So what do I want to do? Part 1
I was starting a journal entry – you know, those intractably introspective ones that substitute inertia for will, and that at least have the result of reinforcing some sort of activity. I’m terribly undisciplined and unfocussed. These aren’t self-criticisms: they are purely observational realities. I would hate to be (as my undgrad philosophy professor once described Soren Kierkergaard) merely a functional manic-depressive. I don’t like being hostage to my brain, and I don’t like being dependent on the chemicals in my brain being in just so a balance in order for me to be “productive” but at the moment, in the absence of any firmly established habit which will keep me writing on something that might, one day, contribute to my bread and butter, this will do.
That said, I realized, not only have I not actually published “what it is that I intend to do” anywhere, as a more important note, I haven’t actually written it down anywhere. I’m becoming a firm believer in the importance of infrastructure as an operating principle: lay up for yourselves investments in capital so that thou mayest do thy job easier in the future (putting aside money and earning interest is just a specific application of this more general principle). Perhaps more importantly, it is important to remember that investments in capital also take the form of shaping one’s character: get into a habit and stick with it, and you’ll be the kind of person that lives that kind of life. Train up a child in the way he should go…
Actually, there is a snippet of what it is that I want to do on my MySpace profile. It’s not too shabby, so I’ll quote it here:
If there is one overriding passion in my life, it is to understand "how things work" - not in a scientific or engineering sense, but in the broadest philosophical sense. I want to know how *we* work - what makes the human mind tick, our psychological, cognitive, and social makeup. I want to understand those areas of our world that are most treated like voodoo - economics, politics, gender relations, to name a few - and try to EXPLAIN how they work to other people. I am addicted to politics and political debate, and am often frustrated by the inability of conservatives and liberals to communicate with each other.I am convinced that if people just had a better understanding of what was really going on - how complex systems like economies or societies WORKED - much of the frustrating impasse between otherwise well-meaning people who fundamentally disagree about how to make the world a better place would simply disappear. I am - at the moment in baby steps - trying to accomplish just that. It took me years to figure out where I wanted to go, and some time after that to figure out how to get there. I have a keen intellect, a gift for writing, and a passion for understanding - both for myself and for the dissemination to others. I want to channel those gifts into a blog and use that as a portfolio to pursue a career in a think-tank. I know I have something new and important to say, and I'll be damned if I don't take the chance to say it.
Even this, however, doesn’t quite capture the flavor of the underlying intellectual currents which in form how I approach things like public policy. I suppose, too, that right now isn’t exactly the time to start going into the finer points of differential ontology. That of course, will be the meat and potatoes (am I on a food analogies kick today, or what?) of Cognitive Resonance. The point, as I was trying to pitch to David earlier today, is that what the world needs right now is better cognitive tools, and an education designed to provide them with it.
That’s what I need – no, scratch that, that’s what I want to be doing.
For those of you who think that I’m either making mountains out of molehills, bizarrely egotistical, absurdly idealistic, or any such combination or similar defect, I can only say, in the most reasonable tones I can, to go suck eggs. A clue for all you naysayers: this is a job that needs to be done. Or do you think that our governmental systems are indefinitely stable or even doing what they are supposed to be doing? Do you think that political disagreement and civil discourse are, well, civil? Do you not think that the very nature of political disagreements indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of socio-political realities by people in both camps? Do you think that navigating the dangerous waters of the post-nuclear, post-Cold War age is even possible if we don’t have our own shit together at home?
Ok, so there’s a problem, you admit. What makes me think that I have a viable solution in mind? Isn’t that the height of hubris?
Well it would be if I actually thought that. As I’ve already indicated, the solution is education and new conceptual tools. Yes, I think I have on what some of those may be, but ultimately the job is much bigger than any one person or any one idea. That doesn’t mean that I can’t make an important contribution; more to the point, it doesn’t mean I don’t have an important contribution to make. But that won’t happen if all I do is have neat ideas. It won’t even happen if I merely write them down, however broadly those ideas become disseminated. I don’t know what it is going to take, but it really is time for me to “go out there and do something” and “sitting here and writing” is something of a first step.
So, ok then. What’s my big idea?
I’m glad you asked…
That said, I realized, not only have I not actually published “what it is that I intend to do” anywhere, as a more important note, I haven’t actually written it down anywhere. I’m becoming a firm believer in the importance of infrastructure as an operating principle: lay up for yourselves investments in capital so that thou mayest do thy job easier in the future (putting aside money and earning interest is just a specific application of this more general principle). Perhaps more importantly, it is important to remember that investments in capital also take the form of shaping one’s character: get into a habit and stick with it, and you’ll be the kind of person that lives that kind of life. Train up a child in the way he should go…
Actually, there is a snippet of what it is that I want to do on my MySpace profile. It’s not too shabby, so I’ll quote it here:
If there is one overriding passion in my life, it is to understand "how things work" - not in a scientific or engineering sense, but in the broadest philosophical sense. I want to know how *we* work - what makes the human mind tick, our psychological, cognitive, and social makeup. I want to understand those areas of our world that are most treated like voodoo - economics, politics, gender relations, to name a few - and try to EXPLAIN how they work to other people. I am addicted to politics and political debate, and am often frustrated by the inability of conservatives and liberals to communicate with each other.I am convinced that if people just had a better understanding of what was really going on - how complex systems like economies or societies WORKED - much of the frustrating impasse between otherwise well-meaning people who fundamentally disagree about how to make the world a better place would simply disappear. I am - at the moment in baby steps - trying to accomplish just that. It took me years to figure out where I wanted to go, and some time after that to figure out how to get there. I have a keen intellect, a gift for writing, and a passion for understanding - both for myself and for the dissemination to others. I want to channel those gifts into a blog and use that as a portfolio to pursue a career in a think-tank. I know I have something new and important to say, and I'll be damned if I don't take the chance to say it.
Even this, however, doesn’t quite capture the flavor of the underlying intellectual currents which in form how I approach things like public policy. I suppose, too, that right now isn’t exactly the time to start going into the finer points of differential ontology. That of course, will be the meat and potatoes (am I on a food analogies kick today, or what?) of Cognitive Resonance. The point, as I was trying to pitch to David earlier today, is that what the world needs right now is better cognitive tools, and an education designed to provide them with it.
That’s what I need – no, scratch that, that’s what I want to be doing.
For those of you who think that I’m either making mountains out of molehills, bizarrely egotistical, absurdly idealistic, or any such combination or similar defect, I can only say, in the most reasonable tones I can, to go suck eggs. A clue for all you naysayers: this is a job that needs to be done. Or do you think that our governmental systems are indefinitely stable or even doing what they are supposed to be doing? Do you think that political disagreement and civil discourse are, well, civil? Do you not think that the very nature of political disagreements indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of socio-political realities by people in both camps? Do you think that navigating the dangerous waters of the post-nuclear, post-Cold War age is even possible if we don’t have our own shit together at home?
Ok, so there’s a problem, you admit. What makes me think that I have a viable solution in mind? Isn’t that the height of hubris?
Well it would be if I actually thought that. As I’ve already indicated, the solution is education and new conceptual tools. Yes, I think I have on what some of those may be, but ultimately the job is much bigger than any one person or any one idea. That doesn’t mean that I can’t make an important contribution; more to the point, it doesn’t mean I don’t have an important contribution to make. But that won’t happen if all I do is have neat ideas. It won’t even happen if I merely write them down, however broadly those ideas become disseminated. I don’t know what it is going to take, but it really is time for me to “go out there and do something” and “sitting here and writing” is something of a first step.
So, ok then. What’s my big idea?
I’m glad you asked…
posted by Jonathan at 7:22 PM
3 Comments:
Jon,
I look forward to seeing your central theses more fully set out.
Gotta say, though, that I'm deeply pessimistic about the possibility of diminishing the vast distances that separate the polar Left from the polar Right. Many differences and misunderstandings between the two camps are not caused by deficiences in the parties' cognitive toolsets; the gaps are in many--some would say most--cases the result of willfulness and irrationality--of fundamentally different freely-adopted presuppositions that operate to control the use of cognitive tools.
To put it more vividly: one can craft a fine tool--say, a hammer. One party might use it to build a house. Another might use it to bash in the first guy's skull. Normative presuppositions--which I'd contend are usually beyond the reach of rational persuasion--control the hammer's use.
You're certainly at least half right. Ther are emotional dynamics at work, as well, and sheer temperamental propensities aplenty, on both sides of the aisle, to keep the polar right and polar left in "never the twain shall meet" mode.
That said, you're construing "cognitive tool set" a little bit too narrowly for what I intend - yes, I know, get the heck on with publishing the D. O. theses. But even without everyone becoming proficient in the metaphysics, just being open to a more-or-less completely different take on the implications of public policy proposals and the mechanisms for, say, instituting cultural and social change, will at least open the door for, say, proponents of "social justice" not having the knee-jerk reaction to call proponents of "individual responsibility" de facto fascists.
I know, get on with the dissertation and get on with writing my thesis.
No, this is interesting. As I said before, I very much look forward to hearing more. So--out with it, Caro!
And yes--I'll go ahead and concede (without too much trouble) that you are certainly the better philosopher.
Post a Comment
<< Home