Dear Dr de Brun,
Thank you for sending on your philosophy book; a very ambitious work which deals with some very important and highly current matters.
On first glance, you cover a lot of territory. Your point about the mainstream media playing a pivotal role in “the intellectual contraction of western civilisation” is well made, and perhaps would be a good debating point. Although, better still, perhaps would be addressing the key arguments around human instinct? Should we obey our instincts? Should we see our instincts as “bad” or “good”? What is the appropriate response to our instincts? (Some of the discussion around p. 260-264 caught my attention in particular).
Hi Joe
Thanks for the e-mail. I had for many years finished with the Irish Broadsheet as a part of my own intellectual life, I felt that it was and is, struggling to survive in an increasingly digitised world. The more acute that struggle for economic survival becomes, the greater is the Imperative for editors to be guided entirely by market principles and appeal to the greatest numbers by offering them a fare of what they might want to read as opposed to the far more risky (and ultimately journalistic) ideal of presenting to people ideas that they need to hear and consider. Your column is an oasis, but I fear it would be first on the butchers block when the market calls for virgin sacrifice.
You allude to this in your e-mail when you refer to the 'intellectual contraction of western civilization' that I describe in my book. I suspect that this process of editorial deference to market principles results in a type of silent censorship of the 'free' Press, and when democracy is deprived of a freedom of the press democracy becomes something other than democracy.
If on the other hand we retained the capacity to consider aspects of our lives, our society and our freedoms, that are perhaps initially unpalatable and unpopular, then and only then can we begin to address social ills in a real way, because most if not all social ills arise out of our collective participation in many shared delusions.
For example it is more marketable to show images of mentally handicapped residents of a nursing home being dragged about the floor or brutalized by nursing home staff, than it is to the question, how we as a people have come to view the elderly the infirm and the mentally ill, in this airbrushed world of consumerist perfection. How we as a society and a people have marginalized the elderly and the infirm out of our aspirations. How age has become something to be feared and treated as though it were a disease, and how mental 'difference' is almost invariably considered as mental 'illness', something to be at best treated and approached with caution, and at worst vilified insulted and abused.
There is so much to be learned from the innocence and laughter of a Down Syndrome man, woman or child, these 'suffers' are born with an 'illness' that freezes some of the innocence, intellectual freedom, and natural honesty, that we 'normal' people almost invariably loose as we develop our intellect and cultivate the ability to lie to ourselves and to others (something a Down Syndrome 'sufferer' finds it very difficult to do). I am not attempting to glorify Downs Syndrome, however my point is that we have lost the ability to see the beauty that is in all things, and this in part is a consequence of the market and our collective and progressive loss of the ability to think and talk about issues beyond the superficial level that is defined as 'marketable'.
Old people are beautiful if they look young, mentally ill are acceptable if they are more 'normal', education is great if it teaches you to 'become' some kind of a professional. A living relic of our Catholic and Colonial heritage is our passion to appear beautiful and perfect, regardless of the truth beneath the surface. When we stopped lying to the English and to the Priest, we forgot to stop lying to ourselves.
Media is purchased and enjoyed when it tells us what we want to hear and read. Sport, sex, violence, good guys/bad guys, an other beyond the self, who can be blamed for our malaise. Media stimulates and reaffirms our fears and anxieties, reminding us to lock the doors at night, encourage the children to become doctors, pay our health insurance and surround ourselves with a muck that we have come to believe is beautiful. As Desmond writes in the foreword to my book, "the absentee in Irish culture is Thought". For this absence we are paying dearly and will continue to do so until we can begin to think and see beyond the market defined horizons to contemporary thought.
Apologies for the long winded nature of my reply: I will address the questions you sent, as briefly as I can:
Should we obey our instincts?
No matter what we do we will always obey our instincts. If we choose not to eat, or to kill ourselves, we do so for a particular reason and that reason is determined by a deeper will, a deeper and ultimately instinctual imperative.
Should we see our instincts as “bad” or “good”? What is the appropriate response to our instincts? (Some of the discussion around p. 260-264 caught my attention in particular).
Instinct is never 'bad'. It is as Nietzsche writes, 'beyond good and evil'. It is how we apply understanding and act upon that instinct that can be considered to be 'right' or' wrong'. As a man, my instinct bids me to have sex, when I apply reason to that instinct and have sex in the context of a consensual loving relationship with someone with whom I am not related to and am likely to produce healthy off spring; I am satisfying that instinct in keeping with the ultimate objective of that instinct, which is the propagation of the species, and the successful union of my sperm with somebody's eggs.
As outlined in my book there is a hierarchy to our instincts (one that has nothing to do with Maslow's hackneyed heirarchy), and the most potent instinct of all is the instinctual imperative to belong to another, (the poets refer to this as 'love') If I wish to belong to another man I will have sex with a man, although this union is unlikely to produce healthy off spring, it is in keeping with the hierarchical nature of instinctual imperatives. All instincts will be set aside in deference to 'love' or the primary instinctual imperative towards belonging.
A few other questions off the top of my head:
Have humans an acquisitive instinct?
We have a primary instinctual imperative towards belonging. Belonging to a mate or a significant other and belonging to a peer group or social class. Presently we live in a world where belonging or 'being a success', belonging to and being respected by others etc., are relative to the amount of wealth we acrue and display in various ways. To belong to the upper classes one must drive a certain car, wear a certain type of clothing and hang different types of metals, beads and stones from various appendages. This has always been the case, man is a tribal and gregarious animal. The true instinct behind possession is belonging. In essence many of the possessions we acquire are not for ourselves, but for others so that they will see us, accept us as one of their own, and allow us to belong to another and to the safety of the herd..., this makes us feel good about ourselves.
Some African tribes put large rings in their ears, some Irish women sport Pandora bracelets; whether its; beads, beards, bracelets, or Botticelli knockoffs, the instinct is not to acquire things for the sake of those things, but to acquire things that will allow us to 'succeed' or more correctly to belong.
How much of our lives is controlled by “us” and how much is controlled by the market?
We are the market, and the market is a reflection of our wants and desires, our misunderstood instincts.
Do you think most people “deep down” know they should be living a different life – but are too scared or reluctant to challenge the status quo?
Many people at some point or other, come to suspect that much of their life has been lived without identifying the true cause of their private unhappiness. That ultimately the antidotes they have applied to that unhappiness are almost entirely useless and have caused them and others (and the earth), more misery and pain. Most of us live our lives without devoting more than a fleeting moment to the most important reason for our being, which is summed up in the philosophers credo to; 'know thyself'. You are far more likely to find an Argos catalogue on Irish Coffee tables, than a copy of Ulysses or a book by Desmond Fennell.
We live our lives through the eyes and for the sake of other people, which is in contradiction to the reality that; inside we are alone, that soon we will ultimately die alone, and have little more than delusion to comfort us from this reality.
Is the desire to succeed a healthy desire – since everyone can’t succeed?
Everyone can succeed, and everyone does succeed, in the eyes of those who truly love them.
Is the media an obstacle to social progress?
Media is the perhaps the most powerful obstacle to thought beyond the horizon of the Market. Media is controlled by the imperative to make profits and offer what people want rather than what they need to hear. In this sense the 'free' press is not free, it has a censorship that is as potent and maleficent as any that have gone before it. Without a free press 'social progress' as we define it today, has become the enemy of social progress, and our democracy has become the greatest threat to democracy.
Is Russell Brand’s “revolution” the answer?
Russell Brand has wonderful ideas about making the world a better place for people who are just like Russell Brand. I would put his book on my book shelf next to Roy Keanes autobiography, and will be curious to see what history will make of both.
Are new years’ resolutions best understood as a secret loathing of natural instincts?
To loath one's instincts is to load oneself, and self loathing is perhaps the greatest and most Irish of all evils.
Telling lies is wrong, however beyond the self, new years resolutions are are generally victim-less crimes.
I hope this answers all questions and once again apologies for the lack of brevity.
Sincerely
Marcus
Hi Marcus, belated thanks for that.
You make some great points, and indeed I humbly concede your prediction about the likely future of philosophy columns shall come to pass.
That said, out of professional pride, I would put a follow up question to you about the media: Do you differentiate between different types of media, for instance, commercial vs that with a public service remit? And what is the alternative to the media (as we know it) as a vehicle for public debate and discussion? Arthur Schopenhauer’s comment comes to mind: “There is in the world only the choice between loneliness and vulgarity.”
Joe
Dear Joe
The distinction between media types is as real as the distinction between combatants within a conflict. I feel that at the moment a silent war is raging about our heads, a war that will determine the future shape of civilisation and the viability of many species (including our own) and much of what remains of global ecology.
Analogy with WWII is often vulgar, however I cannot resist the temptation to compare the ignorance with which many citizens living with an awareness of the death camps might have rationalised the ash that fell from the skies, the stench of burning corpses, or the sight of beatings in the streets.
The NAZIs are repeatedly blamed for the Holocaust. However on a human level the real wrong was and is the psychological trait permitted many millions of Germans and Europeans to participate in the normative sentiment, the delusion of anti-Semitism. Doubtless propaganda and political control of media played as much a role in the purveying of ignorance then as it does now.
The only antidote to thought or sentiment is counter-thought. On a certain level Joyce's Ulysses can be read as an attack upon the Irish variety of that anti-Semitism that was cultivated into the wave that carried the NAZI's to power. Literature and Art like media are an antidote to retrogressive thought and mass delusion. Again I assert it was not so much the NAZI's but the wave, the sentiment behind the regime that culminated in the brutality of genocide. I suspect that future generations will judge us with equal vehemence for our delusions, for the 'market sentiment' that validates our squandering of global resource and destruction of global ecology etc.
To my mind the only valid media that exists today is that which offers a counter-thought or counter sentiment to our contemporary mass delusions. For example the delusion that the acquisition of personal excess is morally valid or even necessary. The delusion of ownership when all that we 'own' is simply borrowed for a time. The delusion that excess wealth is a good and valid aspiration. That our ecological responsibilities terminate at the recycling centre. The delusion that we are not actively precipitating the extinction of many species, as ancient and as morally entitled to be here as we are, or the delusion that science will find the answer, or that the Americans will save us etc.
Contemporary mass delusion can only be escaped through an intellectual evolution, and 'media' is the harbinger of that evolution. The single greatest tragedy in Ireland today is the absence of a free press one that might provide the horizon for an evolution in our thinking. In this sense I see media in the context of a war, and the side that I am rooting for is the side that points to the unpalatable truth of modern fallacies. It takes a brave journalist to point to the snow of a consumptive Christmas and tell the world that the snow flakes are ash. It takes a Christian soul to listen to such blasphemy, and a mind that is open to enlightenment to reconsider the contemporary universals that Freud referred to as 'mass psychogenic delusions'.
In Science and art alike good theory and good literature will stand the test of time, Joyce and Freud will persist when Binchey and Brand have long been forgotten. The same is true for media; that which deals with the truth of reality, rather than facilitates the delusions that define our age, will persist.
That being said I think mankind is evolving towards truth (I suspect that as I get older I might be getting a bit wiser or less stupid) , I think collectively piecemeal we are getting there and we may get there if we come to see our oppressions and do not first destroy the ecology that sustains us. Media are our sign posts even if many posts are bidding us backwards or sending us in circles.
As an Irishman, when I consider our heritage, cultural and mythological, linguistic, intellectual, artistic and revolutionary, I am saddened to recognise that this evolution in thought is not as evident here in Ireland. Here perhaps more than anywhere in Europe thought is powerfully oppressed by market sentiment and by we the people. One must look abroad to find it. Thinkers artists and iconoclasts carry the torch of intellectual evolution, yet here they are relatively unknown, and for the most part Irish creativity and revolution finds itself compelled to leave this oppression or to fade into obscurity. Desmond Fennell one of Ireland's intellectual sons, must struggle to find a publisher for his books, whilst in another country they might be queuing at his door.
When I encounter a neutral space wherein debate can take place beyond the primitive intellectual confines of the market, I consider that to be a more valid and more real media. I consider it to be more real because within such a space delusion can at least be identified without the irony of being positioned beside or upon the same page as an advertisement for a new BMW or some such. If the advertisementfor the new car is not on the same page, the potent ideal behind that advertisement plays a presiding role in the governance of that media. In this sense media is not free, or is not as free as it could and should be.
As such media that is free of advertisement is at least free of the silent censorship that the market brings to media. It is for this reason amongst others that the BBC is considerably more evolved than RTE or that in America NPR is unquestionably more intellectually evolved that CNN or FOX.
If media is to serve as the watchdog of politics and history, if it is to encourage invention and social or intellectual evolution beyond the flawed paradigms of the market, it must have no master other than the pursuit of truth and the celebration of man's infinite creative genius.
Arguably recent decades in Ireland have witnessed a collective withering of our creative spirit. Thinkers emigrate, our philosophers publish abroad and we celebrate a contemporary art, literature and music that is at best mediocre by historical standards. Our contemporary lack of political, intellectual, artistic or innovative novelty, may be a consequence of the censorship that market ideology presently exerts over main stream media.
Indeed if Ireland was ever to pursue an independence of thought, the first step towards that independence would be the destruction of RTE (the enforced retirement of Gay Byrne) and the creation of a true and entirely free press. Out of this bold enterprise would (I have no doubt) explode into being the ideas, the thoughts, the newness, novelty and creativity that have always been part of the 'Irish' Psyche, of our indomitable spirit. Once free in our thought; our society might begin to evolve towards a more enlightened future, rather than waiting for Godot or for John Wayne to come back and save us.
I look forward to meeting up in the new year.
No comments:
Post a Comment