Yet There Is Method In It

The BRAHMINS assert, that the world arose from an infinite spider, who spun this whole complicated mass from his bowels, and annihilates afterwards the whole or any part of it, by absorbing it again, and resolving it into his own essence. Here is a species of cosmogony, which appears to us ridiculous; because a spider is a little contemptible animal, whose operations we are never likely to take for a model of the whole universe. But still here is a new species of analogy, even in our globe. And were there a planet wholly inhabited by spiders, (which is very possible,) this inference would there appear as natural and irrefragable as that which in our planet ascribes the origin of all things to design and intelligence, as explained by CLEANTHES. Why an orderly system may not be spun from the belly as well as from the brain, it will be difficult for him to give a satisfactory reason. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume

Disclaimer: plot spoilers below and I don’t know anything about the original swan lake. I am talking about Aronofsky’s interpretation of swan lake when I discuss the characters.

I watched Black Swan, and while it’s not the best of Aronofsky’s movies, it is certainly thought provoking. A technically accompished but meek ballet dancer, Nina, is cast as the Swan Queen. This requires the ability to dance two roles: the white swan and the black swan. While she can perform the white swan brilliantly, she has difficulty “losing control” to portray the sultry black swan. The film is primarily about her preparation and opening night to dance as the Swan Queen. The style of the movie is psychological/thriller/horror as she battles with her over protective mother, her paranoia about potential rivals for the role and anxiety about her body.

The roles of the white and black swans are mirrored by the concept of Apollonian and Dionysian aesthetics. The Apollonian artistic impulse is for plastic (visual) beauty, perfection, rationality, goodness. The Dionysian impulse is for instinct, earthly experiences, chaos, intoxication, the orgiastic. Usually, artistic works contain elements of both, since these are two aesthetic extremes and are not mutually exclusive. Nietzsche explored these two standards in The Birth of Tragedy, 1872 and argued that Greek tragedy formerly contained a synthesis for these traits, but this gave way to Apollonian impulse dominating. This change reflected a shift in Greek culture, which also gave rise to Socratic and Platonic philosophy, and move away from the earlier Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus.

My problem with Black Swan is, while Nina attempts to connect with the Dionysian, it is both pretty tame and also filled with either regret or fear. The tameness is partly her actions are almost always socially acceptable and common place – drinking, arguing with her mother, taking drugs once, staying up late, arguing with rivals, masturbating and incinerating her soft toys. Her more extreme actions of sex and murder are revealed to be dreams or hallucination and are basically nightmarish. Critically, she never is seen really throwing herself into these activities without regard for consequences. She is always worrying about how it will compromise herself or make herself imperfect. But this is central to the Dionysian – it is done with a good conscience. If you can imagine combining sexuality with innocence and joy: that is a step towards the Dionysian. The point of the Black Swan character is she seduces the prince in order to destroy the white swan – and enjoys doing it! At no point does the Black Swan regret her actions and neither should Nina, if she actually had an experience that informed her about that character.

Another problem with her coming to understand the Black Swan character is her increasing mental health problems. At no point is insanity linked with the traits of the Black Swan. In the movie, all instincts are self-destructive (although artistically useful). When the previous star walks into traffic, it is a “dark” impulse. The Dionysian is not madness and self annihilation, but rather raw instinct of both darkness and light. However, her mental problems are linked with her metamorphosis into the character (by her sensation of sprouting wings) but are actually contrary to what the Black Swan character needs… unless we subscribe to the view that evil is only a form of insanity.

A final objection: the movie is very predictable. I didn’t have any serious doubt that she would perform the role at the finale of the movie. However, the film was well executed and watchable. As a “walk on the wild side”, it fell flat. Some other movie examples in which a character explores the Dionysian:

Apocalypse Now – of course! The characters are struggling with “good” and “evil”, rationality and instinct, but the battle occurs within a person. Captain Willard is shown to have serious issues in the first scene but he can keep these thoughts to himself and can still function as a soldier. He is sent on a mission to “terminate the command” of Kurtz, who is said to be operating with “unsound methods”. Kurtz, or the jungle itself, represents the Dionysian in letting its instincts totally overcome social norms and rationality. And when Willard and Kurtz finally meet, Willard finds himself on the same path as Kurtz.

Willard: [voice-over] “Never get out of the boat.” Absolutely goddamn right! Unless you were goin’ all the way… Kurtz got off the boat. He split from the whole fuckin’ program.

Fight Club A perfectionist, consumerist office drone rebels against the system with the help of a new friend, Tyler Durden. Although Tyler is in many ways Dionysian, he is also committed to self destruction. This is more of an act of rebellion and in that way he is not Dionysian but more anti-Apollonian.

Tyler Durden: Fuck off with your sofa units and strine green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let… lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may.

Collateral, A perfectionist taxi driver, Max, is forced to drive a hit man, Vincent, around Los Angeles. Vincent explains his views on personal development by adaptation. Max has to become more like Vincent in order to survive…

Vincent: Now we gotta make the best of it, improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, shit happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it.
Max: I Ching? What are you talking about, man? You threw a man out of a window.

American Beauty – the Burnham family has the public appearance of perfection but they are privately miserable. Each family member begins to rebel against conformity and perfection and act more on emotional and instinctive drives.

Carolyn Burnham: Uh, whose car is that out front?
Lester Burnham: Mine. 1970 Pontiac Firebird. The car I’ve always wanted and now I have it. I rule!

And other films and TV touch on related themes: A Clockwork Orange (Alex is brain washed to stop being Dionysian), Requiem for a Dream (Aronofsky), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Brave One, Withnail and I, Lord Flashheart in Blackadder (“And always remember – if you want something, take it!”).

Anti Citizen One

Saying Yes to life even in its strangest and most painful episodes, the will to life rejoicing in its own inexhaustible vitality even as it witnesses the destruction of its greatest heros — that is what I called Dionysian [...] Twilight of the Idols.

If people were paying attention, they would already know things have gotten pretty crazy in the world regarding civil liberties. This is just a really blatant example… how clear does it have to get before people notice? (Presumably, when they are shipped to a secret prison…)

There seems to be a steady erosion of civil and personal rights: surveillance without warrants, erosion of free expression, removal of habeas corpus, extra-judicial killings, police brutality, privatization of intellectual, and cultural material and so on. There is also a stagnation or worsening of living standards and social mobility. When I debate these issues, people often mention that we cannot afford civil rights, given the turbulent economic situation. The time for civil rights is apparently when “the economy has recovered”. However, when we return to a stable (or bubble) economic conditions, people don’t have as much need of civil rights, since everything seems peachy, and they are moved off the political agenda. So when is the time for civil rights?

We are presented with a false dichotomy: go along with pro-monopoly, pro-totalitarian laws (under the guise of being pro-business) or face economic ruin. In other words, surrender your civil rights or starve. Given the prevalence of consumerism, people choose “bread and circuses” over seemingly abstract speech and political rights. However, much that we agree is worth protecting is based on those very principles of the rule of law, checks and balances, habeas corpus, free exchange of ideas, and various other enlightenment ideas (although many of the ideas originated well before then). Once you kick out the foundation and hand power over to a police, theocratic or fascist state, there is nothing stopping some authority figure taking whatever you wanted to protect in the first place and you won’t have any recourse.

Arguably, we already have lost our connection to these foundations and handed over political power to banking technocrats. Oh well. I take comfort in the sentiments expressed in the US declaration of independence.

Anti Citizen One

PS Looking back at this, I notice a certain similarity with Klein’s The Shock Docrine.
PPS Despotism Circa 1945

Imagine I had a length of string that was infinitely long. What evidence or argument could I present that would convince you that it was infinitely long? Of course, I could show you vast warehouses in which some of it was stored, but we cannot inspect an infinite length in a finite time. On the other hand, if it were of finite length, it is usually easy to demonstrate that.

An easier demonstration of infinite properties might be an object traveling at infinite speed. However we might only interpret this as something being in two spatially separated locations at the same time. We still have the difficulty, given the imprecision of measurements, to be able to distinguish between a very fast particle and an infinitely fast object. If the object has finite speed, it is certainly feasible to determine its speed as finite.

Properties that may be infinite cannot be practically distinguished from similar, very large but finite possibilities. I came to this conclusion when I was asked what evidence it would take for me personally to believe in God. The traditional conception of God includes various infinite qualities. I think it is conceivable that I could be persuaded that were was a powerful, creating entity. But can we distinguish between a powerful finite God and an infinitely powerful God? By analogy, we can argue that God is not infinitely powerful, since in our experience of reality there are only finite things (finite size, finite knowledge, finite precision, finite mass, finite duration). The only other defensible position seems to be a skeptical one, in which we claim God may be finite or infinite but we could not come to a determination either way.

Anti Citizen One

(PS Of course, I don’t fully accept the last paragraph because it has the same limitations as the design argument.)

All things are ready if our minds be so.

Henry V, Shakespeare

On question that I find very interesting in debating the existence/non-existence of God is the question of falsifiability of both the theist and atheist positions. Falsifiability is one of the characteristic features of natural science, but it can be useful outside that domain. It is important on a practical level, because if a proposition can never be disproved by evidence, even on principle, it becomes hard to demonstrate the proposition with evidence (and is no longer a-posteriori knowledge). For instance 2+2=4 is not falsifiable, because it is a-priori logic and evidence does not come into consideration. Another example, the Earth orbits the Sun requires observations to find out the truth value of the proposition and cannot be deduced from pure logic. Any proposition that is contingent and also unfalsifiable is usually met with extreme scepticism from critical thinkers. See also: Russell’s teapot.

Atheists usually consider God as a contingent proposition. Briefly, atheism is someone who believes the logical truth value for theism is undecided/undecidable or false (or, alternately and more correctly, someone who doesn’t hold the truth value to be true). This makes logical consideration complicated by these compounded questions: “is there a god?” and “can we determine if there is a god?”. I have been asked “what evidence would make you believe in God?”. I actually had a hard time answering this to my satisfaction. This was frustrating, because I hold that falsifiability is necessary for a-posteriori knowledge. I need to consider if my belief that theism is undecided/undecidable is falsifiable.

These issues are complicated by theism doesn’t have a unified definition of God (or Gods). For every conception of God, it would be another opportunity of atheism to be falsified. For instance, Spinoza says (to paraphrase) God is nature. Well I accept nature exists, so am I a theist? Well I guess not, since Spinoza and I have different conceptions of “nature”. But a more simple fictional example might be “my tea mug is god”. My mug exists, as far as I can tell. Therefore atheism is false? However theism typically implies God has agency. Let us consider a fictional theistic system “my pet cat is god”. Now, my cat exists and has agency. Therefore atheism is false? Because this trivial example, although logically interesting and meets the narrow definition of theism, it doesn’t relate the current debate because the concept “theism” usually implies other attributes, not just agency and existence. Atheism, to be consistent with falsifiability, only applies to theistic systems that the atheist has encountered and considered. If theistic claims are limited to fairly mundane and testable attributes for God, atheism is very falsifiable.

To be continued… Update: continued here.

We are not in the boudoir of a mincing lady, but like two abstract creatures in a balloon who have met to speak the truth. Andrey Antonovitch Von Lembke in Demons, Dostoyevsky

I have been thinking about moral crusaders and, despite their intention, their malign effect on everyone. I recently noted their confusion about alcohol and behavior. But in their superficial understanding, banning the symptoms of a problem is always the first step. For example, certain people I have talked to think that to reduce abortions, banning it would be a reasonable first step. As if it being legal was the cause of someone having an abortion. And similarly with divorce, violent movies, rap music, rock music, pornography, teenage sex… ban, ban, ban. Recently, the UK government is talking about having an opt-in Internet censorship, focusing on pornography.

I read in a Christian guide about happiness, that one should avoid alcohol because (to paraphrase) “just one drink can lead to an addiction.” Interesting. If we were to use that principle in a literal sense, we could take no action at all, since it could lead to addiction. But the literal meaning is not what is intended to be communicated to the reader. Of course, they intended to implied that the highly probable result of one drink is addiction and it will destroy your life! Best avoid it completely, rather than enjoy in moderation.

Talking to a Christian friend, they raised a few themes regarding this preference for abstinence over moderation by self control. Regarding pornography, my Christian friend disapproves because it will “change” the user in some way. They expect pornography will lead to addiction and it will change a person’s behaviour and thoughts. I can safely predict they think this change will be harmful.

On the subject of marriage, the fact that barriers to getting a divorce are reduced are a significant factor in the minds of people considering a divorce – leading to a direct causal link to an increased rate of divorce.

There are several problems with this conception of social problems and their solution. Firstly, there is only a very tenuous causal link, or no link at all, between the availability of alcohol, porn and divorce to the actual social problems they supposedly cause. Our reaction to these factors is largely culturally conditioned and they are merely a symptom, not a cause, of the underlying social problems. Without understanding the problem, it is all the more difficult in addressing it properly.

Secondly, and even more critically, experience shows us that banning these items does nothing to address the problem. For example, banning legal abortions causes people to get abortions illegally. The overall rate doesn’t decrease. Second example, banning alcohol in the US did not solve alcoholism. Sex abstinence programs do not decrease teen pregnancy rates. Censoring the Internet to protect children simply results in them circumventing the censoring system.

Thirdly, the moralists attempt at banning things they disapprove of results in worse social ills. Banning drugs and alcohol increases organised crime. Some studies claim US prohibition reversed a declining trend of the consumption of alcohol! Banning abortion harms women in unregulated abortions. Banning prostitution marginalises and endangers prostitutes. Regulating or banning porn removes the “almost mainstream” sector of pornography of it, which actually strengthens the more graphic sector of the industry. Alcohol prohibition increased drinking to excess.

When I point out a few of these problems with a moralist’s point of view, their responses was (to paraphrase):

I believe it, despite that.

So they cling to their social remedies irrespective of evidence or harm they cause. Sacred belief apparently trumps evidence. Not only do they not understand the actual cause of social problems, they don’t want to understand it. However they do seem to act in good faith; at least I can compliment them on that, even if their actions is misguided.

They mentioned their ultimate remedy:

The only real solution is when everyone believes in Jesus.

But I don’t take that at face value, since it is not only the belief in Jesus that is required but universal agreement to follow that moral code. Neither solution is achievable given actual human psychology and I fully expect they admit they are waiting for divine intervention to implement their remedy. However, this is not good policy in my view, since waiting for miracles is most unreliable.

Another interesting point is the moralists apparent need for extreme measures, rather than enjoying pleasures in moderation. Their asceticism is not based on a simple life is in itself good, but rather that the possibility of addiction to earthly pleasures must be avoided at all costs. As Christians say, people are “bad” and can’t help falling for addictions. The instincts must be crushed. “If thy eye offends thee, cut it out.” However, not everyone is slave to addictions and can control their competing desires through self control.

I want to argue that, despite moralists claiming they want to improve society, that is not their primary objective. I have already discussed how the moralists do not care if their remedy actually improves society and are willing to ignore evidence that contradicts them. If improving social conditions was their goal, they would have different remedies. They would learn better remedies and how to apply them. However, evidence links religiosity with many social ills; however, this is complicated because we cannot determine the exact causal direction and reasons why this is. It is circumstantially interesting but not conclusive. But combining these two types of evidence: “banning things to fix social problems usually backfire” and “more moralising societies have greater social ills”, I contend that these effects are two sides of the same coin.

A different Christian told me we need to ban things, in order to:

“take a moral stand as a society”

I imagine this is a more fundamental motivation than fixing social problems. This is incidentally very anti-biblical, because it contradicts its message (to paraphrase): “don’t judge people”, “let him who is without sin throw the first stone”, “turn the other cheek”, “forgive your brother 49 times”, etc. But the moralists persist in attempting to improve mankind, often with socially harmful results. Another attractive feature of the moralists world view is that social problems have a simple fix (that is, simple to understand, if not to implement), and they are usually the fault of other people – that part is critical!

I am an optimist: I think social conditions could, in principle, be improved. However, within the parameters of what constitutes an acceptable solutions as defined by moralists, actual improvement cannot be implemented. I say we should not seek to take revenge, as a society, on criminals. Moralists think otherwise. The TV series “The Wire” was most enlightening on this matter. They claim policing policy is not dedicated to protecting communities but only to fulfil political targets to protect the image of the powerful. A fictional attempt is made at quasi-legalisation of drug dealing but this is soon terminated as politically unacceptable, regardless of the fact that it improved social conditions. Art, in this case, reflects reality. Prisons are, according to influential voices, there to punish criminals. With this policy, no wonder reoffending rates are appalling.

So moralists are not allies of people who want to fix social problems. Even if they claim to want to improve society, their actions should speak louder than that. They do waste everyone’s time and block attempts to implement reforms that actually do work.

Anti Citizen One

PS I was influenced by many thinkers here, but one is probably too obvious and predictable: Nietzsche and his chapters “The Improvers of Mankind” and “Morality as Anti-Nature” are required reading in my book. Popper’s “Open Society and its Enemies” is also relevant. ‘And when they call themselves “the good and just,” forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but—power!’

PPS I started reading Spinoza’s Ethics but it is hard going. Just went I thought everything was getting profoundly interrelated and monistic, I watched “The Fountain” for the first time! I like!