Friends are Electric

There are exactly five Nobel Prizes awarded every year, with one more masquerading as a true Nobel Prize.  Our friend Alfred specifically set up three of these five prizes to reward scientific developments which have benefited human kind.  In the case of the peace prize, an individual or individuals who have furthered the cause of world peace, and with literature, those who further the understanding of what it means to be human.  Whether these awards have always reflected their original purpose is open to question.  This is not the question for the moment, however.

There is another prize, one which ostensibly seems to be awarded for scientific achievement in a field of study.  Of course, this field is as unscientific as the study of history, but few realise or are willing to accept that.  I speak, of course, of that mighty social science, economics.

There is no doubt that  the prizes in medicine, chemistry and physics are all rewarding true scientific achievement.  But what makes these fields scientific and economics not?  I would argue that it is the nature of what is being studied.  Medicine, strictly, would not exist without purposeful human study, but the subject of their study, biological organisms, would.  The same can be said about chemistry and physics, as prior to humans both played the same role they do now in the universe.  Economics, however, is entirely different.  It is emergent from human behaviours.  It is not separate and independent from humanity.  In short, it is not universal.

Economics is a social science.  Social sciences are quite unfortunately named, since they have little if nothing to do with science.  Which is not to belittle them, merely condemn them to a specific sort of operation, ideally closer to that of the humanities than the natural sciences.  However, that is a discussion for another time.  Being a social science, economics must understand that what it pretends to be is false, that it is not, as said above, universal and is, more importantly, not fundamental.

Not fundamental.  No other social science, humanity or indeed natural science places itself on such a pillar of self-importance.  Economics claims that only economics is the lense which we can judge our actions, plans and programs.  Perhaps other fields would make such claims if they were in a position to, but certainly we would recognize the absurdity of judging everything through the principles of  anthropology.  It is not that anthropology has nothing important to tell us, quite the opposite really, it is that a single lens view of society is an impossibly terrible way of running things.

The reason why no other social sciences have Nobel Prizes?  None of them have rich backing organizations.  That is how this prize came about, a Swiss bank funded the prize, a Nobel Memorial Prize.  I would argue that they did so to increase the credibility of the field as a science, rather than as just one of many social sciences which we attempt to understand our society with.

A final point on the relevance of a prize in economics: other fields attempt to describe laws of nature, but the way nature functions does not change based on these laws, not true for economics.  For example, gravity works as gravity no matter how we describe it, be it Newtonian, Relativity or some future Quantum-Gravity theory.  Economics does not behave this way, if a new mindset takes over, the way the system itself functions can change.  This is because it is an emergent system which requires humans, or something similar, rather than fundamental to the nature of the universe.

To put it another way, why do we not read poetry anymore?  Most people give up on poetry the moment they finish their last English course, be that in high school, college or university.  Is it that poetry lacks the ability to convey deep and important meaning between human beings?  Is it that we have developed newer and better ways of sharing this message?

Or is it just that society has chosen a different form of writing to be the medium by which we exchange thoughts and emotions.  Poetry has its place and is still of great value, but it has been long since supplanted by the novel as the primary literary form.  The novel too will be replaced as the primary, but never shall it fully disappear for some messages are best for it.

A response to a currently circulating article from 2003.

The premise is that American’s don’t like jazz because they are a visually focused, ADD society which has lost its ability to appreciate high art.   The argument takes on the fact that much pop music is vocally driven and assigns the reason for this to the fact that American’s cannot relate to music without it.  The author extends this to the appreciation of visual arts, where he makes the claim that Americans cannot appreciate art which lacks something which they recognize.  That, for instance, Voice of Fire is less liked than Creation of Adam because the later is easier to understand due to having recognizable figures from stories well known to those viewing the work, while the earlier is much more abstract and minimalistic and thus much more challenging to understand.  Ignoring, of course, the relative fame of each work.  Take Mondrain’s Composition 11 in Red, Blue and Yellow and  Le Radeau de la Méduse by Théodore Géricault for a similar comparison.

The argument presented is tainted by an all too common nearly anti-American elitism which we of other countries often take.  The first hint of such taint is the lack of discussion of music in other English speaking countries, such as Canada, Great Briton, Australia, New Zealand or even India.   The author likely lacks personal experience of these countries and places, so he can be forgiven on this front.  It must be noted, however, that singling out the United States is a ploy often driven by the rest of the world’s subconscious loathing-envy relationship dichotomy with the Americans.  If nothing else, a quick look and presentation of sales numbers in the UK would have been in order, as such information is available.

Moving on from the subconscious, let us return the heart of the matter. American’s don’t like jazz because they cannot accept and understand abstract art. The abstract was the central feature and philosophy of the modern movement in the arts; musical, visual and performance.  It was a reaction to that which came before, the romantic.  No one considers jazz to be part of the modernity movement, however, but the generalities still stand.  Jazz was less structured than the romantic music which preceded it, while still maintaining similar instrumentation.  In the arts, the modern replaced with abstraction the vivid, photosimilar paintings of the previous period.

In architecture, modernity lead to buildings with high utility and little ornamentation.  Architects were some of the first to react to modernity itself by reintegrating aspects of ornamentation to increase the aesthetic appeal of their structures, transforming the understanding of the movement.  It was not that unadorned buildings did not function perfectly appropriately for their purpose, it was that the statement they made was insufficient to these first post-modern architects desires.  Post-modernity is the name of the age recently closed, where the artists decided that they no longer held with the idea that you can communicate everything through abstraction alone.  Abstraction has its place, but just because you can reduce something further does not make it necessarily desirable.  I say post-modernity has passed since this is the consensus that is currently forming, although considerable debate exists as to whether post-modernism existed at all.  We would likely find the author of the article in question would be one who denies the post modern and by extension its passing.

What is the meaning of all this?  In short, the experiment that jazz represented has been replaced.  We have moved on, which is not to say that jazz, like pure utility, has no place.  Its place, however, is no longer the main stage.  Jazz does not fit in what, for lack of a better term, we shall call the post-postmodern.  To pretend that jazz is no longer commonplace because we are too unintelligent to properly grasp its meaning is pure and dangerous fabrication.  If we lack the capacity to understand it, it is because it no longer resonates as it once did.  Contemporary musicians have jazz, what came before and what came after to work with.

The purpose of the artist is not to create mocking works which the common human is incapable of understanding for the sole purpose of this elitism.  The artist does their best to present the feelings, interactions and images they experience in a form which they feels best expresses it.  Separating form from purpose is a meaningless endeavor doomed to create emotionally dead works which are, quite honestly, boring.  Art in the style of Composition 11 in Red, Blue and Yellow created now might rightfully be accused of elitism, since we have moved on.  The same with traditional jazz.  It has its place, and certainly a too direct comparison of musical and visual arts leads to false results, but I feel as though the comparison stands.

In short, humans, the world and the arts have all moved on.  Criticizing any of the above from moving on is foolhardy and wrongheaded.  There is nothing wrong with not moving on, it is not necessary.  I often wonder why certain types of alternative rock from the 1990s had to cease being produced, but I do not attack those who fail to grasp the greatness of many of these works and accuse them of being intellectual light weights.  I may question their taste, however.

And a final point, the classical, and I use classical to mean premodern orchestral music, form of musical appreciation is outdated.  I believe that the popular music, popular to mean all that has come since jazz (excluding country) form of appreciation is superior.  Traditional folk music is meant to be played and enjoyed through participation and by just being in its presence.  People would be doing things, preparing foods, talking and preforming other similar tasks during the performance.  This is closer to the popular music form of presentation, which involves plenty of background noise of people enjoying more than just the auditory experience of the music itself, since music has always been about much more than just the sound.  There is nothing wrong or wrongheaded about listening to music in silence, taking it all in.  There is also nothing wrong about experiencing it as something else, as a background sound or as a participatory experience.

Whether spoken truly or not, the above says it all. The folly of the attempted escape from Paris of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette may serve as an important lesson to those who find themselves beaten.

The bread riots were an important contributing factor to the outcome of the French Revolution, and in fact may be the single most important reason for its success.   The widespread starvation created a kind of class consciousness in the peasants of France, which pushed for changes to the way government was run.  Their starvation, in a sense, awoke them to their power.  The most obvious goal they sought was an end to their hunger.

To their credit, the monarchy did make an attempt to overcome the famine.  One cannot judge the people, however, for remaining angry at the failings of the monarchy.  Famine was not the only cause of the revolution, after all.  However rightly, the king was judged by the outcome of his actions (or queen, as the case may be).  And they had failed.  Naturally this increased ill will towards the royal family.  Ill will was already at quite high levels by this point, and justifiably the royals began to fear for their lives.

At this point the supposed statement was made.  “Let them eat cake.”  Evidence does not support that it was ever said, especially by Marie Antoinette.  The statement is used as evidence of the royal’s lack of understanding of the situation in which they found themselves.  What it means is that the royals, in their plenty, could not comprehend the suffering of the masses.  Since they had plenty of food, even very rich delicacies (the cake) they failed to see that others did not.  It is also important to note that a better translation of “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” would translate brioche as an egg bread, since it was not a cake as we understand it, but rather a very egg and butter rich bread.

Whether or not such a thing was ever said is irrelevant, since the next action of the king shows his complete lack of comprehension of the situation equally well.

The royals, while very likely blind to a great many things, were not blind to the danger of their situation.  They fled Paris for a monarchist stronghold near the border of Holland.  They dressed themselves as servants to a Russian  baroness and fled in a very luxurious stage coach.  When the party stopped to exchange horses, the king insisted on resting.  He was recognized and they were captured later that morning, just a few kilometres from their goal.  Why one would stop for a rest when fleeing for their life is a strange thing indeed.

An even more critical interpretation can be found on pages 499-501 of John Ralston Saul’s  Voltaire’s Bastards.

What does this all mean?  What is the lesson?  Aside from the obvious, of course, which is to hide as quickly as possible if you are wanted dead.

The real lesson is that if you find yourself in a position of authority you must be receptive to the needs and problems of the people.  The very worst type of  bias is the idea that what benefits you most must necessarily benefit everyone most.

While, at least in Ontario, the history curriculum is incredibly weak, I am fairly certain most of us are familiar with the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.  A truly important point in the development of the Canadian nation.

While this was not the only important event in the Seven Years War, it can be seen as a pivotal one, the turning point in the Canadian theater of the conflict.  The battle itself predicted the outcome of the war and shall be considered one in the same for the sake of argument.

In broad terms, a global perspective, the battle itself and the war by extension was a defeat of the French Empire by the British Empire on a generally worldwide scale.   The French colony of New France was merely a pawn in negotiations at the end of the war.  It is well known that had the British seen more prestige or a larger profit to be made in sugar plantations than they had in the fur trade of what would become Canada, then perhaps France would have regained their colony.  However, the French Empire ceded New France, the colony of Quebec, to the British.

From a French nationalist perspective, the battle and the war were a humiliating loss.  The English were an oppressive, occupying power, not liberators.  While little attempt was made to assimilate the French Canadians, this perspective is not unreasonable.

From a British nationalist perspective, it was a victory.  The allowances made for the French Canadian people were seen as unreasonable, especially in the 13 American colonies.

Neither of these perspectives, however, represents what is needed from a Canadian perspective.  The forbearers of one segment of Canadians were defeated by the forbearers of another part of the population.  Since Canada is a multicultural experiment this poses some difficulties.  How, for example, does someone celebrate our shared history while some see it as a triumph and others as a defeat?

I am myself largely of British ancestry, while possessing some French as well.  I grew up in a French Canadian town outside of Quebec.  The battle and the war were treated as a victory.  I do not think this is the way to deal with the event.  It is too simplistic and I feel as though it places too much emphasis on our historical inclusion in the British Empire.  Certainly, we are members of the British commonwealth and have much shared history and culture, but we are an independent nation with our own complex and interesting history and culture separate from our partners in the commonwealth and it is time we embraced this.

The question is how do we interpret this battle, this war.  Canada was founded largely through an alliance between both French and English Canadians.  Their work together lead to confederation.  Without the other party, neither the French nor the English could have been successful.  Certainly other word events, such as the British actions towards the Confederate States of America, helped found the nation of Canada.  Without the work of the Canadian Fathers of Confederation, however, Canada as we know it would not have worked out.

There were a great many years between the 1763 end of the war and the formation of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in  1791, their unification in 1841 and the final creation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867.  One cannot discount the numerous important events that took place in these intervening years.  However, these years, as well as all the years since 1867,  do lend something to our shared understanding of the battle and thus the war.

Since 1791, perhaps earlier, Canada and that which preceded it has had two European cultural groups living to a large degree peacefully side by side in the same place, and since 1841 under the same government.  For no less than 169 years this has gone on.  Aside from a brief American incursion during their War of Independence and during the War of 1812 and a few scattered and minor rebellions, Canada has been largely peaceful since the Seven Years War.

So how then do we interpret the Seven Years War and the pivotal Battle of the Plains of Abraham?  As a victory or a defeat?  As a victory and a defeat?

We interpret it as the event which put together, in the same place, two different but similar cultural groups and allowed them to act constructively together in the future to build the nation we now call Canada.   The result of the battle may have been a defeat for the French Empire, but French Canadians have been able to practice their culture and speak their language ever since.  The result may have been a victory for the British Empire, but that empire is no more.

The result for Canada was that the right people were able to work together to found a truly interesting experiment.   Not a perfect entity.  Not a static entity.  Not anything that had been tried yet.  An experiment.  The Canadian Experiment.  And while not all aspects of this grand experiment have been successful, overall the experiment has been successful and warrants further study.

To anyone who lives within Canada, resentment of Toronto is a known but potentially strange phenomenon.  If you are not aware of it then you are probably from Toronto.  You may also live near another major Canadian city, and resent it for much the same reason which I theorise.  I personally hail from Northern Ontario, which is important as we probably have the greatest resentment for Toronto in the entire country.

As the title suggests, I believe that colonialism is to blame for these feelings.  Toronto is the economic capital of Canada.  Any reasonable person would admit this fact.  It follows that many international companies have their Canadian head offices in Toronto, as well as many Canadian companies.  This means that a large percentage of the decision making power in the Canadian economy is located in Toronto.  When a factory, mine or mill is closed by the head office of a company, likely located in the city, it is other parts of the country which suffer.  So, by virtue of housing these companies, the city is seen as responsible.

Beyond this, companies tend to place all of the management positions in the city.  This makes sense from their perspective as it keeps their corperate headquarters localised.  But this has the effect of keeping many of the high paying, non-directly productive jobs in Toronto.  From the perspective of the rest of the country, however, it seems as though the city itself is parasitising the country, feeding off the success of others while contributing only to its own well being.

Both of these factors, the disconnect between control structures within the city and the front line elsewhere and the parasitic relationship the city has with the rest of the country feel very much like colonialism without the violent  physical oppression.  If you add the media control and the fact that the rest of the country routinely hears local news from Toronto as relevant to their own location, you start to get more of the cultural aspects of colonialism as well as the economic which have already been described.

People within Toronto are unlikely to have an idea about the goings on in the province outside their city.  This is akin to the way many Canadians feel when watching “Talking to Americans” or other such programs.  The cause is the same: the colonial power has no need to know of the goings on in the colonies.

Within Ontario itself, Toronto also plays the roll as political capital.   Again, the reasons why the city is so dominant is clear to anyone who pauses to examine the situation, especially with regard to population and distribution of population.  But, again, to those who exist elsewhere in the province, there is still a dictatorship from the city.  Unless Toronto splits party support quite evenly, the votes of Northern Ontario, for example, are mostly irrelevant.  Once again, the structure is logical but leads to issues.

Considering the above arguments, it is easy to see why the rest of Ontario has an antagonistic relationship with the city of Toronto.  It is a political, economic and cultural oppressor and colonial power.  Within confederation, the same problems can be extrapolated to how the rest of the provinces feel towards Ontario.  The same considerations apply.  As well, anyone living near a major Canadian city, especially a provincial capital, can feel themselves sweeped away by the domination of the city.

The situation, by pure reason, makes perfect sense.  However, this pure reason is not considering the effects this has on people who live in the country, both inside and outside these cities.  The people within are largely oblivious to the way the rest of the country views them, which is largely part of the problem.   This is ignorance, pure and simple, and ignorance is an attribute to be combated.  People living elsewhere have the problem of feeling less important or slighted by this ignorance.  The end result is further dysfunction within Canadian confederation.

For now, I present no solutions or recommendations to this issue.  Personal education would go a long way to mitigating these issues, but I refuse to hold my breath.  Just as Torontonians are blissfully unaware, the rest of Ontario takes joy from its resentment. It is a truly dysfunctional relationship, but it helps to define the cultural landscape in this province and country, and perhaps that is worthwhile.

The human mind clings to symbols like it grasps few other things. Symbols have intense power. Ask any person of religion how they feel when viewing their holy symbols, especially in trying circumstances. Or all of the ideas and violence that went into something like the Soviet hammer and sickle. These images contain much more information due to collective memory than their basic parts ever could.

People do get attached to symbols.  The feelings and ideas attached to them are very strong.  The same is true of certian slogans, musical tunes and moments.   Charlemagne did not have to go to Rome and be crowned ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, it was a symbolic act who’s value and purpose is far beyond the simple action itself.  It represented the subservience of European kings to the church and changed the course of Western Civilisation forever.  Mickey Mouse is the most famous being on earth.  This character is not human, not an animal, not anything, really, except a symbol.

A symbol’s power is not in its direct form.   The actual form is immaterial, its the meaning associated with the form which contains the power.  The form and the meaning, however, are inseparable.  A change in form may result in the loss of the meaning and thus of the power and use of the symbol.  And a symbol without any power is a useless symbol, it may as well be a transient piece of graffiti on a railroad car.

When modifying something as powerful as a symbol, one must consider what is meant by it.  Denying history is a certain road to failure, ignoring it is likely worse.  A symbols past is its memory and purpose.  A change in direction is a process which must take a prolonged period of time as adjustment to modified symbolism will not happen overnight.  If the Catholic Church were to change one of their most important symbols, the cross, how many years would the transition take place over?  How about a modern nation, changing their motto or animal representatives?

Any modification of such symbols must have abundant need and must be gradual in nature.  To do otherwise is to deny their purpose, value and to undermine popular support for such an action.  If such need exists it must be clear to all.   Symbols belong to the group as a whole and are not a responsibility of any one person or subgroup.  Their meaning exists from group consciousness, not any one individual.  Any one individual lacks the insight needed to understand that with which they deal.

Symbols are the primary means of human communication.  All language, visual art, music and literature are all entirely symbolic.  One cannot simply change things abruptly and expect the desired results.  Group ownership, memory and the power of the symbol must be accounted for.  To do otherwise is to destroy the power, purpose and meaning of the symbol, deny your own participation within the group at large and to fragment that which you meant to improve.

I recently made some statements about the nature of the public good, which I feel compelled to clarify exactly what I mean, in the hopes of convincing the reader of the nature of society.

First, the public good is a positive populist principle used here to mean what is best for the sum total of the citizens in whatever electoral area we are discussing, be it municipal, provincial or federal. Serving the public good is serving society as a whole, not serving individuals.

For example, socialised medical care is in service of the public good, since society as a whole benefits from healthy people. Safe and modern infrastructure benefits the public good because no one benefits if bridges fall down or if brownouts are demanded due to electricity capacity.

Acting in the interest of the public good is an exercise in rejecting what may be best for you personally in favour of what is best for the whole of society. It is always better for you if you pay less tax, but if government is unable to deliver the services required of it then lower tax is not in the public good.

Acting in the public good is just a matter of doing what is best for society from an absolute point of view, not from an ideological point of view.

Ideologies are an attempt to force society to conform to a pattern, rather than drawing patterns from society and using those. Ideologies of all kinds are inherently Utopian and impossible to achieve. Anyone acting in the public good ignores ideology and focuses on what is best for a specific situation.

For example, although both socialists and conservatives would disagree with me quite extensively, sometimes it is appropriate to privatise a crown corporation or a government service. Sometimes it is appropriate to have government take on a role which was provided by private enterprise. The only question you need to ask yourself in each case is who will serve the public better. If a private corporation is unwilling to serve the entirety of the public with an important or necessary service, then it falls to government to either make up the difference, relieve private enterprise of their role in the area or subsidise services. The same sort of behaviour is required of government in the case that private enterprise is better able to serve the public as a whole.

Anyone claiming that the above is an inappropriate way of looking at things has probably fallen victim to ideology and has a Utopian view, such as the belief that the free market will solve all problems. The market is quite able to solve a large number of issues when it is profitable to do so, but the market is an entirely inappropriate method to deliver services to dispersed populations where profit margins are too low or nonexistent at all.

It is governments role in a democratic society to be responsible to the people. The people are the source of power as it is their vote and their voice which forms government. Since a government is responsible to the people first and only, it falls to the government to promote the public good. This has not happened in recent times. Governments have been ignoring the source of power and legitimacy, the people, in favour of serving private interests of corporations or specific sectors of society.

The purpose of a Socratic Society is to encourage the public discussion of ideas.  Ideas are the foundation of democratic society.  Only through public discourse can we defeat the demons of ideology and authoritarianism and reaffirm our place as citizens.  This is the purpose of a Socratic Society.

University campuses have a multitude of public venues for such public discourse.  These may be highly organized and structured, or they may take the form of a more organic meeting of ideas.

From my personal research, I know that many  formal debate and idea societies exist around Ontario campuses.  They are a start. What I imagine goes much beyond.

Instead of discussion in a closed group (however welcoming and open they are to outsiders and new members), discussion should take place in public.  Public is meant in the sence of public and accessible, as such any shared space for nonexclusive use where noise is not an issue.  Examples include grassy fields, cafeterias and other common spaces.  Passers by aught to be invited to participate as much as possible.

In pursuit of a more organic form of conversation, the structure of formal debate must be ignored.  Formal debate is a fine method of high level discourse, but is not appropriate for general public participation and tends to exclude all but a  few participants from taking part.  The idea of a Socratic Society aught to be inclusion of idea by discarding strict rules and formalities.

In the place of strict rules of conduct, however, other generalized rules are required.  Ideology aught to be avoided, as ideologies are Utopian and are thus unattainable.  Any discussion should centre around the real, physical world.  Disagreement should be encouraged as it leads to discussion, however, disagreement should not lead to personal attacks.

Socrates would wander around Athens asking questions of whoever he found.  He was an annoyance to the public who wanted nothing more than to be left alone and unthinking.  Thought is what humans are best at.  It is our responsibility to follow this path and revive the discussion of ideas in public.

We shall have a change over the coming white.  Trust me on this.  Of course, things are always changing and denial of this fact is absurd and foolish.  But I digress.

The point is that things change.  And to stay current we must change as well.  Which is the most important aspect of living in a democracy.

To clarify, if you find yourself disagreeing with something said, it does neither you nor the person advancing the opinion any good to just react.  Instead, you should reflect on the statement, determine what exactly you disagree with.  And then, most importantly, tell yourself why you disagree.  This means that you will be able to defend your position if you ever have need to do so, which is important to the functioning of Canadian democracy, and democracy everywhere.

This, of course, is a risky proposition.  What if you find that you have no reason why you disagree with a position? I would argue that you then owe it to yourself and the author to either discover a real why to your rejection.  Or, much more importantly, accept the argument into your grand narrative.  This later case is what you owe yourself if you find that you actually agree with the position, even if you initially thought otherwise.

We can all go through life rejecting and accepting things based solely on the source or the impression, but as citizens of a democratic nation we owe it to ourselves, the country, and most importantly the populous of this country, to be thinking beings who truly attempt to understand our wonderfully complex nation to the fullest extent we can.

There is, of course, a complicating factor.  That of theory and dogma.  What I mean by this is that we all have fundamental assumptions which are unquestionable to us.  Examples include thermodynamics to scientists, the divine origins of holy texts to the religious, or other axioms to other theories.  Science has shown that at some level you must take something as a given, and it is best to take the simplest and fewest things as given.  In science, this is not a trivial task but it is at least self regulated.  For our own personal world view, there can be no regulation except for our own world view, which is by definition biased.  For this reason it is highly important to examine your axioms from time to time to see if they are reasonable assumptions to make.

And the final word: what is appropriate today might not fit tomorrow.  As the world changes the organizations and organs of government which best serve the citizens change.  Do not let yourself be trapped in the assumption that what worked yesterday will work today or tomorrow.  If something is working, however, it could continue to work into the future.  Be logical.  Be rational.  Be good citizens.