Elsewhere in this blogsphere, I sometimes visit a site run by a so-called neo-neocon. I like to read the posts and the comments, and sometimes contribute, because I'm interested in seeing how people think about issues and ideas, or how they refuse to think at times. My life, and two fascinating stints on jury duty, have convinced me that everyone can reason if they feel they must or that they should. That doesn't mean they will all the time.
What fascinates me about posts over there is the free-wheeling ranting and venting that purports to be thinking and analysis. A frequent critic of the denizens of neo-neocon hails from his own blog, saving aeneas, where yet another commenter, smiling neocon, asked me, isn't a blog supposed to be just "self-absorbed ranting?" Well, I guess it's okay if you don't pretend it's something else, but it leads me once again to the wonderful (apochryphal?) comment by Flaubert on the railroad -
Finally, the phrase "mugged by reality" - I've seen it around. Neo-neocon uses it as her tag line - mugged by reality on 9/11; at least one of the commenters said he was a Marxist until he was similarly mugged; I don't think it's original with them - it's in the air. What interests me is the implication - purposeful, I believe - that before their shocking and violent encounter with reality, they lived in a world of fond illusions and self-deception. Remember, the phrase is theirs. Now, that doesn't say much for the quality of their intellect, nor does it inspire confidence in anything that they have to say now. The newly converted have to be taken with a healthy sizing of salt - they tend to be "true believers."
Yes, sometimes the scales drop from peoples' eyes. Maybe I'll find myself on the road to Damascus one day, but I tend to put more faith in those whose conversions are limited to more spiritual concerns. The man who wrote Amazing Grace was a former slaver commenting on his earlier moral and ethical depravity - I can buy that, it happens. But anyone who says that they were a liberal, or a Marxist!, until they were "mugged by reality," and now they're a neocon is, I think, more likely just a person who lives by latching onto a feel-good doctrine and moving with the winds. I'd have the same distrust for an evangelical who got "mugged" and proclaimed themselves a dialectical materialist.
What fascinates me about posts over there is the free-wheeling ranting and venting that purports to be thinking and analysis. A frequent critic of the denizens of neo-neocon hails from his own blog, saving aeneas, where yet another commenter, smiling neocon, asked me, isn't a blog supposed to be just "self-absorbed ranting?" Well, I guess it's okay if you don't pretend it's something else, but it leads me once again to the wonderful (apochryphal?) comment by Flaubert on the railroad -
"What does it do other than bring more people together more quickly so that they can be stupid together?"Yes, a sourpuss, but he's got something there. Is this the best we can hope for, wallowing in our prejudices?
Finally, the phrase "mugged by reality" - I've seen it around. Neo-neocon uses it as her tag line - mugged by reality on 9/11; at least one of the commenters said he was a Marxist until he was similarly mugged; I don't think it's original with them - it's in the air. What interests me is the implication - purposeful, I believe - that before their shocking and violent encounter with reality, they lived in a world of fond illusions and self-deception. Remember, the phrase is theirs. Now, that doesn't say much for the quality of their intellect, nor does it inspire confidence in anything that they have to say now. The newly converted have to be taken with a healthy sizing of salt - they tend to be "true believers."
Yes, sometimes the scales drop from peoples' eyes. Maybe I'll find myself on the road to Damascus one day, but I tend to put more faith in those whose conversions are limited to more spiritual concerns. The man who wrote Amazing Grace was a former slaver commenting on his earlier moral and ethical depravity - I can buy that, it happens. But anyone who says that they were a liberal, or a Marxist!, until they were "mugged by reality," and now they're a neocon is, I think, more likely just a person who lives by latching onto a feel-good doctrine and moving with the winds. I'd have the same distrust for an evangelical who got "mugged" and proclaimed themselves a dialectical materialist.
25 comments:
I'm sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "supposed". I would never encourage stupidity, including in the blogosphere. What I meant to say was that it is not so unthinkable that some bloggers will use their forum to rant on personal matters, though I think neo-neocon combines the personal and the political rather well.
Her latest post is about Vietnam. More lies and more ignorance; it's very disheartening.
As for being 'muged by reality', there are plenty of people whose convictions are based on nothing, and so are easily influenced by some symbolic event. Thus they end up converting to a new all-encompassing ideology - often multiple times. Where did all the founding fathers of neoconservatism start out? As socialists - and it's only a matter of time before they shift again. No telling whether their acolytes will follow.
I'm tempted to be critical of your pseudo-intellectual references. Pretty pedestrian -like you are lecturing a 9th grade social studies class. Road to Damascus? Dialectal Materialist? Please.
But that's not my style. I'll leave the condescending to oh-so-hip world-weary types. Like yourself.
But I will make a point. After 9/11, mere mortals like myself were reminded, ad nauseum, by "intellectuals", that we knew nothing about the world. "Root causes" and such. Now that some, like neoneocon, try (or should I use the more sophisticated 'endeavor'?) to develop a better understanding of the events of the world we live in, at the same time admitting that they were less than informed on 9/10, they are to be ridiculed?
Suspicious of someone willing to question their own beliefs? Seems to me that self examination and doubt are the first steps to healthy intellectual development. You might want to consider trying it.
By the way, you used both purported and apocryphal incorrectly.
Oh, and I'm not normally this bitter. Just "ranting and venting".
Cheers.
I want to encourage you to continue to be sarcastic and contemptuous, especially when posting on neo-neocon’s blog. Self control is for evil conservatives. You are the superior intellect. Why would perfection ever change?
Rapt in awe of your magnificence.
Paul:
You show a marvelous command of ‘paralipsis’, the rhetorical device by which people deny that they will treat of a topic, and then go ahead and do just that. (Anthony: I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him...). Like Oscar Wilde, you can resist anything but temptation, so you went on to insult me anyway.
Okay, but what's wrong with a Biblical reference? C'mon, I thought you were a conservative. And I think my use of dialectical materialism made my point about fanatics - I'm not trying to impress anyone. If you don't like my style, it's your business. What upset you? That I was too intellectual, or not enough (pedestrian?)
As to your point, I may, in fact, be too hard on people who say they have been awakened. I applaud those who question and seek the truth. My gripe is simply with the results that neo-neocon, and you, seem to have come up with so far. Keep at it, but drop the passive-aggressive inferiority complex about "intellectuals."
Finally, just to be sure, I checked the dictionary: My use of 'purported' and 'apocryphal' is correct. I'm happy to have my grammar and diction corrected, but in the future, explain my error please.
As for Anonymous:
Thanks for joining my fan club, but I really don't feel good after getting in a shot of sarcasm and contempt, that's why I try to avoid it.
This is a pretty tough crowd, but Im going to stick my neck out yet again,Ive plenty of bandaids.As to my intellectual credentials, I made it(ok, barely) through US 12th grade, but I read a lot?
For me it all started with The Norm,whom everyone seems linked to and respects enormously, and his article in Dissent on the tendency towards "Reductionism of the Left",as it was titled. Basically a criticism of leftist thought since 9/11,he created as a criteria for determining peoples ability to accurately asess historical developments,their reactions to the events of that day.There were,for him, "certain people for whom the illumination of the global landscape,in all it's contours, became apparent" and those for whom this event was not so epiphanal.I believe this is a crucial discussion, I love to see so many people taking part, but am also,at the same time, often dissapointed by the level of analysis and the tendency for this to devolve into "mere" criticism.
From my own unscientific survey of journals, blogs,media etc. it seems by far the most common transformation,if you will,is that of Norm and Neoneocon to a more "hawkish" position regarding the use of force, a more nationalistic stance regarding the relative moral position suddenly gained by the US and a general shift from liberal to more conservative positions in terms of general political philosophy (role of government,geo-politics etc) Ive run into none who shifted in the opposite direction but have found many on the left who maintained a consistant position (myself included) and were able to incorporate those tragic events into their dominant narrative.
It is very hard to compare the subjective with the objective, some were personally affected (friends, loved ones etc),some began to have more concern for their own security, some felt objective power relations shift.A common thread is the feeling that where they were before naive, perhaps ill informed,through a change in information sources they became more pragmatic.The simplest descriptives involve a change from believing in "nice to believing in mean" or losing faith in "carrots" and moving toward sticks.
To me it has everything to do with the nature of knowledge.
Troutsky:
Your assessment of the shifts seems reasonable to me. I don't closely track the intellectual journals of right or left - I spend too much time in my dreamworld, but I have a deep suspicion of any thinker who would claim that one event suddenly 'illuminated' the landscape - not unless they were deeply deceived beforehand, which, of course, reduces their credibility now. I have written earlier in my blog about my views on 'revelation.'
I think Loyal Achates (what is that name?) hit it when he said:
As for being 'mugged by reality', there are plenty of people whose convictions are based on nothing, and so are easily influenced by some symbolic event.
That's what I sense behind it all. Yes, it has a lot to do with the source of knowledge, and the relationship between knowledge and values. Not everyone can be a philosopher, but everyone can at least make an honest effort to separate the subjective from the objective. If they don't feel that's important, then there's nothing to be said to such people.
I think I may have had enough of neo-neocon. They can come here to comment if they wish.
First, don't take offense. You started the discussion, and heat, kitchen etc.
You have a serious usage problem with your writing. Almost there with most of the stuff, but then...
I'll give you a pass on purports. Its still awkard though. Apocryphal is just not used correctly. It really should be used only when the phrase or saying is generally recognized and commonly misattributed. I don't think an obscure Flaubert quote counts as such.
Your intellectual reach exceeds its grasp. Again, no offense.
(Troutsky, however, seems to have the right formula, however. You'd do well to copy him (her?).)
By the way, how is this for a reference?
"If you must write prose and poems
the words you use should be your own
don't plagiarize or take on loan
there's always someone, somewhere
with a big nose who knows
who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall."
http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~moz/lyrics/thequeen/cemetryg.htm
A "conservative" quoting Morrissey. What is the world coming to? (I'd like to know exactly what in my comment made you label me a conservative.)
Anyway, sorry to stir up the pot. Feel free to come by my blog and do the same.
Paul says I shouldn't take offense whenever he's winding up to hurl an insult. Okay, I don't care.
As for my 'serious usage problem...?' You accuse ME of sounding as though I'm "lecturing to a 9th grade class!" Are you my schoolmarm?
Thanks so much for giving me a pass on my use of 'purports.' As to 'apochryphal,' my Websters says, "of doubtful origin." That is, the Flaubert quote may be his, or it may not - it's used a lot by people who are interested in him. I've not been able to track it down fully. That settles it for me.
Thanks for your heartfelt apologies on stirring my pot with insults about my mental grasp and reach: I take no offense because you've yet to offer a critique that goes beyond such snide remarks. Think what you like, feel free to post here, but don't expect me not to reply.
If you care to, please explain the point of your lyric - are saying I've plagiarized somebody?? Is there something wrong with quoting authors one respects and reveres? What IS your point?
Settle down.
Ok, I've been a little over the top with my criticism of your post. I just wanted to take some shots at what I thought was a condescending tone.
I did actually respond to what you have been saying, in my original comment. Third paragraph. What exactly would you have someone "mugged by reality" do? Not think? Not try and question their preconceived notions? If that leads them down a particular path, so what? (It seems that it is you who has not responded to me in this case.)
Anyway, I think that this type of second-guessing is harmless and healthy, and should be applauded by anyone who thinks that
Americans should "think" more.
But I also think it is threatening to some who feel that intellectual development is open only to a few. This may or may not include you, but I do think there is a correlation between this outlook and your characterization of me as a conservative, with absolutely nothing to base it on other than my apparent support for neo-neocon. (This is another instance of your not responding to me)
And, for some 9/11, was "just a terrorist attack" or as loyal achates said, "some symbolic event" (!). Fine. Its not for me to question this interpretation. Its the flip side of the "mugged by reality" coin.
There is nothing wrong with quoting authors, its a very effective way of reiterating a point. But it can be overdone. (The Smiths song/lyric is a poke in the eye of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals who use a minimal literary knowledge to make themselves sound smarter than they actually are.)
Honestly, in hindsight, this does not apply to you. You do seem to be well read, and can organize your thoughts better than most. But, really, ease up on the multiple literary references. You'd be a much better writer, I think.
By the way, I really do not mean any offense. I apologize if any was takend.
Paul:
Okay, I'll calm down.
I don't like the phrase "mugged by reality." It's a slogan, seems to substitute a catch phrase for thought. I would have people respond to 9/11 by thinking...after they've gotten over the shock. Personally, I was stupefied for three weeks or more.
I like Roger Baldwin's remark about the death penalty: Somebody asked him if he would still be against it if his wife had been brutally murdered. He replied that in such a case he would certainly have wanted to rip the criminal limb from limb...but in that state of mind, he would be the last person one should approach for a sensible analysis of the pros and cons of the death penalty. I have no gripe with the idea of people 'second guessing' their dearly held opinions or prejudices: I just feel much of what I read on Neo-neocon and elsewhere amounts to people ranting to relieve their feelings. I could supply similar examples on the left.
Regarding my writing - it's a purely personal blog. I try to be clear about my thoughts, but I indulge myself stylistically. My literary loves are more important to me than reaching Orwell's exalted level of prose writing. I know he would not have liked mine.
As for mis-labeling you as a conservative, sorry. A cheap shot I guess.
On 9/11, maybe I'll write about that later.
I think it is valid to be suspicious of a particular person who switches ideological sides, but not "anyone" who does so. We all have our motives and reasons for thinking the way we do, and its tempting to put people in boxes. But, I get your point and I don't think that you mean to label everyone who does changed their liberal/progressive views over the last few years.
By the way, I actually don't consider the word "conservative" a cheap shot, just a label.
I referred to neo-neocon's 'conversion' after 9/11 as a symbolic event because her reaction to it was (in my opinion) completely illogical to the situation, and it could only have happened if she assigned enormous meaning to it which did not actually exist.
Consider; she decided, after 9/11, that she had to support US interventionist efforts anywhere and everywhere in the world, including the ivasion of Iraq. Does that make sense? It was US intervention that gave us the Taliabn and Osama bin Laden in the first place, not to mention propping up Saddam Hussein to a great extent. And Hussein wa sin no way connected to the attacks.
3,,000 deaths were caused by a very samll and identifiable set of persons and events, revolving around bin Laden. But, instead of simply wishing for the perpetrators of this crime to be punished, she suddenly decided that the whole world needed to conform to her limited viison.
3,000 people, as horrific as it sounds, it not very many in the scale of the country. At least that many people die every year of food poisoning, yet she didn't decide to lobby the FDA for safer meatpacking conditions and tougher e. coli standards.
And, because her new ideology must ALWAYS be true for every situation, she went back to her view of Vietnam and re-arranged it accordingly. Sounds like a religious experience - and one that will leave its followers as heartbroken and disullisoned as any messianic cult.
Wow, that was alot of typos. Oh well..
To some degree this whole exchange affirms my belief that this question of "how did everything change ,if indeed it did, on 9/11" is central to understanding all the counter-posed forces in this new century and the narrative that is developing.It comes up in almost every serious discussion and is often contentious.
Michael Waltzer (editor of Dissent) accepts that something profound happened and that "progressives" must somehow incorporate a "fighting" response into thier strategies for political success.( was reading it today) I think he's full of shit basically but it comes up time and time again.
there may be something wrong with me emotionally but I had no such reaction.Ive seen so much spectacular violence on TV in my life it's sick, but all of it has if anything,reinforced and confirmed the basic ideology which Ive found best explains both history and current developments.
Im trying to think of an event that could so disrupt my world view and cause me to completely reject thirty five years of analysis but it may take awhile.Aliens landing would do it, actually.
"I've studied new Philosophy
And Jurisprudence, Medicine,
And even, alas, Theology
From end to end with labor keen;
And here, poor fool;
with all my lore
I stand no wiser than before."
- Goethe
And Goethe was no dummy.
By the way, God forbid you should want to "disrupt your worldview", Troutsky.
I didn't say it couldn't be done,Paul, but that I haven't yet had the experience.For a thought experiment, propose some event or circumstance that might make an old leftist disavow the notion that history is determined by class struggle.Don't you think global terrorism has roots in a colonialist past and in the modern expression of the accumulation of capital which is western cultural and economic expansion? In my thinking, a liberal turned conservative like neo-neocon is not much of a transition, belief in markets remains intact,just desires a little less regulation,nationalism stays the same, just willing to trade a little liberty for some security etc.But for a true neocon like a Wolfowitz, Perle etc, who goes from socialist to capitalist, this takes a change in "world view"that I do not, as yet, see well explained by anyone. For someone like neo-neocon some new "reality" tommorro could "mug" her back into liberalism. I don't think that kind of flexability is admirable.
I see that's pretty much what loyal achates was saying in his first comment.So,yea, what he said.
Troutsky
You seem to be hedging.
Your follow up comment:
"I didn't say it couldn't be done,Paul, but that I haven't yet had the experience"
Your previous comment:
"Im trying to think of an event that could so disrupt my world view and cause me to completely reject thirty five years of analysis but it may take awhile. Aliens landing would do it, actually."
That is, nothing could make you change your worldview. .
No matter.
As to the question of terrorism, colonialism, capitalism, raggism, baggism (hat tip JL), I actually do think that this is a vital debate. I do think that there is some connection between all of these subjects, but to isolate one issue (such as economic systems) as the main culprit is simplistic. Its just as unfair to blame capitalism for terrorism as it is to blame Islam or race, as I'm sure some on the right would like to do. But that is another subject.
In fact, your "thought experiment" is interesting, but it is a diversion from the subject at hand. (I'd love to take you up on this one, send me a message through my blog www.soapgun.blogspot.com - invite your friends too).
Without getting any more wordy, I think that you are getting too caught up in why others think the way they do. It just does not seem that important to me.
By the way, it is innacurate to call Wolfowitz and Perle former socialists. They were Democrats and fairly progressive, but never socialists. Their "conversion" was basically a result of what they saw as fairly innefective mid-70s Democratic foreign and domestic policy.
This is, I think, similar to the shift in the views of many moderate Democrats (ok, like myself) over the last few years. My shift came during the 2000 election, prior to 9/11.
As for me, I hope that my worldview is challenged until the day I die.
By the way, no one liked my Goethe quote? Its my favorite quote - really. Goethe was most likely one of the smartest people of the last 400 years and decided that all of his knowledge was essentially worthless. Faust and all that.
Honestly, don't we all feel this way after all of our reading and thinking. No wiser than before. I wanted to name my blog something like that.
Ok. apparently there is a Richard Perle/socialist connection. Something about the youth socialist league membership. But again, this is another subject.
Just wanted to point out that I am willing to check my own assertions and admit when I am wrong.
Commendable Paul, and if someday I am wrong I will be the first to admit it.Joking.I am no sage but I believe I am wiser than I was back when i would swallow anything someone handed me at a rock concert.Certainly theres no sin in converting as long as you can explain yourself reasonably(as I have a feeling you could Paul)I just don't think "attacked by terrorists" is a good explanation and i don't think "world communism failed" is any better.Criticism is only warranted because some of these folks,Norm and Waltzer, for example,speak to a wide audience.
As for Goethe,I believe he was just being modest, if indeed he was referring to himself,because I am wise enough to detect wisdom in what I have read of his (admittedly, not much)(not enough time damnit)in fact that type of self deprecation indicates wisdom.
Very reasonable comment, leaves room for healthy debate. But its at odds with your comment on my site, which seems dismissive and antagonistic. Will the real Troutsky please stand up.
I think we are all guilty of hanging our hats on our views, particularly the more we read and think. There is a constant battle between wanting to make some sense out of the universe and admitting that we cannot possibly know all of (or even many of) the "answers".
Goethe's quote just reminds me that the smartest people tend to have a sense of humility as well.
You are probably right about my tone on your sight Paul , but I feel like I am drawn into a defensive posture due to the extreme positions of some of the others. Dialectics at work? As for the original thread of this thread,I think we need to talk about whether empirical examination still has relevence,whether the idea of scholarship and parameters, standards has meaning ,even the role of intellectuals as we hash out what the "reality" is that some were mugged by on 9/11.
Post a Comment