We Better Move On (for now)

Cheers to everyone that has been posting over the past few days. I’m not going to say too much about the last two remarks put forth by MeatHead and Jeanz. I’ll sort of let Jeanz have the last word for now – especially since it was her initial question that started this stuff in the first place. I’ll continue to wonder about the phenomena described by MeatHead as the “evolution of consciousness” and if I come up with something worthwhile to say I’ll post it here.

Jeanz last word on the ‘Life as Overcoming Obstacle A, B, C” – seems to be that the only tangible lesson one can learn (from say a natural disaster and the attendant suffering) is don’t build there again. This is a fine thing. And remember, I was careful to note that there are limits to my experiential knowledge of suffering. For me, the story doesn’t end with the new settlement, moving away from the coastline, whatever – that should sort of be common sense…and ironically, how often does it actually happen? Aren’t we Americans always in the business of building and rebuilding on flood plains? Aren’t we currently embarking on a mission to revive a decimated city in the exact same spot without any sign of new and improved safeguards? We have not even begun to exhibit the realistic “wisdom” put forth in Jeanz last example. But that is not my point.

My point, or my interest re: suffering and Jeanz disaster example is: Imagine the mother who loses her husband and all her children in the disaster. Again, to CM and others who seemed resistant to my earlier discussion of suffering: I AM NOT SAYING THAT FOR OUR LIVES TO HAVE MEANING WE HAVE TO EXPERIENCE THESE SAME THINGS – OR SAY IT IS A BLESSING TO HAVE SUFFERING IN THIS LIFE – but rather, the mother who is faced with this horrific turn of events, if she doesn’t just curse god (or her gods) and die (sorry Job…or is it Gob?) – if she doesn’t do that, if she carries on, what makes her do that? If she makes her life one of service to others and the community, what the fuck is she thinking? She just lost everything. Why doesn’t she just quit, or try to mindlessly carry on…? I can see her survival and her story, possibly, connected with grace or a strength that I do not have, and something that seems to be super human, or something that points beyond our miserable condition – whether that miserable condition is being Joe Hunger or the daily, boring existential ennui that comes from working a crappy job and living in the suburbs – praying for the tsunami to come and wipe this crap away - - - - including the Pier 1.

By the way, regarding Jeanz Joe Hunger example, our friend Randy (aka Randy) has decided to take it up in his blog:

http://thenewolddogblog.blogspot.com/

I’m not sure I agree with his response but I’ll leave it to those who want to continue that strain of the conversation to sort out. My last thoughts about the Joe Hunger example are the following:

1. Yes, philosophy is a luxury for those who can afford the bag of rice – Thank you Uncle Ben!
2. But are any of us convinced that even the poor soul in Jeanz Joe Hunger example is so degraded that longing ceases to exist within them? To the extent that Joe Hunger is not delusional from hunger (and I will admit that is a real possibility) they will desire relief from their miserable condition and also wonder why they can’t be the king with all the food, and may even wonder why god or the gods have forsaken them….
3. And that’s why I gave the Aristotelian account in the previous blog – because the teleological phil of Aristotle – which does include material (aka external) goods as part of our happiness – goes further, building on our desires or longings. We are more complex than all the other social/political animals (for Aristotle). He knows this because we have complex speech, and complex desires that extend beyond safety from flood and famine. He builds on these complex desires and says they point in a direction beyond merely removing physical threats, slaking our thirst or eating a bag of Uncle Ben’s.

Finally, why does Aristotle do this? I think this is what makes the philosophy of the Greeks, and even part of the teachings of my beloved RC theologians more realistic than the modern philosophers: the moderns build on the acquisition and maintenance of physical/political security and material goods only. To do this becomes the end of government or, to use Hobbes’ language – Why men submit to government.

Now who has built their house on sand, the moderns or the telos crowd? You can say the blood drinkers and flesh eaters are fools because there is no empirical evidence to support the everlasting life that accompanies such barbaric sounding activities. I’ll accept that. But let’s go Aristotle vs. Hobbes:

Hobbes (and later Locke) says we can ensure all we can in terms of material goods and secure borders (although for the reasons I mentioned earlier, even this is security) – Will we say these guys have fulfilled human longings adequately? We live in a state that owes much to the thought of Hobbes and Locke – and what have we done? Have we swallowed their doctrine and been satisfied in the joyless quest for joy – or has the past century been spent taking modernity apart, finding it’s ass and ultimately dismissing philosophy all together?????

More to my point re: happiness and my BS notion of realism: Will we ever say the happy man is the guy who has achieved some degree of material success and claims is country is secure?

AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING MATERIAL GOODS ARE BAD, I THINK THEY ARE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR PART OF WHAT ARISTOTLE THINKS IS THE HIGHEST TYPE OF HAPPINESS – I’M JUST SAYING THIS GUY CAN HAVE IS SOURCE OF HAPPINESS REMOVED EASILY

But I draw your attention again to Aristotle. He thinks if we can call anything happiness, it needs to endure, become associated with activities of the soul (psyche for the Greeks – not in the cocaine addled Fraudian sense spelling intentional) – and happiness (for A) seems to have a sort of permanence, or it can’t be so fleeting as to be undone by losing your ass in the stock market, or even by a tsunami. There is nothing in Aristotle that says (on p. 38) “…and here is how you do that.”

That’s why his teaching is so real. The forests that have been razed for these crappy books that tell us the meaning of life is on page 38 have got it half right. We are all looking for that answer – but there’s no way we can get it from one page written by someone who wants us to have good self-esteem. Aristotle opens us up to the possibility that happiness is not dependent on the flux we find in the material world where we need shit and security.

Is anyone living here in the heart of the new and “improved” target-rich Roman Empire in 2006 so convinced we can get and hold in our mitts all the things that can make us happy, or even make us human?

Just this week, our friend Tom from the Mass was attacked by MP3bots for crisssakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good luck to us all.