This is a reponse to Curtiss Priest's posting on this subject, of March 2.
Because of the passage of time and for convenience in reading today, I have
reproduced Curtiss' full text along with my interjected reactions. The
consolidation of my viewpoint has been assisted in the interim by reading
the Monahan essay, Douglas on Security, and contributions of others.
CURTISS:
There is really little diaelectic tension between us, and the details we
have discussed are quite secondary to the question of ideology and
Christianity that you raise.
There were 4 volume sets of the Outline of History, but, there were also the
2 volume sets, and the single volume one that a so common as to be in $.50
"throwaway" areas of used bookstores :)
[that price is meant to have no relationship to its value, for as "most
economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. :)" ]
KEITH:
Number of volumes is certainly a trivial matter, but I am less certain that
we are in agreement on the content and import of that three-part set of
books. This will become more clear in subsequent comments.
[Nevertheless, for curiosity's sake, I have read that the Outline of
History was published first in serial form, fortnightly. That could have
involved well more than 4 volumes, I imagine? My set is 2 volumes,
published by MacMillan in 1920, which every reference I have consulted says
is the year of the first edition. Mine does not say "second printing" or
anything else indicating something later than the first.]
CURTISS:
Now. I shared a 20 page description by Monahan with a colleage which, Wally
Klinck kindly forwarded to me, and as I introduced it to him, I said:
Regarding, "Christianity" -- while I believe Douglas was a devote Christian,
I, personally, just substitute "personal spirit" when I see that word.
KEITH:
That terminology and equation of terms is unfamiliar to me, but I think I
catch your drift.
CURTISS:
If I am to be labeled, I am "Unitarian/Universalist."
But, I don't think a label matters as much as "how any of us gain a 'sense
of purpose'" in our lives.
KEITH:
I agree with the sentiment, but demur on the extension to "gaining a sense
of purpose". More on this below.
CURTISS:
My reading of Monahan was that Douglas wished to unshackle the "worker" to
permit a "higher purpose."
And, we also know that many people believe that "idle hands are the devil's
workshop" and believe that "work" keeps people out of trouble.
KEITH:
I agree with that interpretation of Monahan, but I think that the second
statement above has become a bit archaic over the past 30 years. I am
doubtful of its applicability to the excuses made for the policy of full
employment.
CURTISS:
So, when you raise ideology or philosophy, we basically are asking what
comprises "the good life" (not the 'life of Riley' --but rather the life
"well spent").
KEITH:
OK, now I am getting a clearer picture of the difference between our
perspectives on Wells and of how it is significant for interpreting Douglas.
The definition you provide just above is not quite what I have in mind by
ideology or philosophy.
Victor supplied two meanings of philosophy in response to my query of what
he means by the word. You are using it in the same sense as Victor, which I
will characterize by the shorthand of "ethical principles".
That is obviously not obscure or unusual usage, but is not the one that I
had in mind when putting the question to Victor. It is quite possible that
Douglas intended to be understood in that way also. I had begun to suspect
(from various comments we have seen here) that Douglas intended to be
synthesizing or articulating a uniquely Christian political philosophy (in
the other sense of the word that Victor detailed). In his posting of this
morning, however, Victor has come down on the other side (i.e. of ethical
principles).
I will describe the other approach after your expansion (next) of the
ethical principles perspective.
CURTISS:
There is one book on my shelves that I turn to for an answer to that
question, and it is "Personality and the Good" by two
philosopher/theologians at Boston University -- Bertocci
and Millard.
While Maslow and Allport (heavily cited in this book) approached this
question as physchologists, Bertocci & Millard (ISBN 111787902X) tackled
this question in 1963, with the subtitle of "Psychological and Ethical
Perspectives."
I have never ever seen any book before or since (except perhaps the Bible)
that deals so widely on this.
[There is one, more recent book, that is more of a primer, but related, and
that is Seligman's _Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology
to Realize your Potentential
for Lasting Fulfillment_. ISBN 0-74342-2297-0 and which is on many new book
store shelves at this very moment. I have only thumbed the book, really, and
there is a certain hedonism sound to the word happiness, but, he clearly
gets well past that.]
What intrigued me about Bertocci & Mallard was their abilities to inspect
multiple religious and distill from that a set of virtues and practices that
cut across many religions.
They tackle, for example, the trait (or virtue) of "kindness" and
"generosity."
They ask the "operative question" -- why do these behaviors "work" and how
do they lead to the "good life" -- 'well practiced?'
KEITH:
That is a clear and complete exposition of the ethical principles
perspective, in my view. I will try to meet that standard in describing the
other meaning.
An anecdotal approach may serve: Following the intellectual and emotional
turmoil of successfully defending my dissertation (which my advisor had
warned was an affront to the economics profession), I felt a hunger for
psychological explanations of human behavior to complement the influence of
biologists on the post-residential stage of my research and writing. So, I
sought and found the company of a multi-disciplinary group led by a
psychiatrist and a philosopher, whose focus was the differential functions
of parts of the human brain and the consequent interference of instinct and
emotion with rationality.
Ethical principles are a product of rationality, as you have described
above. The Maslow hierarchy of needs is a product of ethical reflection
(what ought to be), not of positive knowledge about the nature of the human
beast (what is). One of the most consistent themes I heard from
anthropologists and brain specialists in the group was negation of Maslow's
hierarchy as nonsense (from the scientific perspective rather than the
ethical).
At this point I need to explain that I view economics as a subset of ethics,
which is a bit of a contrast with more frequently seen affirmations that it
is a positive science. Politics, on the other hand, is the art of the
possible. Political action is required in order to effect the ethical
ideals that are deduced by economists. But political action will have much
greater chance of success if it is well-founded in the knowledge of human
nature and of the human-environment relationship. This was the observation
of Machiavelli, a tradition carried forward in modern times by the likes of
Darwin (Huxley), Freud, Nietzsche, .and H.G. Wells.
Now, if we take the "love of knowledge" definition of philosophy and apply
it to political philosophy in particular, we should find that it begins with
some premise about human nature and the human condition and builds from that
a structure of how society should be organized to either maximize felicity
or minimize misery. In other words, how to build utopia given a frank
acknowledgment of the obstacles posed by the human material. (Love of
knowledge implies intellectual honesty.) That is a 'realist' view of utopia.
A common usage of utopia, however, is "hopelessly unrealistic".
I submit for our consideration the following conjecture: Ethical principles
discussed here as variously 'Christian' or universal may be rational in the
sense that the world would be a better place if they were observed, but they
amount to a denial of reality. If this is the meaning of "the policy of a
(Christian) philosophy", therefore, Social Credit is utopian in the
'hopelessly unrealistic' sense. It may be very good economics, but its
unrealistic political philosophy means that it is doomed to be forever a
missionary society. Until its missionaries succeed in changing human
nature, its economic prescription will remain stillborn. This is the
message that Louis Kelso received from his peers in the financial community:
"You just don't get it, Lou; dominance is the game, and money is the means
for exerting it." This is a painful lesson for we ineffectual intellectuals
(who can only wish that Keynes were right about the world being ruled by
ideas).
"Now." [I return to Curtiss' appreciation of Wells.]
CURTISS:
Certainly Wells was a "man of the world." Yes, at a small university in
northern New York, my great grandfather read and agreed with both Darwin and
T.H. Huxley -- circa 1890, and there was another moral philosopher at the
university (the Gaines family) who were abhorred with the ideas of Darwin.
And, when I discovered Wells in the public library at about age 10 and read
everything I could, not only under "science fiction" but also "political
science" I formed a deep love for
this person.
Wells, to my mind, was at a remarkable period. England was moving from the
Victorian Age to the Edwardian Age. Women's sufferage was 'afoot' and Wells
was a champion of the cause
(say via Ambrose Bierce).
While Verne, Swift, Moore and others had written early science fiction
and/or utopian novels, Wells had the benefit of the scholarship that brought
his studies to London, and to be in Huxley's classroom !
And, how had he gained his learning, prior to that? His mother a "downstairs
maid" and his father who ran a China shop and mostly played croquette was an
unlikely family to produce such a boy.
However, biographers note that his mother often took "the boy" with her to
her employer's house, and, that Wells was exposed to those personal
libraries.
If someone told me this, and I hadn't good proof, I'd simply say rubbage --
no one with that background could go on and write what he wrote !
***
But, we have the fact that he wrote some of the most startling short stories
of the 1890's. (and much, much more beyond)
He synthesized and combined the "device of science fiction" with the
politics (and ideologies) of the day. If science fiction does not a.) only
slightly stretch the aspects of the physical world (else it is fantasy), or,
b.) does not imbue the story with "lessons" to (or for) humanity, to my mind
it is "bad" science fiction.
[sidebar: if a reader wishes just one book to read about Wells, it is not by
Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie, nor Gordon N. Ray, (all folk who almost devoted
their entire lives to Wells'
legacy but:
Smith, David C. Smith. HG Wells: Desperately Mortal. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1986.
Smith, a professor at a Maine College, best captures, to my mind what Wells
was "about." And, the phrase "desperately mortal" captures the essence of
Wells.
Again, this is no disparagement of Wells, but rather, to understand Wells
one must place him into the context of his own life.]
KEITH:
These observations are all consistent, I believe, with the article about
Wells in the 1961 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (the one I have to
hand). I haven't read the Smith biography, but the notion of 'desperately
mortal' is an apt characterization for the attitude ascribed to Wells as an
educator by the Britannica biographer (N.C. Nicholson). And it fits what I
read by Wells himself in his introductions to The Science of Life and
especially The Work, Wealth and Happiness.. That is, his early belief that
human society was evolving (Huxley's biological theory here) more or less
inevitably toward utopia. This was expressed through an interest in
Fabianism and later development of his own ideas of socialism. But the
world war "shook his faith in the inevitable progress of man and he turned
to the proposition that man could progress only if he adapted himself to his
changing environment. To help this adaptation, he began his great work of
popular education, of which the main productions were The Outline of
History, The Science of Life and The Work, Wealth and Happiness..With the
outbreak of World War II he lost all confidence in man, and his last works
depicted a bleak vision of a world in which nature had rejected man and was
destroying him. .His influence was enormous. .Few did more to incite revolt
against Christian dogma or against the accepted codes of behavior. .He was
undeviating and fearless in his fight for social equity, world peace and for
what he considered to be the future good of mankind."
The point I wish to make here is that Wells attempted to conform his social
philosophy to a "realistic" view of human nature, to a perspective of
humankind as a product of biological evolution rather than as a fallen race
of angels. What I am wary of when I hear that Social Credit is a "Christian"
philosophy is that it may embrace the latter idea with a concomitant view of
human perfectibility.
As I read the following summary by Curtiss, it does not embrace this
interpretation of Wells which, I believe, clearly demarcates him (Wells)
from Douglas' attitudes. Wells is humanist, socialist, and believes that
social felicity requires curbing of individual desires and wants. As I have
said in some other postings, Douglas' spirit seems to be anarchistic in
believing that if individuals are given the opportunity they will be
benevolent, productive and respective of community (public) goods.
CURTISS:
I have carried on a bit.
Let me simply summarize:
1. The Christian aspects of Douglas, I believe, can be replaced with the
concept of "human spirit
and purpose" without damaging his point of view
{Keith: I am not sure what this means, but don't see it as a
problem.}
2. Wells lived an extraodinary life, and wrote many extraodinary pieces of
literature
3. Yes, Wells saw continuity across the "disciplines" and, as evinced by
Science of Life, or Outline of History, or Work, Wealth and Happiness, Wells
knew "no boundaries" -- indeed -- he saw no boundaries. And, perhaps, his
"shabby" beginnings were the very causes that kept him from pigeon-holing
ANYTHING.
KEITH:
I am postulating that, in contrast to this open-ended interpretation, Wells
did have a clear intent, driven by his Huxley-oriented view of human nature,
that was fundamentally at odds with what I have picked up so far about
Douglas' attitudes. Furthermore, in spite of protestations to the contrary
by themselves, I affirm that both of them are properly classified as
utopian-but that is a separable issue to which we may return another time.
CURTISS:
4. Finally, society must figure out how to get off the "treadmill of
work" -- enough -- to regain
spirit, harmony, cooperation, and a better sense about a "sustainable life"
(throughout not just
this century, but, for the millions of centuries before us).
The American model simply does not transfer into the future. Two household
workers (even if at
the level of double-professional careers) is not an answer to how we need to
raise children, nor
is it an answer to how we need consume resources, nor is it spiritual --
rather -- it is crassly
materialistic.
KEITH:
I do agree that the current orientation of economic policy is insane, but I
am less certain that the sane alternative is a workless world. There is
some truth to the Pope's affirmation of the "dignity of work", and I think
that the emphasis on industrial production in illustrations of Social
Credit economic theory is in danger of missing some aspects of reality (cf.
the Monahan essay).
Thanks for pulling together these details about Wells.
Keith Wilde
Ottawa, Canada
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^================================================================
