![]() The right wing frequently talks in end-times/flight 93 rhetoric about the left. But what exactly has the progressive/lib/Dem left actually accomplished in the past 4 decades that has got them so riled up? The ACA? Gay marriage? Tax rates have hardly changed. Regulations are hardly different. Unions still weak. Immigration policy about the same. Sure, we've moved vaguely left in some cultural areas, but nothing groundbreaking. Rather, the RW seems less to be reacting to changes than to its own overblown and paranoid hype funneled through extremist interpretations of a reality that hasn't changed much. On race, sexuality, immigration, trade, taxes, regulation, etc. - hell, they have an extremist RW SCOTUS and just overturned Roe - the facts have changed less than the magnitude of their collective freakout. Now, surely there is a lot to complain about in modern society. But so much of it is as much if not more so a result of RW policy. The 93 Manifesto decries "Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes." Are taxes really higher? Maybe low marginal rates have something to do with why our infrastructure is so shitty? Forever wars? Was it the left who was pushing for them? The rich have gotten richer while everyone else's wages have stagnated. Again, marginal rates? They also complain about trade/globalization and decimation of manufacturing. I'm sorry, which ideology puts the free market/individual property rights above all else? If a corporation wants to close a factory to pay workers in Asia cents on the dollar, wouldn't it be Big Government to stop them? And here we see the split between the Classical Liberal RW and the NatSoc RW. But this split isn't responding to a left. It's a social-right/economic-left (latter) vs. social-left/economic right (former). The NSRW derives much of its fury from the CLRW who they decry as "Rhinos", and is overwhelming focused on social, not economic issues. Immigration, DEI, Antifa, Abortion, LGBT - these are race/sex/religion issues. (Immigration gets vaguely tied to "jobs", but due to sparse evidence of economic impact, it is mainly cast as a cultural/racial problem). So, with the "browning" and de-Christianizing of America, a story about white religious privilege (to be centered, to be in control) is unspooled. MAGA evokes a bucolic mid-20th century in which white Christian men were in charge. And yet economically, marginal tax rates were sky high compared to today, with vastly less wealth inequality. It was, in a sense, a NatSoc dream. Ironically, however, it was in this period that the roots of MAGA were at their most pure in the places like screeds of the John Birch Society and McCarthyism, even as White Supremacy was the law of the land, and the government was building interstates across the country. And antisemitism. There seems something about the stereotype of the Jew that illustrates perfectly the paradox of the NSRW mind. On the one hand, it represents a threat to WASP dominance, but on the other an example of economic success. It represents a cultural threat in the form of lost status, and an economic threat in the form of the exploitation that comes with the exponential power of capital accumulation. The NSRW has always been about a marriage of cultural hegemony with government preferences. Antisemitism provides a perfect foil for a conservative who wants his cake and to eat it too. As Jews have historically been left-leaning (for obvious reasons), their stereotyping serves as a model that has been transposed onto "liberals" and the "Democrat" party. George Soros, the "Globalists", "Cultural Marxists", and "Cosmopolitans" hardly pretend to hide this move. These could just as easily be replaced with "left-coast elites", "blue states", and "fake Americans". So, can they point to LW policy that is out of control and the cause for all of our problems? Only so far as German Jews were blamed for the same. Instead of real debates about economic policy, which are difficult, nuanced, and not always intuitive, a paranoid stereotype that scapegoats individuals is much easier. In 1889, Ferdinand Kronawetter called antisemitism the socialism of idiots. When the NSRW seems to be attacking the left, this is what is really going on.
0 Comments
![]() Before starting, I want to acknowledge that as a man, my moral authority is suspect with regard to weighing in on any question of constraining the bodily autonomy of women. I would gladly cede any such codification to only female members of the voting public. However, seeing as gender-based voting is not something we will likely be trying any time soon, and our voting routinely impacts female bodily autonomy, I feel like I must attempt to think deeply about the moral considerations. (Simply polling women won't be enough as there is much disagreement amongst the female body politic on these issues). Onward to abortion. The core issue seems one of epistemology. We generally all agree there is a point in development where it should be illegal to kill a "baby" (the reason for quotes should be obvious to the theme of this thread). Save for the life of the mother (the fact that current laws are getting nearer to making this consideration secondary to the "baby" is horrific), the next question is at which point is it OK. How do we determine this? As we move earlier down in development, our basis for making moral claims diminishes. The epistemological factors typically considered in taking a life - consciousness, viability, pain, autonomy, social attachment - become difficult to ascertain. (I am going to leave out religious considerations because these are by definition arbitrary to individual faith and inadmissible, if not by moral standards of a pluralistic society, certainly by our constitution). In essence, our moral ground becomes shaky to non-existent, and we are in frank terms guessing. It is here that the mother’s autonomy in making the decision quickly enters the picture. It seemingly enters in direct proportion to the degree that social interest in the life of the “baby” diminishes. This balance of the mother versus society follows a parallel moral gradient to our epistemological certainty. One might picture them on axes: Note that I have plotted fetal pain, not believed to be registered until the 3rd trimester. However, the pain experienced in death may not be a moral consideration. Firstly, it could conceivably be removed via anesthesia. Secondly, it would likely be either brief or non-existent, depending on the procedure. Also note that I have plotted the notion of "social attachment". By this I mean the moral inclusion of individuals other than the mother and the "baby". I have placed it as entering in mid-to-late 3rd trimester. The moral calculation here rests upon the inclusion of these individual's developing attachment to the "baby". One might imagine various gradients within this concept, from the relational distance (e.g., from father to sibling, to grandparent, to friends, to larger society), to the relative growth in perceived attachment, starting with the first announcement and increasing with development). I have also plotted viability, which is a traditional consideration in the codification of the right to legal abortion. One imagines this places a more objective separation between the rights of the mother to a dependent fetus and the fetus as a viable individual outside of the womb. You will note that from beginning to end, the epistemological certainty at any given point in development is debatable. Some considerations may not even be constrained to the womb. For instance, the consideration of pain could as easily be applied to the killing of a human at any age. Indeed, so too might viability or social attachment. An individual at any age might be medically dependent on others to live. Likewise, one might imagine an individual with no living social relations to speak of - say, a friendless only-child stranded on a desert island whose parents have passed away. Their death might indeed be mourned by no one. What right do they have to continue existing? A moral calculation I came across - and I regret I do not remember from which philosophical tradition it comes (Kant's Categorical Imperative?) - is the notion of a sort of social contract that we ought to encourage in which "one ought not kill". This is of course similar to the primary religious objection to abortion, however the philosophy here is framed in purely secular terms, with a strong ring of utilitarianism: we would not want to live in a society in which people go around killing each other. However, as with the religious admonition, there would be caveats. Christians are taught that killing is wrong, except in the case of self-defense, either to the individual, one's close relations, or possibly nation state. Codified thusly as "self-defense" in the case of imminent personal threat, or more broadly to protect innocent civilians (e.g., an "active shooter"). The state has been granted the power to kill judiciously to police forces and the military. State execution raises some parallel considerations, and there are additional secular justifications, however in the main the only serious argument for it would seem to be pure retribution, the cases for deterrence and public safety do not strike me as compelling. Additional considerations with abortion (just as there are those allowed for other types of killing) relate directly to the fact not only that a fetus is literally given life and sustenance by the mother in the womb, but that she is responsible for it as it continues to develop after birth. By requiring the mother to proceed in pregnancy, we are subsequently requiring all manner of constraints on her life, not least of which the increased likelihood of her own death due to complications. If one dismisses these concerns, especially in light of the possibility that she may be released form responsibility after delivery should she put the child up for adoption, this introduces an emotional obligation as well on her to suffer the likely pain of separation and grief of having produced a child which now must be sent away and all rights to it being severed. These are unique physical and emotional burdens that she would be forced to endure without being afforded any right to disengage. In the event the mother is unwilling to give her child away for adoption (a dilemma the seriousness of which ought to point us to the gravity of the emotional burden in severing attachment already described), a vast set of constraints lies ahead as the mother now faces the prospect of having to continue making a life for herself and her child. This is all the more concretized in considerations that these are likely the very foreseen and unforeseen complications that she would have already anticipated in her initial consideration of the option to terminate the pregnancy. Caring for a child for 18 years is obviously an incredible burden - especially should the child have special needs that could exponentially increase emotional and financial burdens). Finally, I might return to my original disclaimer about the moral propriety in my weighing as a male who will never become pregnant and raise an additional critique of this entire project of moral philosophy. Abortion is does not merely take place within the life of the mother and child, but so too society, and the special epistemological frailties involved in any social determination. By this I mean the deep assumptions and prejudices that cannot but lurk within each of us. In the year 2023, we are but at the tip of millennia of patriarchal norms that have dyed the social waters within which we swim. A common thought experiment that might fruitfully capture this predicament is the contrafactual scenario in which it is not women but men who give birth to children. Would society be adhering to the same sorts of considerations concerning the codification of abortion that we currently see? My immediate suspicion is that we would certainly not. One only needs a passing knowledge of the ways in which patriarchy has privileged men in society to imagine how different our assumptions might be. Would it be too flippant to propose that the right to abortion would not only be explicitly codified constitutionally, but that it would quite possibly be viewed as nothing more concerning than an oil-change? Would the patriarchal norms inevitably lead to performative aesthetics of "tactical abortion" kits, and macho abortion drive-throughs? Battlefield medics would surely be trained in providing abortions to secure troop readiness. Would "abortion counts" be tossed around with jocularity in casual conversations? Would young men be teased for not having had at least one before the age of 18? As previously stated, men are still allowed to vote on the bodily autonomy of women. As such, I feel compelled to do my best to think deeply about why I feel the way I do about this subject, and to try and ponder its many complexities. Even my layman's philosophizing here has likely only scarcely scratched the surface of the relevant considerations. But the fact that they are, even, as such, seems an additionally compelling reason to doubt that our epistemologies are anything but muddy. This seems as strong a case as any to firmly reject any attempts to interfere with a woman's right to choose her own course of action when it comes to her body and that of anything growing within her. If all behavior is determined by relations between genes/environment and our learning histories, and there is no true freedom to act, then what is the point of making choices? What are we doing? How is it that it feels like we are "choosing" to do anything?
The science is clear on this point: every behavior we engage in (including thinking!) is a result of our learning history. Our genes determine how our bodies respond to stimuli (what reinforces or punishes us, motivates us, satiates/deprives us, etc.). We then respond to that stimuli and the stimuli we do/don't receive afterwards (consequences) determine whether that behavior is reinforced (increases in future) or punished (decreased in future). Complex, seemingly "emergent" behavior is a result of smaller units of these stimuli/behavior/consequent interactions. So, if I ride a bike, or paint a landscape, or engage in a discussion, all of the little pieces of learned behaviors are a result of past learning histories linking together. Much of our day-to-day behavior is pretty unconscious. That is, we have learned it so well that we don't even have to think about it. We ride bikes, driving, load the dishwasher, argue with our spouse, etc. without needing to think about forming the smaller units. ... feet on pedals, pressing gas, flipping cup, furrowing brow. Now, we certainly can be conscious of these behaviors. At the minimum we notice them, but more complexly, we label them, categorize them, and make varieties of associations to other stimuli or behaviors and groups of behaviors. Much of this is tied to language, which develops out of our verbal community, all learned through previous interactions. Set of behaviors and their associations to probable events we call "rules" - whether the mail will come, whether we will get paid for work, etc. At each level, our behavior is determined by the reinforcement or punishment we have received for that behavior in the past. New, similar behavioral responses can occur through a process of generalization. Similarly, our learned behavior can respond to new, similar stimuli. We play different notes on the same piano. We push on different types of buttons. But always having being reinforced or punished. And according to current level of satiation or deprivation. Behaviors are more or less likely if we have felt more or less comfortable after doing them previously. Then what is the point of making choices? To "make a choice" is, when conscious, to follow a learned rule. We can generalize new rules by applying logic, also learned, and a function of our current knowledge and cognitive capacity. We must be motivated, which is a function of circumstance. The "point" requires thinking about our thinking. At this point we are multiple levels of removal from our behavioral learning history. I push the pedal. I am riding a bike. I can ride to the store. Should I ride to the store? Should I decide to decide to ride to the store? At each level of consciousness, the variables, the learning histories increase in complexity. At the point of meta-analysis, our grasp of determinative factors is very weak. Through "mindfulness", we can learn to be more aware of the different levels. Yet, total mindfulness would be paralyzing. Typical therapeutic mindfulness begins with the early steps. Often, this interrupts the behavioral chain and acts as a stimuli to develop new behaviors of labeling, categorizing, etc. our own behaviors in new ways. Yet mindfulness must be learned! Likewise, name a "good" or "bad" thing one might do, and there is a incredibly solid theory based on hard science and research to evidence that it was entirely determined. Like the molecules in a hurricane, it's impossible to know every precise interaction, but the general principals of how behavior works are known. When we self-examine, we're using doppler, measuring temperature and airflow, taking barometrics. We get a vague picture of why we do what we do. When "choose" to do X or Y, we're engaging in the behavior of making estimates based on our past estimating behavior, our current knowledge. We're operating according to hidden and knowable motivations. However, even knowledge of motivations are themselves usually estimating behavior applied toward memories (stimulus associations) of what has happened before. So why do anything at all, if we are confined to forever be playing out physical interactions laid down in corporeal form? Because we have learned to. At a basic level, our basic drives - food, water, sex, comfort, companionship are pushing at us from within. But immediately beyond that we are social creatures - socialized into vast webs of rules of conduct and behavioral patterns shaped by the contingencies of society. of these are. Behavioral principals, while often just the scientific proof for deeper social philosophies and intuitions that have existed for millenia, are, in their substantiated form, incredibly recent - hardly 100 years old. The logical implications of this understanding of human behavior often runs counter to many mainstream ideologies in human society. The refutation that we have "free will", or some ability to act outside of our genetic/social learned histories, with some "homunculi", may be prime among them. That so many imagine otherwise and must struggle with the fact, and in some sense have designed their worldview around it, points to the widespread existence of it as a sort of basic mythology. It pervades our legal, political, religious and economic systems, and imo continues to have very deleterious effects on human flourishing. To the extent that we talk about "personal responsibility" and blame people who "should have done better", or reward people for "chose to do well for themselves", we design social systems that perpetuate inequality and human misery, withholding opportunity to some while rewarding others. As social creatures with amazing powers of cognition, we can create complex rules about true events in reality and generalize them to plan for optimal outcomes for ourselves and others. But it requires learning and cooperation. Learning to cooperate. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. We behave on the shoulders of our ancestors. Which way, left or right? It feels like I am choosing. My body and mind is making a choice. But it is doing so as a result of my body given to me by a mother and father, a lifetime of learning, and through a society that has placed me here. I am less "making a choice", than watching the various stimuli formed into verbal or non-verbal behavior as possible outcomes, or rules, then behaving the choice, and then reflecting (maybe) upon that choice via the stimuli that appears in my mind as an account of past actions. We are all watchers. An interesting thought experiment is to refer to yourself in the third person, and suddenly notice how much the "I" - as it becomes he/she/they - seemingly slips into view as a behaving body within reality. It is no longer outside, acting almost magically, but firmly connected, intertwined with a world no longer separate but inseparable. He is typing this sentence. He is pressing "reply" Why? He really had no choice. IN the Beatles documentary, Get Back, Paul is asked how song writing is going. The context is John and Yoko's relationship's effect on the band.
He describes a lull, owing to them not all living together, He says when they were in the same house they were always around and the writing would just happen. I've been going through old voice memos. My process, ever since I picked up the banjo in SF at 18, has been to make music that sounded good. It was 1994, and I had been living in Santa Cruz, only maybe $5 to my name, along with whatever food stamps I had. I was living on a couch with my older brother in a house occupied by UCSC students, across the street from the Santa Cruz High pool. We were out one evening and popped into a music shop. I picked up an old banjo from a bargain bin. The clerk asked me if I was interested in it. I told him I didn't have much money. The tag on it aid $250. He smiled and told me he'd sell it to me for $10. I thought he was joking. But he wasn't. I borrowed cash from my brother and that was that. I moved in with my girlfriend in San Francisco a week later. She had been a friend of one of the UCSC students and had also been staying in the house over the summer before moving into a flat in the city to attend SFSU. I would hitchhike up Highway 1 to visit whenever I could. Once, the car that picked me up broke down around Half Moon Bay and had to hitch again the rest of the way. But it was usually pretty easy to get up there. Getting back was always more difficult - getting out of the city via 19th until it really turned into the 1 again. I began by trying to figure out how to tune it, and then working out little top string.melodies and turning them in to songs. I would make simple multi-track recordings by recording the banjo, then playing it one one cassette while recording lyrics into another, then playing the second recording while recording something else - maybe pie tin drums into a third recording. One serendipitous track came out great when the N Judah passed and rang its bell just as the song faded out. "People in my life These people They say so much while looking away From me They care about their cares Our cares, blank stares Foggy lenses Hidden cameras walking 'round on Tripods setting traps for angles on the beasts that we see" - Ding Ding - I used to practice for hours in her apartment.. Sometimes I'd go up on the rooftop, or sit on the back stairs. The neighbors yelled at me once because I was out there late at night making a god awful racket. My dad then gave me his old acoustic and I began learning chords. This was before the internet, but somehow I got ahold of the tabs to Greensleeves. Maybe one of the only "covers" I know to this day. As my playing grew more advanced, I imagined being in a band. My good friends John, Jeff, Kenseth and Mitch formed Rumah Sakit. I moved to Portland in 1998. John sent me their demo tape and I played it at the group home where I worked. It was set up for people with brain injuries, and they would come up to the main office to get their meds, staying to play solitaire on the old windows computers and chat for a bit. The tape blew me away. I always wanted to make music with other people. Their compositions and mine together building something greater. In Palm Desert, I've made multiple attempts - even playing a house show once. It was exhilarating. But it didn't work out. The people were either weird (the house show band was all the songs of a young guy who spent too much time on the internet and was some kind of neo-fascist. He was where I first learned about Jordan Peterson. The songs also sucked), or just didn't play the kind of music that inspired me. I'd find them on Craigslist and then invite them to play in my music room. For my last two rock albums albums, Polyvision Offering and Discovery of Zero, I had thought about having people play with me. I was even teaching some of my stuff to a pretty good drummer and bass player. But it felt lagging and we went our separate ways. For DOZ I pretty much resigned myself to doing solo projects. Maybe one day. "Ah, hello, come in.
Let me just get this music playing. I'll reach down here into the cabinet. This XX line needs to go into the transbachian sornoplex. These two cables have pioscene receptors. They go into the Hanz Abel Stereo. "There we go, we can hear sound now. "I see you're wearing the new Bechloss frames. How do you like them? Your eyeballs look funny. The display is pixelated and green. What do see when you see me?" "Rainbows mostly" "Oh, they attach to your gloves, cool. "My system sonar picked you up when you arrived. The green lights blinked from green to yellow and the Pontine Playsound went off in our kitchen. My VC9 studio processor was alerted and began processing your stream. "Just a second, let me sync the Gloria Fence. "There. Now, we're connecting. How is your mother?" "She's well. We just installed a Corcoran Down-lay in her cabin. The staff there are all very familiar with the new upgrades." "Right, this is something we've been thinking about too. How is she adjusting?" "Oh, I suppose OK. I don't know. It just her now and the Cosplex wasn't really worth it any more. She was due for a downgrade." "Yeah - I suppose the downgrade is coming for all of us, right?" "The downgrade!" "The great downgrade." |