A conception not reducible to the small change of daily experience is like a currency not exchangeable for articles of consumption; it is not a symbol, but a fraud.
George Santayana - The Life of Reason (1905 - 1906)
Familiar difficulties arise when we attempt to define what is going wrong with our political culture here in the UK and elsewhere in the developed world. Many possibilities seem to fit the circumstances tolerably well without quite offering a satisfactory theme. Possibly there is no single theme, but if our various failures stand alone, maybe they do have a few common features.
For example, we seem to have a serious problem with language, more specifically with how we use symbols to connect ourselves with both the familiar world of daily life and the less familiar world of current affairs. Buying groceries, sending the kids to school and the daily commute encapsulate familiar symbols of daily life, they are reducible to the small change of daily experience. Yet they do not fit comfortably with the obviously fraudulent use of symbols in numerous media headlines.
The so-called green revolution is nothing like making coffee and a round of toast while gazing out of the window at garden birds pecking away at the bird feeder. The green revolution has symbols we can see such as wind turbines, electric cars and recycling bins, but these symbols are not reducible to the small change of daily experience. Daily life would lack nothing if we did not have wind turbines, electric cars or recycling bins.
Wind turbines are not symbols of sustainable power, they are based on old technology, are inefficient and unreliable with their own sustainability problems.
Electric cars are not symbols of a sustainable lifestyle. They are not yet superior to traditional cars and have their own sustainability problems.
Recycling is not a symbol of a sustainable lifestyle. It is wasteful in terms of human effort and there are practical limits on what can be usefully recycled.
Gender is not a symbol of socially inclusive progress, it is a fact of human reproduction.
Pale skin colour is not a symbol of privilege, it is a fact of biological heritage.
Equality is not a virtuous political policy, it is a fraudulent depiction of social reality.
The point to be made is that the symbols we rely on to navigate daily life, do not necessarily allow us to navigate public debates with integrity or even dignity. Much public debate merely expresses symbols of allegiance, compliance or fashionable acceptance, not reducible to the reality they supposedly symbolise.
The elusive nature of the problem is its weakness, we must use symbols within the public arena. Yet fashionable symbols of allegiance are far too powerful to be demolished merely by confrontation with more honest symbols, For those prosperous people dominating the public arena, their reality is too benign to threaten the fraudulent symbols they use to maintain their dominance.
When this diversity between the truest theory and the simplest fact, between potential generalities and actual particulars, has been thoroughly appreciated, it becomes clear that much of what is valued in science and religion is not lodged in the miscellany underlying these creations of reason, but is lodged rather in the rational activity itself, and in the intrinsic beauty of all symbols bred in a genial mind. Of course, if these symbols had no real points of reference, if they were symbols of nothing, they could have no great claim to consideration and no rational character; at most they would be agreeable sensations.
George Santayana - The Life of Reason (1905 - 1906)
This is the problem - much of what is valued in science and religion is not lodged in the miscellany underlying these creations of reason, but is lodged rather in the rational activity itself.
If important arenas of rational activity are not rational, but fraudulent, then they are valued fraudulently, being based on nothing more substantial than agreeable sensations. That is to say, agreeable to a certain social class. This seems to be one underlying theme of the malaise – fraudulent symbols.
The point to be made is that the symbols we rely on to navigate daily life, do not necessarily allow us to navigate public debates with integrity or even dignity. Much public debate merely expresses symbols of allegiance, compliance or fashionable acceptance, not reducible to the reality they supposedly symbolise.
The elusive nature of the problem is its weakness, we must use symbols within the public arena. Yet fashionable symbols of allegiance are far too powerful to be demolished merely by confrontation with more honest symbols, For those prosperous people dominating the public arena, their reality is too benign to threaten the fraudulent symbols they use to maintain their dominance.
When this diversity between the truest theory and the simplest fact, between potential generalities and actual particulars, has been thoroughly appreciated, it becomes clear that much of what is valued in science and religion is not lodged in the miscellany underlying these creations of reason, but is lodged rather in the rational activity itself, and in the intrinsic beauty of all symbols bred in a genial mind. Of course, if these symbols had no real points of reference, if they were symbols of nothing, they could have no great claim to consideration and no rational character; at most they would be agreeable sensations.
George Santayana - The Life of Reason (1905 - 1906)
This is the problem - much of what is valued in science and religion is not lodged in the miscellany underlying these creations of reason, but is lodged rather in the rational activity itself.
If important arenas of rational activity are not rational, but fraudulent, then they are valued fraudulently, being based on nothing more substantial than agreeable sensations. That is to say, agreeable to a certain social class. This seems to be one underlying theme of the malaise – fraudulent symbols.
5 comments:
"we seem to have a serious problem with language": here are two oddities I've noticed in the last few years, presumably imported from California.
"Learnings" to mean lessons. "Advancements" to mean advances.
Many concepts which hold considerable sway over us seem never to have been subjected to rational analysis. Things like "climate change ", racism", "poverty", etc. They are used merely as argument stoppers, ways of associating opponents with low-status ideas.
dearieme - "Learnings" sounds as if it was accidentally derived from "Earnings" but I'm not sure about "Advancements".
Sam - yes, they sound like verbal fashions which arose late at night from smoke-filled rooms filled with earnest discussion, too much booze and not enough contact with the real world.
And then there are weasel words.
James - yes, words where useful meanings have been altered into weasel words by weasels.
Post a Comment