
> > abuse, etc. It is a fair thing to say that the drain on the marginal
> > productivity of society caused by old age is the prime cause of the
> > difficulty we have found with solving what you categorize as 'capitalist
> > pathologies'.
>
> *I'm sorry but the above paragraph reads as far to
> objectified/materialistic etc. for me - the memes of Guenon's 'Reign of
> Quantity' are in full flight and dehumanising and reifying the experience
> of Old Age into mere economic categories only - another offspring of
> Bourgeois Liberalism - is ascendant. Besides, you've merely proved that
> eating the scientific spider in order to prolong old age (to kill the fly
> of early death) has produced massive suffering ... now you want me to trust
> the scientists to fix it this time!!! Forgive me if I say ... "Brodericks
> book though humanistic is deeply flawed in that a whole dimension of
> reasoning has been ignored which would need to be considered if I was
> believe that what the white-coated nutters are up to this time will really
> help human beings who are suffering as they grow old."
>
> > I consider Damien to be a friend,
>
> * I intuited this early in the piece - I've had dozens of fascinating
> emails about that review - no others attacked with such venom.
>
> but I also consider him to be far too
> > willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to political persuasions that
> > have repeatedly proven themselves to be dependent on defunct concepts of
> > zero and negative sum games, and willing to debase the individual that
> > does not serve to their advantage. Damien is a far more tolerant person
> > than I.
>
> * I imagine that Damien is well aware that down here in Australia the
> alliance of predatory late consumer capitalism with technocratic science
> has spawned a new breed of rightwing political ad administrative
> philistines intent on emptying the universities of creative thinkers such
> as himself. Where do they go? To the privatised jails down the street ...
> since they are not needed in the new techno-eco-rationalist superstate.
>
> * The debate has been no holds barred and fun.
>
> regards
> Ian Irvine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:12 MST