comments
We’re on a fast track to something hereabouts, and I had always thought there about three shoes ready to drop. One has dropped, I await the other two. In the meantime, I floated about and noticed a cutesy bit of writing, as I scanned down their latest offerings, with the dateline of LPAC to the late 18th century… don’t quote me on that, because I was distracted by something more amusing on the sidebar. “The FACTS on Duggan”. Hovering right next to it was the recent article about how Nancy Pelosi is an asset, or in the same blood-stream, as Joseph Kennedy. I’m not sure this is a good juxtaposition for them if they want to spell out their spin on Jeremiah Duggan, but I don’t know how something like that can be avoided. (And wherefor are their Kronberg Facts? Coming any day now, I suppose.)
FACTNet is back up, and somewhere amongst there I find this bit:
There’s some distress in the org over Molly Kronberg’s interview with Chip Berlet, along the lines of “How could she?”
No kidding. Probably moreso than I can really comprehend. By way of an answer, one can look to the the second part of the exchange between “res republica” and Molly Kronberg.
res republica: Marielle, I respect your perspective. However, I would never have discovered List and Carey, or appreciated the genius of Benjamin Franklin without the work done by the best of the writers Ken published over the years: Spannaus, Chaiken, Salisbury. Or alumni like Robert Dreyfus. LaRouche, on the other hand, always needed a good editor, although I’m sure the problem is he would never permit it. IMO he hasn’t written much that’s new and interesting since Dialectical Economics. On coherence. If the ideas are not coherent, why I am able to guess LaRouche’s reaction to world events (whether I agree or not) before I open up the website or see the street sign. From its own points of reference, it holds together as a way of thinking. My real point is that people who feel that they wasted their time are over-estimating the value of much of what we “normal” working folks have done over the last 15 years. Apart from creating islands of sanity and joy in our families, friends and local communities, not much (at least for me, except I keep hacking away). Enjoy your freedom and the rest of your life without looking back with regret.
Marielle Kronberg: I’m not likely to “enjoy my freedom and the rest of my life without looking back with regret,” since my greatly loved husband, the most important person on the planet to me, along with my son, was driven to suicide by LaRouche.
As for Spannaus, Chaitkin, etc.–if you want to read something decent published by a LaRouchie, read Ken’s stuff.
And as for being “free” of LaRouche–I’ve been free of him for decades.
Ken’s death didn’t give me any kind of freedom, it made my distaste for and disapproval of LaRouche into something far more visceral.
Which has a way of putting this comment in perspective:
What a shame that the LaRouche cult is being hounded in the man’s twilight years. One supposes he’ll be quickly forgotten when he snuffs it.
Which I take as a sort of “He brought us laughs with that ‘Queen of England’” thought on the value of Larouche as a curiosity. A criminal enterprise that throws out kooky tangeants is still a criminal enterprise. In other news:
LaRouche supporters distributed literature outside the Ciccone Theater, where the debate was held, saying the attacks on Johnson amounted to a “public lynching.” A man and a woman were escorted from the theater after accusing the forum’s moderator, Record editorial page editor Alfred P. Doblin, of bias for writing a column that took Johnson to task for contributing to LaRouche.
Later, a woman was ejected after she accused the forum’s sponsors — The Record and the League of Women Voters of Bergen County — of acting like a “lynch mob” for allowing a question about Johnson’s ties to LaRouche.
When order was restored, Johnson said he was initially intrigued by LaRouche’s allegations of “corruption in the pro-war actions of the Bush administration.”
“I now see that supporting this individual has hurt a lot of people, so I apologize for that,” he said. “And I ask people to look at my record, look at my character, look at my reputation. After that, I’m moving on.”
One of Johnson’s Republican challengers, Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz, said he was “surprised at Johnson’s lack of judgment,” adding he was stunned that Johnson, an Army Reserve officer and former Englewood police officer, “just allowed everything to pile up and blow up in his face.”
I gather that Johnson would … just as soon that the Larouchies… disappear. He’s having a hard enough time as it is. In other contortions of this news item, Eliot Greenspan offers his piece. (Memo to self: google ‘Eliot Greenspan’.)
November 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Elliot Greenspan ran for Governor of New Jersey on the LaRouche 4Ever Ticket a few times.
As a person, he was a very sweet guy, but has been psychologically beaten up by the honchos of the Labor Cttee in NY/NJ–first Phil Rubinstein and Dennis Speed, and now that Phil is in California misbriefing the yutes about Kepler (according to LaRouche’s latest attack on an NC member), by Dennis.
Elliot hangs around at card tables outside post offices or DMVs occasionally, where he recently had the effrontery and pathetic out-of-it-ness to tell Ken Kronberg’s cousin to join LaRouche “to honor Ken.” You can imagine how that went over.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
A “Steve”, who by what he posted I think posted hereabouts in February, posted at The American Prospect Tapped site, and so…
I am a long time supporter of Lyn and his ideas who was never a “full time member”.
And thus you know you’re in for a doozy.
I’ll close with a capsule summary of one of Lyn’s most profound and oft maligned works - “Beyond Psychoanalysis”.
hm. I can only tap my fingers a bit and marvel at some things. Really?
November 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Gee whiz, Justin, no need to be shy. Feel free to repost the whole thing. It’s “fair use” after all. Better yet, here it is. (There is subsequent exchange back at the TAPPED blog for those interested in digging deeper).
-Steve
************* REPOST OF MY FIRST TAPPED POST ***************
I just want to comment that from my own experience Res Publica is correct on the question of coherence and Molly is wrong. I am a long time supporter of Lyn and his ideas who was never a “full time member”. However, as a supporter, I was not recruited. I recruited myself through my reading of Lyn’s work. The way you can tell that his insights and discoveries are real is that you can read his work, and that of his associates, figure out the underlying coherence for yourself, look at the world around you in that light, and find that the world now makes better sense. In other words, Lyn’s ideas have explanatory power, even in the absence of a “controlled environment” of full time members. I would say, in fact, especially in the absence of such a controlled environment. It’s a fairly open secret that there are those in the organization who profess support for Lyn and his ideas, but have no real understanding of what they are about. Lyn has too much personal integrity to reduce adherence to his ideas to the level of parrots repeating a set of buzzwords. In fact if one has access to the briefings one will see that he frequently polemicizes against just that tendency. Unfortunately, though Lyn clearly has intellectual integrity, it would seem some members do not. Although Lyn would never willfully form a cult, I don’t think there is any way to prevent members from reducing his ideas to the status of a cult, due undoubtedly to their own other-directedness. Lyn once said “never say what you don’t know to be true”. The organization gets in trouble when individuals turn their back on this necessary and valid principle.
I’ll close with a capsule summary of one of Lyn’s most profound and oft maligned works - “Beyond Psychoanalysis”. It is, unfortunately, written in a dense style, but it is intelligible if one works at it. Here is what I take to be the key insight of the piece. Have you ever had the experience of struggling to figure something out, and then, suddenly, there is the “flash of insight” where it all makes sense. This is sometimes visualized as a “light bulb” going on over one’s head. Well, Lyn says in BP (and extensively elsewhere) that this “light bulb” defines what it means to be human rather than a mere beast. And, moreover, that one’s very sense of personal identity changes when that “light bulb” is “on”. There’s much more, and those who choose to struggle with the work (available from various online sources) will be rewarded. But this is the key to Lyn’s coherence. This is the unbroken thread running through what his critics like to characterize as opportunistic and shifting “positions”. All the rest of his work is elaboration on this fundamental reality and adaptation of it to particular historic circumstances. ANd you can prove to yourself it is real - just look within your own sovereign mind at your best moments. It’s all there. There is no way to deny it without denying your own best self.
Molly, I am sorry for your loss. I don’t know the circumstances of Ken’s death, nor do I know what Lyn is like behind closed doors. Perhaps he is a difficult person. Those of great intellectual insight are such, notoriously. But I know the man as one can know a figure through his public work, and I have been immeasurably enriched thereby. And, in spite of everything, I will be bold enough to recommend that to you, even in your grief.
Best wishes,
-Steve
November 7th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
And, since you’ve reposted, let me ask what Marielle Kronberg asked on the other site:
If you’re a faraway supporter, never fulltime member, how on earth are you hold enough to recommend anything to her in her grief? Did you know her? Ken? The circumstances?
The word presumptuous comes to mind.
Unless of course you’re a fulltime member, posing as a supporter–that happens all the time, and would not, as they say, give surprise.
Then you can presume all you want because you have, as the saying goes, an axe to grind and an ox being gored and a dog in this fight.
Also, if LaRouche is the fons et origo of your intellectual life, I recommend you start doing some serious reading of Plato, Aquinas, Tacitus, Vitruvius, Boethius, Chaucer–ANYBODY BUT LYN.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Rachel,
I am that bold because I’m speaking the truth, and the truth needs no apology. Had I approached Marielle in a deliberately insensitive manner, that would clearly have been inappropriate. But, even recognizing the depth of her loss, the question of who and what Lyndon LaRouche really is, as a philosopher, is far too important to humanity as a whole to be swept under the rug of what Lyn has called “company manners”. If Marielle, despite her years around Lyn, has not apprehended the central core of his thought, then clearly she should, not only to understand what is at stake for the world if we were to lose the benefit of that thought, but also because Lyn’s philosophical perspective is personally enriching, as I have found. If, on the other hand, she understands what Lyn is about, I think she should be open about why she thinks he is wrong in those principles.
And as to the question of what I may or may not say on Lyn’s behalf as a supporter versus a full time member, to be lectured on this by one who I assume is an opponent of Lyn’s - all I can say is that perhaps you are qualified to speak on the subject of presumption.
When I first encountered Lyn’s work in the early seventies I had the reaction I hear from many people today - are these guys crazy or what? Unlike some people, I investigated that question seriously before shooting my mouth off. Because, alongside the elements of Labor Committee ideology that appeared “crazy” were things to which I responded, well, of course that’s obvious - but why has nobody else ever said it? So there was a paradox in my mind to be resolved.
At that point, I was unemployed, and had plenty of time to investigate. I read the lit, attended conferences and events (under a pseudonym, as I did not fully trust these people), and haunted libraries to try to find out what other sources had to say about the issues being presented. After two years of this, I came to the point of deciding that, within the limits of my ability to investigate, the viewpoint of the Labor Committees appeared credible, if not entirely correct. And, even if incorrect in some particulars, it was light-years ahead of the closest competition. I became a supporter then and have never regretted it.
I have occasionally regretted not going full time, but realistically it would probably not have worked out well for me. If nothing else, during the years when Lyn was in prison, and Fernando Quijano ruled the organization with an internal reign of terror, I might have knuckled under and been destroyed morally (unlikely), left the organization and become irrelevant (more likely) or attempted to stand up to Fernando and been squashed like a bug (as I have no particular skills or inclination for the kind of down and dirty combat that Fernando appears to have engaged in.)
But, I am loyal to Lyn’s principles, even as a Christian who is not a clergyman, and may not even attend church, may nevertheless claim to be loyal to Jesus. So, I will speak on his behalf to the extent of my knowledge and ability. I have no personal animosity toward Marielle, and I do feel sympathy for anyone who has recently lost a loved one. But she has chosen to be publicly critical of Lyn, and I think any supporter of Lyn’s has the right to speak up in his behalf.
-Steve
November 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Gee whiz, Justin, no need to be shy. Feel free to repost the whole thing. It’s “fair use” after all. Better yet, here it is. (There is subsequent exchange back at the TAPPED blog for those interested in digging deeper).
Steve: Yes. I could repost the whole thing. But simply put: WHY? This is one weird sense of entitelement and demand you want me to follow. I have the link in a few posts to the American Prospect Tapped blog entry where this exchange happens, and I’ve referenced what I need to. But it’s not my job to pass on Larouchian propaganda. That’s your job. I’m tempted to edit your message, leaving the link with “Message found here”, and I may do so in the future if that habit becomes a trend and it becomes tedious.
Rachel — Of this grouping of Larouchian “supporters, never members”, Steve comes across to me as the most likely to be sincere. (Whereas Revinire was clearly lying.) He’s delusional, surely, and wrong-headed, but there you go: a sucker and true-believer.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Justin,
Are we a little sensitive here? I didn’t “demand” anything. This is your blog and you will surely post what you wish on it. I’ve got to say, I am a tad ticked off, as I’ve noticed at least one spot where you posted excerpts from what I wrote with disparaging comments about the omitted portion. At least there was a link to the thread at the top of your page.
But really -
“etc. etc. blah de blah nutcase kookery blah blah… boring and tedious buffoonery…”
I assure you that what I wrote was thought out and intended to be meaningful.
But you have the right to disparage as you please, just as I have the right to be ticked off. I’m certainly not “demanding” anything.
Now, if your reason for posting LaRouche-oriented discussions on your blog has to do with wanting to find out (or facilitate others finding out) the truth about the man and his work, then it would seem reasonable for you to be gracious about giving full and fair coverage to opposing views - especially when you reference those views. At least by linking to them. This is not a “demand”. I’m just stating what I think would be reasonable.
If on the other hand, your mind is completely made up about LaRouche, and you want to conduct your own propaganda campaign as an anti-LaRouche partisan, this is certainly also your right. But then expect it to be recognized as propaganda.
(It occurs to me there is a third possibility. Perhaps you consider all this simply entertainment. If so, I think I would find more common ground with LaRouche’s dedicated opponents, who at least take him seriously.)
And, while I’m being ticked off, would you like to support your choice of the word “delusional” above? If you think I’m wrong, that’s one thing. I think lots of people are wrong. Being wrong is one of the pervasive hazzards of life. But “delusional”, at least in common usage, carries connotations of a diagnosable mental disorder. Again, this is your blog, and it is your right to fling around gratuitous insults if you so choose, but don’t you think it’s just a bit childish?
Ticked off like a mofo,
-Steve
November 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Steve–
Could you say exactly what the central core of LaRouche’s thought is? Can it be spelled out?
I would be interested to hear what you think it is, and I believe it would be useful for you to try to distinguish what is original to LaRouche from what he has picked up and applied or misapplied from a large number of predecessors, philosophers whom he has not, by and large, read.
For example: Could anyone who had seriously read Plato call him the philosopher of change? Could anyone who had seriously read The Parmenides conclude that Parmenides was the “enemy”?
November 9th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Steve:
Correction noted. I meant “deluded”. Happy now?
I may even replace the “etc. etc. blah de blah nutcase kookery blah blah… boring and tedious buffoonery…” with the standard issue “[…]”.
November 10th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Justin,
Thanks for the consideration.
Rachel,
I would have to say that the core of Lyn’s philosophy is the notion that it is the facility of creative reason which distinguishes humans from the beasts. And further, I suppose, would be his attitude, which is that he is what I might characterize as a partisan supporter of creative reason against its detractors.
Now, that core stance may well not be original with Lyn, although I know of no other thinker who has made that stance the core of a political movement with which to organize the population.
I think it is probably also unique to Lyn to identify human creativity as the central core of political economy. Certainly mainstream economists do not include creativity as a factor in their equations. Indeed, I believe Lyn is correct when he asserts that one could not, even in principle, reduce creativity to equations, to a computer program, to a structured set of market relations, to a step by step method such as Aristotelean logic, etc.
To use a technical term from computer science, Lyn asserts (and I concur) that creativity is not algorithmic.
Now obviously, the meat of all this is in the elaboration and application. You could take what I just wrote and spam it to billions of people throughout the Internet, and even if they all read it little or nothing would be accomplished. Philosophy is not just a set of words, it involves apprehending fundamental truth, connecting to it emotionally, and then putting it into practice. That is why I think it is so important that Lyn elaborates his insight, applies it to particular and changing historical circumstances, and organizes around it - with passion.
There are plenty of other very important aspects of Lyn’s thought that I haven’t touched on, but I think they are mostly if not entirely elaborations of what I’ve identified here.
Thank for asking,
-Steve
P.S. I wasn’t aware that Lyn had called Plato the philosopher of change. I am not steeped in Plato’s work, although I have read a few of the shorter dialogues over the years. I wouldn’t have thought to characterize Plato that way, but I don’t know enough about his thought to evaluate that characterization. Might I ask in what context Lyn said it?
As to the Parmenidies. I have attempted it 2 or 3 times over the years. It is, as I’m sure you know, a notoriously difficult piece of writing. My own sense is that the young Socrates confronts Parmenides as an opponent, hence perhaps Lyn’s term “enemy”. And to the extent that there is a subtext of humor in the dialogue it is definitely Parmenides who is the butt of the joke.
What I got out of the dialogue was an appreciation for the paradox of the One and the Many, as it is found pervasively in a variety of contexts.
For example, if one reads, in the New Testament, the very famous passage I Corinthians 13, in which Paul discusses agape, it is interesting, in the light of a familiarity with the paradox, to back up and begin with I Corinthians 12. In chapter 12, Paul discusses the paradox of the one and the many as it was played out in the organizational infighting within the early Church. Paul then makes the statement which we have in translation “I will show you a more excellent way”. I wish I was qualified to determine what the connotations of that statement in the Greek would have been. What I believe it to be, is a transitional element linking the question of the one and the many, which Paul essentially poses as the problem, to the famous discussion of agape which can then be seen as Paul’s proposed solution to that problem. This would surely have escaped me entirely had Lyn not alerted me to the importance of the paradox of the One and the Many, as displayed in The Parmenides.
Other areas where we see echoes of the paradox include the founding of the United States. To this day, our coins bear the mtto “E pluribus Unum” (From Many, One). We also see the same quality in the history of the Union movement. Consider the paradox confronting the individual union worker during a strike. To scab or not to scab? From the point of view of “individual self-interest” it always makes more sense to scab (leaving aside the question of retaliation, which need not in principle be part of the picture). But the committed union member will go out on strike, and face the attendant hardships. Why? If you can answer this, then perhaps, at least in that context, you have solved the paradox.
Application of this paradox to a critique of “free market economics” is left as an exercise for the reader
-Steve
November 13th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Steverino–
I will reply soon (I know you were worried), but I’ve had a busy week.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Rachel,
Looking forward to hearing from you.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Hi, Steve–
I wrote some thoughts about your last long post in the form of a dialogue–I took from your post the salient things you said (STEVE passages) and then replied (RACHEL passages). As follows:
STEVE: I would have to say that the core of Lyn’s philosophy is the notion that it is the facility of creative reason which distinguishes humans from the beasts. And further, I suppose, would be his attitude, which is that he is what I might characterize as a partisan supporter of creative reason against its detractors.
RACHEL: The notion that creativity distinguishes man from beast goes back at least to the Book of Genesis, where we find Adam naming the animals—participating in God’s creative act in the delimited and derivative way proper to humans—creative, but not godlike. (Note that Genesis says man is created in the image of God, and the serpent says to Eve “you will be like gods”—two different things, but not to Lyn.)
Lyn’s insistence, however, on identifying being human with creative reason is not the crux of Genesis or of Jewish or Christian theology, no matter how loud he yells. Being made in the image of God has to do with love, with free will, with all sorts of gifts. By making creative reason the center of everything LaRouche demonstrates how anti-human he is. Because by his definition, if you ain’t creative, you ain’t human.
So if you’re in a coma, if you’re developmentally disabled, if you’re brain-injured, in Lyn’s world, you’re not human. If you’re an infant, you’re only potentially human. In the 1970s Lyn used to misuse a Yiddish word he picked up somewhere—shmegeggy—to characterize human newborns—he took it to mean a little lump, a thing, a blob with no qualities—and he said an infant isn’t human till its parents recognize it as such.
First, that’s not what shmegeggy means, but Lyn has always been bad at knowing what words really mean, and second, this is an argument for infanticide. After all, the baby does not yet participate in creative reason.
No wonder there were hundreds of abortions in the LaRouche org.
Don’t get seduced by Lyn’s bull about creative reason. Like everything else with him, it’s a license to kill. It also helps to explain why he carries on about people who aren’t human, from Nelson Rockefeller to Henry Kissinger to Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi. That’s a very dangerous practice, to start writing people off as “not human.” All in all, Lyn’s addiction to his version of “creative reason” gives him permission to characterize most of the human race as not human, because not creative.
Guess who is creative? Guess who is endowed with a sovereign creative intellect? Just guess….
STEVE: I think it is probably also unique to Lyn to identify human creativity as the central core of political economy. Certainly mainstream economists do not include creativity as a factor in their equations. Indeed, I believe Lyn is correct when he asserts that one could not, even in principle, reduce creativity to equations, to a computer program, to a structured set of market relations, to a step by step method such as Aristotelean logic, etc.
To use a technical term from computer science, Lyn asserts (and I concur) that creativity is not algorithmic.
RACHEL: Most economists and most philosophers know that human creativity, in the sense of human technological innovation and human labor applying those innovations, is at the center of political economy. When you say (a) that mainstream economists do not include creativity in their equations and (b) that creativity cannot be reduced to equations, do you see that assertion (b) kinda undercuts assertion (a)?
Creativity is an imponderable, so hard to include in equations, you betcha. Meanwhile, of course, LaRouche said it couldn’t be done and then precisely tried to do it, in the so-called LaRouche-Riemann Model, which was unintelligible, unbuildable, unworkable, because dramatically flawed in its conception, which included the attempt to project economic developments by folding “creativity” into the “equation.” It had no equations, and of course no creativity.
By the way, algorithm is not, at least not initially, a technical term from computer science. It is a concept that originated in mathematics, and was later applied to various disciplines, including computing.
STEVE: Now obviously, the meat of all this is in the elaboration and application. You could take what I just wrote and spam it to billions of people throughout the Internet, and even if they all read it little or nothing would be accomplished. Philosophy is not just a set of words, it involves apprehending fundamental truth, connecting to it emotionally, and then putting it into practice. That is why I think it is so important that Lyn elaborates his insight, applies it to particular and changing historical circumstances, and organizes around it - with passion.
RACHEL: What is the fundamental truth, what is the practice? If the fundamental truth is the primacy of creative reason, there is a problem—moral and epistemological. LaRouche wants to create the universe—wants to be God—but does not want to understand the universe. In other words, he subscribes to Karl Marx’s famous dictum “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” (From the Theses on Feuerbach, which Lyn had every member of the Labor Committee read, until one day Lyn “superseded” Marx and reemerged, for the time being, as an “American patriot,” something he “superseded” years ago.)
Lyn wants to change everything. He doesn’t understand it, he doesn’t have to understand, he wants to change it. It’s like a first-year med student rushing into the Operating Theater during a complicated brain surgery and demanding to change the procedure, change the tools, change the concept, helter-skelter. Result? Anarchic disaster.
That’s the application of Lyn’s various definitions. Which he certainly does do with a passion.
STEVE: P.S. I wasn’t aware that Lyn had called Plato the philosopher of change. I am not steeped in Plato’s work, although I have read a few of the shorter dialogues over the years. I wouldn’t have thought to characterize Plato that way, but I don’t know enough about his thought to evaluate that characterization. Might I ask in what context Lyn said it?
RACHEL: Lyn has said this in a variety of contexts, but I believe what gave rise to his utterly absurd notion that Plato is the philosopher of change, was his misreading (or rather, his being “misbriefed on”), the Parmenides. There matters revolve, as you note (see below) around the One and the Many, and the possibility of change or Becoming, the sort of way-station between Non-Being and Being. Because LaRouche identifies Parmenides as the enemy (see below), and Parmenides is seen to stand for the One vs. the Many, for Being vs. Becoming, Lyn assumes that this makes Plato the Philosopher of Becoming/Change.
This is because Lyn assumes, erroneously, that Plato and Parmenides (or, in the dialogue, the young Socrates and Parmenides) are pitted against one another. And that he assumes because that’s how he understands the world. A vs. B. Always opposition, always enmity, always struggle. He should’ve written a book called “My Struggle.” Heh heh.
But of course, reading Plato would give the lie to this absurd mischaracterization. Just go through the works of Plato and see what is said about Becoming and its ontological status. See how Plato regards the World of Becoming, as distinct from the world of the eidê, the world of Being and the Good. No serious reader of Plato could come up with the characterization of Plato as the Philosopher of Becoming or Change.
But to Lyn, it’s all-important, because “the point is to change it.” Not for Plato, it ain’t, but Lyn has to make all philosophers agree with him, by violence to their work, if necessary.
This is also why LaRouche is so enamored of Heracleitus, among the Ancient Greek philosophers. After all, didn’t Heracleitus famously say “panta rei”? “Everything flows/changes”? Now there’s a Philosopher of Change. He also said “You can never step into the same river twice”—that is, it flows, it’s not the same river. Marx was a big fan of Heracleitus, needless to say. “Dialectical.”
STEVE: As to the Parmenides, I have attempted it 2 or 3 times over the years. It is, as I’m sure you know, a notoriously difficult piece of writing. My own sense is that the young Socrates confronts Parmenides as an opponent, hence perhaps Lyn’s term “enemy.” And to the extent that there is a subtext of humor in the dialogue it is definitely Parmenides who is the butt of the joke.
RACHEL: What happens in the Parmenides is that the old Parmenides visits Athens, with his younger associate Zeno, and has a conversation with a very young Socrates—who is unskilled in the dialectic. In the dialogue, Parmenides plays the role we are used to seeing Socrates play—the older interlocutor to Socrates’ youth.
Whether or not Socrates confronts Parmenides as an opponent, I leave to the judgment of the reader. In my view, the interaction between Parmenides and Socrates is a loving discourse, but maybe I’m not discerning all the enmity there is in this world.
Parmenides gently shows Socrates that he can’t give a real account of his theory of the forms, in the first part of the dialogue—a sort of pregnant moment, pointing towards the future. It’s clear that he thinks the world of the young Socrates and his potential.
I’d be interested to hear from you some quotes from the dialogue that show an “opponent” quality beyond what is usual for this form of dialectic throughout the Platonic dialogues that use dialectic.. Also, could you point out with quotes where Parmenides is the “butt of the joke”?
I couldn’t disagree with you more, but am interested to hear your thoughts.
STEVE: What I got out of the dialogue was an appreciation for the paradox of the One and the Many, as it is found pervasively in a variety of contexts.
For example, if one reads, in the New Testament, the very famous passage I Corinthians 13, in which Paul discusses agape, it is interesting, in the light of a familiarity with the paradox, to back up and begin with I Corinthians 12. In chapter 12, Paul discusses the paradox of the one and the many as it was played out in the organizational infighting within the early Church. Paul then makes the statement which we have in translation “I will show you a more excellent way”. I wish I was qualified to determine what the connotations of that statement in the Greek would have been. What I believe it to be, is a transitional element linking the question of the one and the many, which Paul essentially poses as the problem, to the famous discussion of agape which can then be seen as Paul’s proposed solution to that problem. This would surely have escaped me entirely had Lyn not alerted me to the importance of the paradox of the One and the Many, as displayed in The Parmenides.
RACHEL: I don’t believe that agapê—love—is simply Paul’s proposed solution to a problem of church infighting. It is the content of the message of Jesus, Whom and which Paul is attempting to re-present. The Christian concept of agapê (and the Jewish concept of chesed) reach far beyond solutions to the One and the Many paradox as exemplified in faction fights, to put it mildly. Also, of course, in any human institution there exist the difficulties Paul is trying to solve—we may frame them in the language of the One and the Many, but we are not following in Plato’s footsteps, or Paul’s, when we do that hyperphilosophizing.
The One and the Many pertain primarily to modes of Being (or Becoming), not so much to mere matters of infighting or scabs and trade unionists (see below).
The Greek of that line in 1 Corinthians 12 is κάι ετι κάθ υπερβολην οδον ΰμιν δεικνυμί. “And yet, a superior road/path/way will I show you.” It’s a straightforward translation.
Jokes in this post:
1. Notion that Lyn might have been “misbriefed on” something. This is what he said about the Theses on Feuerbach, when Christians in the organization in the 1990s complained about the arrantly anti-Christian tenor of his “The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach.” He said he had been misbriefed on Feuerbach! Wow! He didn’t read him—who’d a thunk it?
2. Should have written a book called “My Struggle.” However, Hitler beat him to the punch and wrote it first—Mein Kampf.
Thanks,
Rachel
November 17th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Steve wrote: “Here is what I take to be the key insight of [’Beyond Psychoanalysis’]. Have you ever had the experience of struggling to figure something out, and then, suddenly, there is the ‘flash of insight’ where it all makes sense. This is sometimes visualized as a ‘light bulb’ going on over one’s head. Well, Lyn says in BP (and extensively elsewhere) that this ‘light bulb’ defines what it means to be human rather than a mere beast.”
I remember having a flash of insight in 1978 when I was reading a New Solidarity editorial about purging the Jews from U.S. public life because they are supposedly the evil agents of the “Zionist-British organism.” The light bulb above my head told me LaRouche was a Nazi. Now, my having this insight would qualify me (according to the alleged core idea in BP) as being a real human being. But thereafter LaRouche called me by various names suggesting that I am really one of the beast-men (for instance, he described me as a human “turd”). Am I to believe that the only light-bulb insights that qualify one for being fully human are insights that agree with LaRouche’s?
November 17th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Dennis Kings asks:
“Am I to believe that the only light-bulb insights that qualify one for being fully human are insights that agree with LaRouche’s?”
Yes. Believe it, worship it, then shit on it.
Man versus beast? How inane. It is certainly true that the role of creativity is not emphasized enough in economics.
But years ago (1950s, 60s), everyone spoke in terms of labor saving devices, inventions, etc. Note, too, that the (social) goal was to reduce the workweek, to have machines do all the drudgery and free people so they could concentrate their powers on art and science (or simply relax! — a wonderful concept for you Yutes).
Man versus beast or beastman is a strawman argument. LaR is clinically insane (and deteriorating rapidly, in lockstep with the dollar). For someone so concerned about creative reason, he has little to show for his efforts, little to leave the world in terms of truly original ideas, let alone sustained, reasoned arguments.
Stealing other people’s ideas and “repackaging” them as your own is dishonorable, despicable, and deplorable. A fine analogy is all that bad sub-prime debt, relabeled and repackaged until it became unrecognizable. Toxic waste indeed.
Down with a–holes of every sort — then, now, and forever.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Rachel,
Thanks so much for the effort you put into this. I’m afraid I can’t put a comparable effort into my response, as I’m having to steal time from my “day job” to participate in this discussion. But what I can do is pick points to which I can see a ready response and give those responses as I’m able. (And please excuse typos. I’m going to quick-proof this, but I probably wont get them all).
I’ll adopt your typogaphical conventions, although in this usage they represent less a true dialogue and more merely my responses to selected points from your text.
RACHEL: The notion that creativity distinguishes man from beast goes back at least to the Book of Genesis, where we find Adam naming the animals - participating in God’s creative act in the delimited and derivative way proper to humans - creative, but not godlike. (Note that Genesis says man is created in the image of God, and the serpent says to Eve - you will be like gods - two different things, but not to Lyn.)
STEVE:If you are of a conservative religious tradition, you may be inclined to accept Genesis as authoritative. I am inclined to give “sacred” texts no more or less weight than a comparable “secular” text. Thus while I agree that Genesis can be read logically as distinguishing between being creative and being godlike, I would just say that I think Lyn is correct on this issue and Genesis (if that is indeed the true reading) is incorrect.
RACHEL:Lyn’s insistence, however, on identifying being human with creative reason is not the crux of Genesis or of Jewish or Christian theology, no matter how loud he yells. Being made in the image of God has to do with love, with free will, with all sorts of gifts. By making creative reason the center of everything LaRouche demonstrates how anti-human he is. Because by his definition, if you ain’t creative, you ain’t human.
So if you’re in a coma, if you’re developmentally disabled, if you’re brain-injured, in Lyn’s world, you’re not human. If you’re an infant, you’re only potentially human. In the 1970s Lyn used to misuse a Yiddish word he picked up somewhere-shmegeggy-to characterize human newborns-he took it to mean a little lump, a thing, a blob with no qualities-and he said an infant isn’t human till its parents recognize it as such.
STEVE: From a purely logical viewpoint it would appear to follow that, therefore, these classes of individuals do not deserve the protections we traditionally afford to human life. However, Lyn’s epistemology has never, as far as I know, relied heavily on logic as a means of knowing truth. Now I’m sure an entire generation which has imbibed Aristotle with their mother’s milk are rising up as one to say “Hah! He admits Lyn is illogical!” to which I say “So?”.
To the best of my understanding Lyn has *never* called for the death or mistreatment of the comatose or developmentally disabled, and indeed, has been stalwart in his opposition to such trends within modern culture. (See the Club of Life, see the work of Linda Everett in association with Lyn, see Lyn’s excoriation of the Nazis for their euthanasia policies.) In summary, though you could derive your some very sinister policy implications logically from Lyn’s viewpoint, the weight of the evidence is that Lyn does not do so.
RACHEL:First, that’s not what shmegeggy means, but Lyn has always been bad at knowing what words really mean, and second, this is an argument for infanticide. After all, the baby does not yet participate in creative reason.
No wonder there were hundreds of abortions in the LaRouche org.
Don’t get seduced by Lyn’s bull about creative reason. Like everything else with him, it’s a license to kill. It also helps to explain why he carries on about people who aren’t human, from Nelson Rockefeller to Henry Kissinger to Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi. That’s a very dangerous practice, to start writing people off as “not human.” All in all, Lyn’s addiction to his version of “creative reason” gives him permission to characterize most of the human race as not human, because not creative.
Guess who is creative? Guess who is endowed with a sovereign creative intellect? Just guess….
STEVE: My understanding is that unlike Lyn’s philosophical opponents (Such as George Bernard Shaw who argued, I think in “Fabian Essays”, for educating people “up to the level of their ability” (quote approximate), Lyn regards human ability as open ended, in that anybody can potentially live as creatively human, and he seeks to create a society where this will be encouraged.
Need I say that I think this is an excellent idea?
I agree with you that Lyn probably did not, and may still not, regard abortion as murder. Many people of good will also take that stance. My first inclination is to say that if the large numbers of “mandated” abortions took place in the kind of circumstances commonly reported, I would have to regard that policy as a mistake. However, Lyn had the responsibility of command, which I have not, and I am reluctant to armchair quarterback on such points.
I read Lyn’s characterization of people as “not human” as less sinister than you. First, because he holds out the possibility for almost anyone to become fully human in that sense. Secondly, when he states that a certain person is not human or will not become so, I read that as first, that this is their own willful choice, and second, that the notion that they will not and cannot become human is hyperbole rather that a literal statement. I have always taken it as one of Lyn’s depest principles that “people change”. Often in surprising ways.
RACHEL: Most economists and most philosophers know that human creativity, in the sense of human technological innovation and human labor applying those innovations, is at the center of political economy. When you say (a) that mainstream economists do not include creativity in their equations and (b) that creativity cannot be reduced to equations, do you see that assertion (b) kinda undercuts assertion (a)?
Creativity is an imponderable, so hard to include in equations, you betcha. Meanwhile, of course, LaRouche said it couldn’t be done and then precisely tried to do it, in the so-called LaRouche-Riemann Model, which was unintelligible, unbuildable, unworkable, because dramatically flawed in its conception, which included the attempt to project economic developments by folding “creativity” into the “equation.” It had no equations, and of course no creativity.
By the way, algorithm is not, at least not initially, a technical term from computer science. It is a concept that originated in mathematics, and was later applied to various disciplines, including computing.
STEVE: I totally fail to follow the point of your first paragraph above. (b) not only does not underut (a) It mandates (a)! In other words, it is precisely because creativity is non-algorithmic that it cannot be included as a factor in economic modeling, unless introduced ad hoc - by arbitrarily inserting figures derived from actual experience or from creative extrapolation.
For example - could anyone create a valid equation or model relating the rate on capital investment to the increase of output? Not without knowing what innovations would be generated by the stated level of investment, and how those innovations would impact the productive process physically. And that would have to be evaluated via the use of creativity. (Wasn’t this the core of Lyn’s critique of Marx’s Capital?)
I am dimly recollecting that Steve Bardwell did a lot of the work on the LaRouche Riemann model, and I seem to recall that Lyn eventually “ripped him a new one” for his unwillingness to break with the paradigms of conventional mathematics. I never understood how the model was ostensibly supposed to work, so I can’t comment further.
RACHEL: What is the fundamental truth, what is the practice? If the fundamental truth is the primacy of creative reason, there is a problem-moral and epistemological. LaRouche wants to create the universe-wants to be God-but does not want to understand the universe. In other words, he subscribes to Karl Marx’s famous dictum “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” (From the Theses on Feuerbach, which Lyn had every member of the Labor Committee read, until one day Lyn “superseded” Marx and reemerged, for the time being, as an “American patriot,” something he “superseded” years ago.)
Lyn wants to change everything. He doesn’t understand it, he doesn’t have to understand, he wants to change it. It’s like a first-year med student rushing into the Operating Theater during a complicated brain surgery and demanding to change the procedure, change the tools, change the concept, helter-skelter. Result? Anarchic disaster.
That’s the application of Lyn’s various definitions. Which he certainly does do with a passion.
STEVE: I don’t see where you get that Lyn does not want to understand the universe. It seems that much of the scientific work, from Kepler to Vernadsky is aimed at precisely that.
Otherwise, your critique seems to apply to the counterculture youth of the “anti-globalization” and similar movements, and Lyn rightly criticizes this tendency.
Or maybe you are simply accusing Lyn of hubris - a badge which I am sure you know he wears proudly.
And I certainly think Marx is right on the point you quoted. Otherwise we are reduced to a Smith/Mandeville/Voltaire “local control” ideology in which we all selfishly cultivate our own gardens and the new world evolves via the magic of the marketplace (”emergent properties”).
RACHEL: Lyn has said this in a variety of contexts, but I believe what gave rise to his utterly absurd notion that Plato is the philosopher of change, was his misreading (or rather, his being “misbriefed on”), the Parmenides. There matters revolve, as you note (see below) around the One and the Many, and the possibility of change or Becoming, the sort of way-station between Non-Being and Being. Because LaRouche identifies Parmenides as the enemy (see below), and Parmenides is seen to stand for the One vs. the Many, for Being vs. Becoming, Lyn assumes that this makes Plato the Philosopher of Becoming/Change.
This is because Lyn assumes, erroneously, that Plato and Parmenides (or, in the dialogue, the young Socrates and Parmenides) are pitted against one another. And that he assumes because that’s how he understands the world. A vs. B. Always opposition, always enmity, always struggle. He should’ve written a book called “My Struggle.” Heh heh.
But of course, reading Plato would give the lie to this absurd mischaracterization. Just go through the works of Plato and see what is said about Becoming and its ontological status. See how Plato regards the World of Becoming, as distinct from the world of the eidê, the world of Being and the Good. No serious reader of Plato could come up with the characterization of Plato as the Philosopher of Becoming or Change.
But to Lyn, it’s all-important, because “the point is to change it.” Not for Plato, it ain’t, but Lyn has to make all philosophers agree with him, by violence to their work, if necessary.
This is also why LaRouche is so enamored of Heracleitus, among the Ancient Greek philosophers. After all, didn’t Heracleitus famously say “panta rei”? “Everything flows/changes”? Now there’s a Philosopher of Change. He also said “You can never step into the same river twice - that is, it flows, it’s not the same river. Marx was a big fan of Heracleitus, needless to say. “Dialectical.”
STEVE: I glanced at the beginning of the Parmenides to refresh my recollection. True, everybody is being meticulously polite to one another. It reminds me all too much of a dinner party of genteel folk, employing the bes “company manners”, with the claws barely sheathed. I can’t believe you cant see beneath the mask of overdrawn civility.
And, yes, the notion of the dialectic is a method of evolution through opposition. I suppose ressonable people can disagree on whether the world actually works this way, but it seems plausible to me.
Well, I don’t know if Plato is the philosopher of change or not. He certainly employs the method of dialogue, and the essence of dialogue is change of views as the discussion proceeds. That’s what the form is about. So that would give some weight to Lyn’s view. Plus, one of the dualogues that first impressed me, which I can’t recall the name of, has Socrates confronting a teacher of rhetoric. It reminded me entirely of lieutennant Colombo of the famous TV series. “Excuse me sir, I’m puzzled. There’s this one point I can’t quite figure out. Maybe if you can help me out here.” Precisely the method of Socrates. The difference being, that where Colombo exposed criminals, Socrates exposes fools - a much more dangerous enterprise - especially if the fools are influential. And, at the end of it all, can we really believe that Socrates was executed for his unswerving support of the status quo? I think not.
And hey, if he’s wrong about Plato, then he’s wrong. It happens. He was wrong about nuclear fission in Dialectical Economics. This was later corrected and the organization has proudly supported fission ever since.
I’ve always liked Heracleitus, maybe that’s part of why I like Lyn. I have to say that I was also heavily influenced by Alfred Korzybski. I have to regard his proposed system as more “Hyper-Aristotelean” than “non-Aristotelean, but I think his critique of object-oriented thinking as implied by his objection to the “is of identity” is right on. That’s almost certainly why a lot of Lyn’s comments about process made perfect sense to me, where they might not have to an Aristotelean.
RACHEL: What happens in the Parmenides is that the old Parmenides visits Athens, with his younger associate Zeno, and has a conversation with a very young Socrates-who is unskilled in the dialectic. In the dialogue, Parmenides plays the role we are used to seeing Socrates play-the older interlocutor to Socrates’ youth.
Whether or not Socrates confronts Parmenides as an opponent, I leave to the judgment of the reader. In my view, the interaction between Parmenides and Socrates is a loving discourse, but maybe I’m not discerning all the enmity there is in this world.
Parmenides gently shows Socrates that he can’t give a real account of his theory of the forms, in the first part of the dialogue-a sort of pregnant moment, pointing towards the future. It’s clear that he thinks the world of the young Socrates and his potential.
I’d be interested to hear from you some quotes from the dialogue that show an “opponent” quality beyond what is usual for this form of dialectic throughout the Platonic dialogues that use dialectic.. Also, could you point out with quotes where Parmenides is the “butt of the joke”?
I couldn’t disagree with you more, but am interested to hear your thoughts.
STEVE: I think you’re not discerning all the enmity there is in this world.
If you don’t see a subtext of opposition in this dialogue, I don’t know how to illustrate it. But see my comments above on Socrates and Colombo. In Colombo the irony of his overstated bumbling friendliness is transparent. I see the same quality in Socrates. Your mileage may vary.
Where I find the humor is in the following quote, at the very end, where Parmenides has totally tied himself in knots by trying to analyze the unanalyzable.
(P) “Let thus much be said; and further let us affirm what seems to be
the truth, that, whether one is or is not, one and the others in relation
to themselves and one another, all of them, in every way, are and
are not, and appear to be and appear not to be.”
(S) “Most true.”
But I often see humor where others don’t. For instance, I picture the crowd cracking up when Jesus delivers the line “Render unto Caesar…”. But that is not the way the passage in conventionally preached.
RACHEL: I don’t believe that agapê-love-is simply Paul’s proposed solution to a problem of church infighting. It is the content of the message of Jesus, Whom and which Paul is attempting to re-present. The Christian concept of agapê (and the Jewish concept of chesed) reach far beyond solutions to the One and the Many paradox as exemplified in faction fights, to put it mildly. Also, of course, in any human institution there exist the difficulties Paul is trying to solve-we may frame them in the language of the One and the Many, but we are not following in Plato’s footsteps, or Paul’s, when we do that hyperphilosophizing.
The One and the Many pertain primarily to modes of Being (or Becoming), not so much to mere matters of infighting or scabs and trade unionists (see below).
STEVE: I must first reject strongly the equation of agape with our English word “love”. The word love in English carries a huge amount of baggage, much of it inconsistent with the meaning of agape. I’m sure you know that there are no less than 4 Greek words which may be translated into English as “love”. I prefer to use the untranslated term agape and let it speak for itself, as amplified by discussions such as Paul’s. “Love” is a mess linguistically, and it’s easier not to try to sort that one out.
And, no, I don’t think agape is “merely” anything. It is a fundamental principle of the universe as Paul implies in his concluding remarks “now abideth these three…..” Immediately prior to that point Paul discusses the relativity of knowledge, how it passes away under the impact of superior knowledge (”that which is perfect…”). When Paul says “now abideth…” he is stating what modern mathematical physics knows as an “invariant under transformation”. The transformation of which he speaks is not one of geometry, but of the perfection of knowledge. He states that in the context of that process there are three invariants. Faith, Hope, and Agape. Now this only makes sense, in my view, if they are invariants with respect to that process because they are necessary aspects of the process. In other words, agape is a key element in the unfolding of the universe itself.
Like my example above “render unto Caesar”, this is not the way this passage in conventionally preached.
But, I do think that agape is useful in sorting out the kind of internal political difficulties the early church or Lyn;s organization find themself in. And I also think that, as sometimes happens, a limited and historically specific circumstance can serve as the springboard for a dicusion of principles which are universal in their applicability. After all, just look what Lyn did with the question of the Puerto Rican Socialist party.
Note that Paul himself uses the terms “one” and “many” in his discussion of the factional problem, and uses them repetitively. He was an educated man, surely he was not ignorant of the resonance of his terms with those of Greek philosophy?
I am not well versed in academic philosophy, so I am fuzzy on what abstract technical meanings “being” or “becoming” might have. Certainly, in a common sense viewpoint, one “is” (one bes?) on a picket line, on the job, or in any other aspect of life. Hopefullly one also “becomes” in these contexts. If these concepts do not apply to the practical matters of life, then what in heaven’s name do they mean and what good are they? And, if the One and the Many apply only in realms of abstract philosophy, isn’t it odd that we find them pervading critically important issues of practical life?
Well, that’s all for now. It doesn’t pretend to be a systematic response, but maybe it will give you something to chew on.
Best wishes,
-Steve
November 18th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Dennis,
I was reading NS during 1978, and don’t recall the statement you refer to. Did the editorial actually say “purge Jews from public life” or did it say something else you took to be equivalent?
The flash of insight really has little to do with the *content* of the insight or who or what it agrees or disagrees with. It is simply a different (and superior) mode of thought to the conventional one which Lyn describes as “object images” linked by “feeling states”. The next time you have an actual flash of insight, pay attention and notice how you are different from how you are the rest of the time. This is absolutely nothing that anybody needs to be convinced of by argument. Pay attention and you will see for yourself.
That’s all,
-Steve
November 18th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Earnest,
I am puzzled by the accusation, which I have also heard elsewhere, that Lyn repackages the ideas of others as his own. What I have seen of Lyn’s writing is generous in referencing his antecedent thinkers.
-Steve
November 18th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Justin,
Not sure if you are joking.
If not, then please explain the intellectual content of his “fundamental discovery” and the concrete essence of Lyn’s (personal) contribution.
November 18th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Sorry, the above should have been addressed to Steve (this explains “not sure” statement).
It is early morning, before my tea fix; and I’m not usually up at this hour (lame excuse for not being careful).
In any case, my sincere apologies, Steve.
But please, go ahead and answer the question, in as much detail as you can. And, if you are truly sincere, I will study carefully, in great detail.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Steve–
Thanks. Not sure I want “something to chew on,” but I’ll make a few short points now–or ask a few short questions now–and probably more later.
1. References to Genesis were intended in part to show that Lyn’s understanding of man as creative were, to put it mildly, not new–that an ancient and well-known text understands man’s “capax dei,” his creativity, very well. If you have difficulty with religious concepts, take Genesis as a philosophical text.
Further elucidation of Genesis was offered not because I happen to believe Genesis–which I do–but because Lyn referred to it constantly over years as one of his key texts, and the very notion of “imago dei” that he carried on about for years derives from those verses in Genesis.
So it’s fair to compare what he says (and what he says Genesis says) with what Genesis actually says.
2. On the translation of agapê–if you must strongly object to translating this word as love, please supply your four translations, and particularly the translation you believe most appropriate to Paul’s 1 Corinthians.
I have here at hand the various translations of the word at different stages of the evolution of the Greek language, and would be interested to hear which one you think is preferable. I refrain from leaning on the fact that Christians have always regarded agapê in New Testament koinê Greek as meaning “love” (caritas in Latin, charity in the King James translation) because arguments from authority aren’t the greatest, even though the Christian community might be supposed to be expert on this.
But just post the translations you have in mind, and also their provenance (quite important–in other words, I want the lexical translations, not your own, if you see what I mean).
While you’re at it, you might check the actual Greek meanings of the word hubris, a word which Lyn did indeed proudly wrap himself in for years, but mysteriously dropped at some point (once you check out the translations, you’ll see why, I imagine). And I’ll be happy to identify the time, roughly, at which he stopped using the word, and explain why, if it’s not clear.
Thanks.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Steve, your serious reply deserves a serious answer. You can find the “Register the Zionist Lobby as Foreign Agents” editorial at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/images/register1.jpg As you read it, please ask yourself what the “Zionist-British organism” is a reference to. As to your comments on insight, I think we have insights all the time, and most of the time they are integrated into our daily lives so we don’t stop and say, hey, I’ve just had an insight. Simply because an insight is experienced in a lightbulb way (a VERY rough analogy) doesn’t mean it’s more important than non-lightbulb insights. I suspect that the lightbulb insight often occurs when we recognize something we didn’t expect to recognize, something really odd, which is primarily a function of the object or process being cognized, and only secondarily of the mind that does the cognizing. In addition, an odd insight is not necessarily a more important insight. I think you are defining the psychological category “insight” by one of its accidental surface features whereas a truly scientific definition would grasp the inner dynamics of that which is being defined. Finally, I think when we talk about insight we are talking about a spectrum of psychological processes that includes how we create or respond to jokes, puns, riddles, games and other kinds of playful behavior or playful tasks–not just to the kind of Platonic thinking that LaRouche regards as the manifestation of true humanity. And this brings us to the element of social expectation, as in a game where you are expected to cry out “ah-hah!” (If you want to experience lightbulb insights in such a setting, just play Scrabble with a kid.) What I’m saying here is merely armchair psychology (like LaRouche’s ideas on insight); perhaps we should call it it the hypothesis of the “lower” hypothesis to distinguish it from what LaRouche has asserted. Research psychologists or researchers in the physiology of the brain may come up with explanations of insight that relegate both LaRouche and me to the dustbin of 20th century speculation.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Dennis,
Thanks for your serious reply. I’ll try to continue in the same tone. My view of Lyn’s criticism of Zionism has always been that when he said Zionism, he meant Zionism. There are certainly ample grounds for a criticism of Zionism without thereby being anti-semitic. Even within the Jewish community, Zionism is only one view among several, and has been criticized from within that community. Admittedly, Lyn’s criticisms of Zionism are harsh in tone, That is, after all, what is meant by a polemic style. The polemic style, with its associated elements of hyperbole is not to all tastes, but I think it has a legitimate and important role in political discourse. And Lyn applies polemics even-handedly to Jews and gentiles alike. As to the “British-Zionist organism”, it has long been Lyn’s view that the Zionist movement, at least in part, is a creature of British geopolitics. I don’t know the history in depth, so I’ll simply say that whether or not Lyn is correct on this point, I think it is a view a reasonable person could hold without being motivated by anti-semitism.
I recall, when I was quite young, reading some historical work on the creation of Israel. Whether fact, or fiction I don’t recall clearly. It may have been the novel Exodus. I was concerned with the question of why the Jews and Arabs were enemies. In my youthful ignorance, I could see no good sense to it (and today, in the dubious wisdom of impending old age, I still think I don’t). I remember going through the work rather meticulously, looking for the historical turning point that set these two peoples up for their subsequent enmity. I don’t remember the specifics, but I clearly recall that it was a decision of the British - who ruled Palestine at that point in time, which created a legal situation which virtually guaranteed that the two peoples would be pitted against one another.
This was long before I had ever heard of LaRouche, and I was motivated by nothing more than honest puzzlement. And the answer came out “the British”. Admittedly, it didn’t occur to me then that this was done on purpose. However, I think the history of the Briitish Empire overall makes such geopolitical games eminently plausible.
Whether Zionism is a force in American political life, is, I think, not very debatable. And this pattern is not unique to Israel. We see analogous, though probably lesser, influence in the case of the Cuban exile community, as one notable example. Whether ZIonism is a benign or a malign influence in American politics is debatable. But I don’t think a case can be made that the objection to such influence is a sign of religious or racial hatred.
I, for one, will never forget a Nightline episode during some Mideast crisis or other, years back. (Invasion of Lebanon, perhaps?) There was an Israeli government spokesman on. And he referred to the “final solution to the Palestinian problem.” If that was intended as a joke, I missed the humor. For a historically conscious Jew to speak of applying a “final solution” to another people is flat out unconscionable. To do so in a public forum as a representative of the Israeli government borders on insanity. I can’t cite the episode, so anybody who wants to think I invented it or am misremembering it is free to do so. But that phrase is not something one misremembers. And I swear I am not making this up. What’s my point? That “da Jews” are sinister or evil after all? Not at all. That the Israeli government, at least in some incarnations, is homicidally insane? That’s pretty close. Just a personal example of why a person of good will could mistrust a “Zionist lobby” or “Israel lobby” influence in U.S. politics.
I occasionally read material by real anti-semites. It is unmistakable in tone and content. They call a Jew a Jew and leave no doubt what they think of them. The difference is easy to tell.
As to the question of how creative moments happen. This is a notoriously difficult thing to describe in words, as it happens in a wordless moment of consciousness, and whatever we say about it afterwards, though not exactly false, is limited to the point of being misleading. I’ll give an example that helped clarify it for me. I was at a conference and had wandered into an after-hours session led by Dennis Speed, with primarily LYM participants. Dennis was discussing what makes a joke funny, and was using socratic questioning to try to get at the point. And the discussion came around to, well, is it because the punch line is expected, because it “fits” with the buildup? Well, no, that didn’t seem to be it. Well, is it because it is unexpected. They thought so, until somebody gave an example of an unexpected punch line that wasn’t funny at all. Well, then my own “light bulb” went off. I waved my hand in the air, barely restraining myself from jumping up and down yelling “I know! I know!” Dennis called on me and I said “It *does* fit” - but not the way you expected!”.
And, if you are familiar with some of Lyn’s other writings in this area, a lot of things come together here. Conceptualize it from the viewpoint of Lyn’s notion of “manifolds” or “theorem lattices” (and rather than try to define either of those terms logically, just try to have a “feel” for them - that’s what I do). Here’s how it works. The setup of the joke occurs in one “universe” (manifold, theorem lattice, whatever). There is a certain consistency of viewpoint depicted. If the buildup is done well, the listener is thoroughly sucked into that viewpoint. Then, the punchline. Voila! The punchline of a well done joke is entirely consistent with the buildup, but consistent from a higher (more developed, more advanced) viewpoint than that naively implied by the original buildup. The subjective sensation of flipping from the lower view to the higher is an instance of what Lyn has elsewhere characterized as “the fundamental human emotion” (aka creativity, aka “lightbulb”, etc.) This is not even particularly mysterious - just very difficult to analyze from the perspective of everyday language - and thus difficult to render as socialized knowledge.
Now, one of the things I think is probably unique to Lyn, is his notion that the person’s sense of identity when being creative in this sense is different than usual. Lyn says, as you probably know, that usually people employ a persona (from the Greek word for a theatrical mask) as the face they show to the world. And, for most of us, this persona becomes our identity. We think that’s who we really are! Au contraire, the wordless moments of creativity define the true self. After all, the persona is a created entity. (Crteated how, by whom?) Who am I? Who is it that asks! Now suppose one could accept that the imposed limitations of the persona were not onself. Suppose one could actually “locate” their identity in the creative moment. Their view of life, the universe, and everything would become completely transformed. Unthinkable things would become possible. (And I mean “unthinkable” in a good way, not as a more cynical reader might interpret it).
Well, I could babble on, but it would probably be repetitious.
All for now,
-Steve
November 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Earnest,
I think that Lyn’s “fundamental discovery” is that human creativity is at the center of political economy. Rachel suggests that most philosophers and economists know this, but I can’t regard that assertion as well supported, at least with regard to currently practicing economic authorities. Certainly Lyn has elaborated the point to a greater degree than found elsewhere. There are echoes of it in earlier thinkers. I believe it was Lincoln who wrote that “the animals labor, but only man improves his labor” (quote approximate). But even though this clearly foreshadows Lyn’s viewpoint, I don’t think Lyn’s views can thus be regarded as derivative. Henry Carey, who I have not read, may have made comparable points. However, Lyn came to his views some years before his discovery of Carey.
-Steve
November 18th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Rachel,
I think Lyn’s reference to Genesis was not because he personally regarded it as authoritative, but that as a source which many others regarded as authoritative, it expresses the same truth which he is organizing around. I’m sure he would maintain his view, even had Genesis not supported it.
I was probably not clear in my discussion of agape versus “love”. What I meant was there are 4 different words in the Greek which can translate into English as “love”. These are the three we learned in Sunday School - filios (sp?), eros, and agape - as well as a fourth, which I learned in my college humanistic psych class - storge (sp?) - love of the familiar - e.g. your comfortable old pair of shoes, your favorite pipe, etc. I really think it is most accurate to simply bring agape into the English text untranslated.
I object to identifying agape as “love” because of the diversity of meanings the word “love” can have in English. I mean, do it if you like. I won’t hunt you down or burn your books, and it won’t affect our ability to communicate. I just think it’s confusing to the typical English speaker.
I have always heard “hubris” described as the pride according to which man sets himself up in the place of the gods. Not surprising that the Olympian faction would disapprove. If there are nuances beyond that which I’m unaware of, let me know.
-Steve
November 19th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Steve–
Well, yes, I think you’re absolutely right–Lyn uses Genesis as he uses everything else–to prove his point. Not because he agrees with it, or has mastered it, or has even read it, but because he knows others are familiar with it and attribute importance to it.
However, characteristically, he distorts what he uses, through ignorance or malevolence or both. That is the case with his obsessive clinging to creative reason, and his use of Genesis as the support par excellence for his views on man-made-in-the-image-of-God.
As a matter of fact, he has dropped Genesis, as he dropped hylozoic monism, creative mentation, the Filioque, Feuerbach, Descartes, and Marx–because it doesn’t quite serve his turn.
In other words, examined more closely, Genesis does not make the same point that Lyn is organizing around. (For example, Genesis frowns on hubris, although of course that is not the word used.)
Neither does Plato or Leibniz or the long list of “Labor Committee Greats” make the point that Lyn makes. Because the point Lyn is organizing around is, fundamentally, himself, his own Sovereign Intellect, his role as Creator. This is not a point that interests any preceding philosopher or scientist.
As to agape–yes, there are several Greek words translated into English as love, or perhaps like (in fact, outside the New Testament and subsequent Christian usage, “like” or “have affection for” is a closer translation of agape).
But Paul and the early (and later) Christians in fact use the word to mean love–or charity, in its original sense. LaRouche claims it means “love of justice” and related outrages against language, but it’s simply not true.
I think to use agape instead of love is to remove the emotional content of the word for an English reader or speaker, unless he happens to be a Christian theologian familiar with the usage.
So I think it is deceptive, although not intentionally so–because love is surely the most powerful (and creative, pace Lyn) force in the universe. Why be embarrassed to say it?
On “hubris,” it seems to me your definition is not wrong, but does not convey the force of the word in Greek thought–the concept of the sin of overweening pride.
Yes, that is man setting himself up against, or above, the gods, as a result of arrogance and incapacity to understand his limitations. (And, Steve, I do believe man has limitations. So does LaRouche. He just doesn’t believe HE has limitations.)
In Christian theological terms, its foremost exemplar would be Lucifer.
Pride, arrogance, and contempt for others are not to be recommended, nor do they translate into some sort of powerful positive mission.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Steve,
I shall have a reply — nontrivial and serious — later today.
Let us seek truth and, without rancor, condemn bullshit and equivocation (when appropriate). On issues that can be documented — intellectual issues, where the evidence is crystal clear, in full view for all to see — honest people should, in principle, be able to agree.
Again, I shall have a reply to Lyn’s repeated claims about having made a “fundamental discovery”. As point of departure, I’ll take your informal understanding explained above.
I’ve read (and sometimes studied) Lyn’s writings and speeches for over thirty years — not full time, nor as a paid analyst, but as an interested observer.
Your simple rendition of the heart of his claim appears reasonable; I accept it and and shall address it I look forward to your honest and thoughtful reply.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Dear Steve (and others, if extent and interested),
To reduce visual fatigue, I am dividing this long post into sections.
This is section #1. The main theme here was prompted by my specific question to Steve (posted above) and the general question of whether Lyn has ever contributed a truly original idea – ever made a genuine, important discovery. To review, my question was:
“Please explain the intellectual content of his “fundamental discovery” and the concrete essence of Lyn’s (personal) contribution.”
Steve responded:
“Earnest,
I think that Lyn’s “fundamental discovery” is that human creativity is at the center of political economy. Rachel suggests that most philosophers and economists know this, but I can’t regard that assertion as well supported, at least with regard to currently practicing economic authorities. Certainly Lyn has elaborated the point to a greater degree than found elsewhere. There are echoes of it in earlier thinkers. I believe it was Lincoln who wrote that “the animals labor, but only man improves his labor” (quote approximate). But even though this clearly foreshadows Lyn’s viewpoint, I don’t think Lyn’s views can thus be regarded as derivative. Henry Carey, who I have not read, may have made comparable points. However, Lyn came to his views some years before his discovery of Carey.
-Steve”
Forgive the duplication, but I am gathering this together, in one place, simply for ease of comprehension.
Note that I replied to Steve by acknowledging that he has, in my view, captured the essence of Lyn’s major claim; I promised a “nontrivial and serious” response. Note, too that Steve thought I was unfairly critical of Lyn, writing:
“Earnest,
I am puzzled by the accusation, which I have also heard elsewhere, that Lyn repackages the ideas of others as his own. What I have seen of Lyn’s writing is generous in referencing his antecedent thinkers.
-Steve”
I claim that Lyn is an intellectual fraud — that he is entirely disingenuous in his references to previous thinkers (on the subject of his purported “fundamental discovery”) and I will now prove this to all.
End Section #1.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Start of Section #2
I am heartened by Steve’s reference to Lincoln. The thrust of this post, demonstrating that Lyn is an intellectual fraud concerns his most precious assertion – that he has made a “fundamental discovery”, a discovery the grants him permanent status among the elite thinkers of all time. Note that this claim vanishes into thin air in the presence of a famous lecture by Lincoln. More on this below.
But already we can see problems. If, as Steve asserts, Carey “may have had comparable points,” but “Lyn came to his views some years before HIS [emphasis added] discovery of Carey” then what exactly is Lyn’s contribution? Is it that he discovered that Carey discovered the fundamental discovery (and earlier)?!
Years ago, scientists discovered that the earth wasn’t flat. Suppose some (intellectually isolated) child discovers this on his or her own, now. This would be a fine discovery, something original (to him or her) and something that demonstrates true scientific talent. But it would be odd indeed if later, as an adult, the same person claimed it as HIS fundamental discovery — not only that but built a vast reputation based on it, claiming it as his or hers, without reference to all the others who proved that the earth wasn’t flat.
I note a subtle slide toward equivocation in Steve’s response. Many laymen rediscover things that are well known to specialists. And many scientists rediscover things that are relatively unknown, yet already published elsewhere. This may hurt, psychologically. But it is actually a great sign: it shows the universal nature of discovery and man’s ability to master the laws of the universe. Taken further, it also shows that creativity is in all of us, at least in principle. In short, this part of my argument is already too long, as no HONEST scientist would make a big deal about a rediscovering something that has been well known for a long, long time.
Worse, the claimed “fundamental discovery” that “human creativity is at the center of political economy” is obvious. It may not be talked about much now, during the lifetime of the present Yutes, where such things are verboten, but not too long ago, this concept was firmly embedded in the culture as a core principle, something that was widely regarded as the basis of human progress.
To see the absurdity of it all, simply try to argue otherwise. Where would humankind be without the discoveries of fire, the wheel, electricity, and radio waves? Who could write a book about economics and neglect the role that creativity has played the history of humanity. It isn’t simply the discoveries, but all the truly creative inventions, accomplished by tens of thousands of people. These lifted humankind up and increased our standard of living. Decades ago, every serious person was talking about how technology increases our standard of living, how human creativity was the key, how science and technology were essential (along with humanism).
This pervaded the culture. More importantly it was discovered and widely discussed LONG before Lyn’s claimed breakthrough.
Again, I asked, ““Please explain the intellectual content of his “fundamental discovery” and the concrete essence of Lyn’s (personal) contribution.”
End Section #2
November 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Start Section #3
Now, some pedants may argue that there is some “formal” difference between human “creativity” and “discoveries/inventions”. Here is where simple honesty enters the picture. To me and to every sane person I have every met, invention is virtually synonymous with the creative part of the human mind. Discovery is a bit more complicated. Mathematical Platonists view objects as having an independent existence: in this world, one can “invent” a concept (or a contraption), yet one discovers mathematical theorems and proofs, as if they already existed (because they actually do exist, independent of us).
Here, in this note, we do not worry about such issues. For us, invention and discovery exist at the highest levels of human thought. In short, invention and discovery cannot be divorced from creativity.
Now, politicians, by definition, take positions that they themselves do not believe in. Therefore, politicians are, at root, anti-science.
The above, possibly rancorous attitude, is designed to thwart various word game responses that might arise. For example, Steve: Your definition of Lyn’s contribution contains wording that might be used to equivocate and to bypass the common sense, sane meaning that one usually ascribes to discovery.
Someone who promotes a product may or may not be the real inventor. One can write trillions of words about the discoveries of others, without making the slightest original contribution of one’s own. And one can write about other people’s discoveries without staking ANY claims about one’s own originality, other than, possibly, asserting that you are presenting the ideas of others in a novel manner. One can promulgate the work of others and say, honestly, “These are NOT my discoveries, but I believe that the core ideas are the most important issues of the day – issues vital to the survival of mankind. Here, vast credit should be granted to the person who stands up for truth, who demands nothing short of justice for all, irrespective of whether they had the original idea.
Promotion, advertisement, promulgation and explication are useful – indeed, often essential – aspects of human progress. I do not denigrate the activity, indeed, one can surely use one’s mind to full advantage, and one can be extremely creative in the role of promoter, advertiser, promulgator, and expositor.
But this is quite different than claiming to make a crucial contribution to science, or political economy, or physics, or XYZ. In short, such work does not rise to the level of fundamental discovery, especially if there is widespread evidence that the key discovery being claimed was actually made by someone else, or that it was never neatly summarized in one single location, but that educated people were well aware of the ideas and concepts.
Again, I think Lyn’s case is worse: his claim is so obvious, so thoroughly embedded in the history of humankind that it is difficult to point to a single date or origin where the discovery was made (but this is often the case with such things). If true, however, one can certainly point to dates where various people promoted, advertised, promulgated and/or gave fine expositions of the core idea, the core discovery.
That it is not in today’s textbooks is NOT evidence that Lyn made any such discovery. Look at the textbooks under Stalin or Mao. Whole sections of human history were re-written. In such an atmosphere (where people know nothing and have lost the ability to think critically), various frauds can easily appear on the scene, making claims of all kinds. But the claims are hard to check because almost everyone is lost.
Finally, to end this section, I note a possible “out” embedded in Steve’s assertion – a built in opportunity for equivocation. Steve says:
“I think that Lyn’s “fundamental discovery” is that human creativity is at the center of political economy.”
Political economy? What is that? Perhaps your definition rests on Lyn’s definition, which rests on him being the person who founded the subject. “Center”? This has many interpretations. In short, there is certain wildly wide wiggle room, at the center.
End Section #3
November 19th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Start Section #4
Back to Lyn’s claim.
Of course, if a clear exposition is found that PRE_DATES, by a hundred years, or even a thousand years, the repeated assertions of someone (i.e., Lyndon LaRouche) who claims to have made an original discovery, then questions of veracity arise. This becomes a critical item if the exposition in question was well known, indeed famous.
Given all the above, I hope everyone takes the time to read the following lecture by Abraham Lincoln, titled Discoveries and Inventions”. The complete text of can be found here:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/discoveries.htm
Until recently, I never read the full text (I assume the above is genuine) but have only studied extended excerpts, which appear in an abbreviated and condensed two book compilation of Lincoln’s letters and speeches, something that I own and cherish.
For those in a hurry, and who want to get to the meat, quickly, here are some key items, written well before Lyndon LaRouche appeared on this planet (note that the spelling is original):
“Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions.”
Given the entire speech, and the context of the times, I take this to mean that through creativity, man alone improves his standard of living. Lincoln, again:
“Transportation — the removal of person, and goods — from place to place — would be an early object, if not a necessity, with man. By his natural powers of locomotion, and without much assistance from Discovery and invention, he could move himself about with considerable facility; and even, could carry small burthens with him. But very soon he would wish to lessen the labor, while he might, at the same time, extend, and expedite the business. For this object, wheel-carriages, and water-crafts — wagons and boats — are the most important inventions. The use of the wheel & axle, has been so long known, that it is difficult, without reflection, to estimate it at it’s true value.”
Again, the emphasis is here is on discoveries and inventions that are “labor saving” (this was the old terminology; it included “labor saving devices”). But labor saving is simply another way of saying that the discovery or invention frees people to do other things — it produces “free energy” (Lyn’s schema), including freeing people so that they can make additional inventions and discoveries and thus further improve the standard of living for all. Here we assume that the benefits are shared throughout the society, another “problem” that Lincoln worked on! But let the master speak for himself:
“The idea, being once conceived, of riding one species of animals, would soon be extended to others.”
And now we have the machine tool principle:
“Of all the forces of nature, I should think the wind contains the largest amount of motive power — that is, power to move things. Take any given space of the earth’s surface — for instance, Illinois –; and all the power exerted by all the men, and beasts, and running-water, and steam, over and upon it, shall not equal the one hundredth part of what is exerted by the blowing of the wind over and upon the same space. And yet it has not, so far in the world’s history, become proportionably valuable as a motive power. It is applied extensively, and advantageously, to sail-vessels in navigation. Add to this a few wind-mills, and pumps, and you have about all. That, as yet, no very successful mode of controlling, and directing the wind, has been discovered; and that, naturally, it moves by fits and starts — now so gently as to scarcely stir a leaf, and now so roughly as to level a forest — doubtless have been the insurmountable difficulties. As yet, the wind is an untamed, and unharnessed force; and quite possibly one of the greatest discoveries hereafter to be made, will be the taming, and harnessing of the wind. That the difficulties of controlling this power are very great is quite evident by the fact that they have already been perceived, and struggled with more than three thousand years; for that power was applied to sail-vessels, at least as early as the time of the prophet Isaiah.
In speaking of running streams, as a motive power, I mean it’s application to mills and other machinery by means of the “water wheel” — a thing now well known, and extensively used; but, of which, no mention is made in the bible, though it is thought to have been in use among the romans — (Am. Ency. tit—Mill) [.] The language of the Saviour “Two women shall be grinding at the mill &c” indicates that, even in the populous city of Jerusalem, at that day, mills were operated by hand — having, as yet had no other than human power applied to them.
The advantageous use of Steam-power is, unquestionably, a modern discovery.
And yet, as much as two thousand years ago the power of steam was not only observed, but an ingenius toy was actually made and put in motion by it, at Alexandria in Egypt.
What appears strange is, that neither the inventor of the toy, nor any one else, for so long a time afterwards, should perceive that steam would move useful machinery as well as a toy.”
End Section #4
November 19th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Start Section #5
Our genius (Lincoln, not Lyn) continues:
“The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy, is the result of Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements. These, in turn, are the result of observation, reflection and experiment. For instance, it is quite certain that ever since water has been boiled in covered vessels, men have seen the lids of the vessels rise and fall a little, with a sort of fluttering motion, by force of the steam; but so long as this was not specially observed, and reflected and experimented upon, it came to nothing. At length however, after many thousand years, some man observes this long-known effect of hot water lifting a pot-lid, and begins a train of reflection upon it.”
I include this because Lincoln’s lecture includes a vast number of concrete examples, showing that he had thought through the process of progress, and understood something deep about how it can occur slowing and quickly. Again, back to our hero:
“The inclination to exchange thoughts with one another is probably an original impulse of our nature. If I be in pain I wish to let you know it, and to ask your sympathy and assistance; and my pleasurable emotions also; I wish to communicate to, and share with you. But to carry on such communication, some instrumentality is indispensable.”
Later, we arrive at sublime beauty:
“But speech alone, valuable as it ever has been, and is, has not advanced the condition of the world much. This is abundantly evident when we look at the degraded condition of all those tribes of human creatures who have no considerable additional means of communicating thoughts. Writing — the art of communicating thoughts to the mind, through the