Can Artwork Also Make Us Better?

Caravaggio's Saint Matthew and the Angel, and Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son are so boring! They were created hundreds of years ago by people that have little to do with me. Or so I thought. I can't say what has heightened my sensitivity to artwork, but these pieces contain something new and beautiful to me. They are pure, teaching lessons about my own mortal condition. Like Tolstoy's War and Peace, or Hugo's Les Miserable, they inform me about others, reminding me that they're in a similar state as myself. While I might blame other's mistakes as inherent flaws and see my own as consequence of conditions, the artwork reminds me of Jesus Christ, and how he would've patiently and encouragingly responded to other's shortcomings.

Caravaggio's Saint Matthew and the Angel

I turn to Andy Warhol's Campell Soup Can prints, and any one of Banksy's street art pieces. Very different sentiments are conjured up. They seem to trivialize the mortal condition, accusing the audience while simultaneously provoking resentment in others. It's paradoxical though. Banksy's pieces, to me, seem designed to bring out awareness, action, and social tolerance in societal ills, but they rile up sentiments in me that would have me accuse others, judging them. This is instead of instigating a change which would have me love the other, which would also contribute to my own peaceful approach with them.

Graffiti stained glass piece by Banksy

Warhol's works create a different effect in me. Rather than mocking society by seemingly addressing ills while actually perpetuating those ills, Warhol's play on consumerism notes mass manufacturing of goods, and equally massive consumption of those goods. That reaches into TV and film viewing, acquisition of material items, and worshipping of celebrities.  So while individuals are searching to stabilize and reinforce their world views, pop art is offering not so much a solution as a distraction from finding the things that will create peace and happiness in individual's lives.

They are fun pieces to check out though. They offer entrance to fascinating conversations, and allow an intriguing culture, but are distractions from truth individuals might desire to find. Art movements like these might be coupled with postmodern philosophy, finding "an inclination to hold that truth is relative or impossible to know (Matthew Frederick, 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School. 83)." I can't think of anything more destructive than philosophy like that! Not only does it move individuals away from personal developments, service in communities, and genuine relations with friends and families that create satisfaction and happiness, but it sees no reason to actually correct the social ills Banksy highlights. There is thus a perpetuation of contention and injustice.

The stained glass windows in King's College Chapel, Cambridge, were breathtakingly beautiful. But I thought the idea of artwork serving as instruction to believers looking up from below a little hokey. As I realize how powerful art can be as a reminder and instructor of divine ideals, my views have changed entirely. They are worthy and sacred places to stand and learn in, which halls of great art, like great literature, should be.

King's College Chapel, Cambridge

Is Socialism the Devil? (my 900th post!)

How can society possibly be out of control? Mankind is making profound technological advancements, finding cures for diseases and social ills, and devising programs that are yielding the healthiest, wealthiest, and most educated people in history. Despite this success, governments around the world are growing, the number of believers is dissipating, and political and economic instabilities are abounding.  In these times of excitement there are odd similarities to the past.

The Judeo-Christian tradition tells of an angel cast out of heaven for rebellion, Lucifer. According to the tradition, Lucifer desired to attain all of God's glory for himself. To do this he proposed coercing people traversing the mortal experience to make correct decisions regardless of their will. Righteousness would be compulsory, eliminating the individual's ability to choose obedience, to indulge in pleasures, but more importantly to develop attributes that would necessitate the experience. He was shutdown, and in anger led away many individuals to obstruct the plan God already created. His objective from then on was to hinder individuals in their mortal experiences from successfully completing their earthly tests.

Applying the Judeo-Christian framework to governments, some forms of government allow citizens to develop attributes, providing rights which grant individuals the liberty to worship however piously or indulge in pleasures. Other forms of government are tyrannical, or plot to make decisions for citizens. Some forms of government have twisted Christianity to create inequality that was never endorsed in Biblical teachings. They may not have sought to make decisions for populations, but disregarded them and their lifestyles.

The United States is the shining example of an egalitarian society, against this tyranny, recognizing the worth of constituents, and virtue of leading one's one life according to the dictates of personal beliefs and desires. But then something happened, the Bible became a book of literature, not a book of teachings, and people stopped reading it. Because they stopped reading it, a biblical scholar might say they are making the same mistakes biblical people made with governments. Instead of learning from it, it might be seen that today's people are subjects in a grand old testament-esque story. A biblical scholar would note out that predictions in the book actually go much farther than that, but for the sake of this piece, that'll suffice.

What might not be as obvious is that a government can act as a religion. Christians are looking for an anti-Christ, perhaps a religious figure that will present his or herself as a more viable savior than the Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Simultaneous catastrophic world events shaped perceptions many have of God, enticing them to believe he couldn't possibly exist, where is He? Famines, droughts, industrialization, economic stifling, political turmoil, and war led individuals to both believe they need government security, and that others could provide that service. Protection individuals allotted to faith upon God was slightly shifted to the tangible security of the state. While fighting to maintain constitutional rights, slow advancements in taxation and the welfare system became institutions with permanent protection, and individuals began to shift their world views to this system, validating the desire to tax the wealthy to even disparities with unindustrious, lazy, and vice-ridden populations. Instead of creating an institution facilitating the ability to worship or indulge in personal pleasures, the state now must thwart threats from those demanding liberty by invading their privacy, hindering this opposition, and increasing taxes. Taxes are redistributed to individuals whose world view has now shifted from religion to the state, and the state creates a large enough body of voters to gain the majority, solidify permanent changes to the state.  

This welfare system holds populations in a state of adolescence. The Scandinavian model shows that they disempower individuals, determine their decisions, and leave no reason for competition and the benefits that come from competition. A sexualized society remains, apt to choose pleasures, prefer leisure, and hold little regard for work except as a means to keep the system going through taxation. The government begins to tell individuals how they'll work, study, and live.

While unindustrious, lazy, and vice-ridden individuals will find socialism advantageous to perpetuate lifestyles, the rich and powerful will find it desirable because they can maximize influence and wealth received from populations. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, communist China and North Korea, and Scandinavia show that despite equalization of economic disparities, an aristocratic class remains. In other words a governing body remains that is above common people, who go uncontested by opposing parties in the institution of laws and policies, with a much higher standard of life than everyone else. Some seem to think it ends poverty, but it is the return of monarchism and serfs, subjection. There are no contrary examples. Classes always emerge in a free market republic, but individuals are not bound in castes, and have upward and also downward mobility, depending mostly on them. Clever and hardworking poor people can be wealthy, and rich unindustrious, vice-ridden people can fall to poverty.

When power is placed in the laps of individuals, they tend to abuse it, especially if that power was zealously sought. The president is in a sense a monarch, but one bound by checks and balances, and maximum term limits. His power is in place, and he doesn't get the opportunity to set himself up as an uncontested leader. But when competition is expunged from populations, as Soviet Russia, China and North Korea, and even Iran till late show, competition for political office and providing the best laws and policies also disappear. But that's not feasible in America, you might say. Take another look at where we're going and think again.

And so Christians have been looking for a religious figure as the anti-Christ, only to find that many Christians have already been lulled away by the ease, security, and accountability-less offering of the welfare system. They may not even recognize their religious views have shifted, and that their confirming ideology is now the political church. Perhaps they enter church doors on Easter, but it's been many years since the Bible was retrieved from the book shelf. It looks good there, a fine piece of literature to have handy, just in case. When elections come and issues go up for the vote, they are faithful to the ballot box where temporal necessities are counted, but not eternal ones. These are distractions that aid in switching a free and just society into one that resembles Lucifer's proposal, not the test-oriented purpose for which Christian churches teach.

And so as socialist policies are both demanded and implemented in the United States, is the continual elimination of the individual's ability to lead his or her own life a sign that America has heeded the anti-Christ, and chosen the devil?

What is the Meaning of Life?

Greek mythology made everything a mess for me. How exactly Zeus is different than God, I didn’t know as a fifth grader. The question irritated me because I couldn’t go ring either one of their doorbells to prove which one actually does exist. They live in the sky and they’re like me, except they hold special powers. Are they like Superman, flying through the air? Are they like Santa Clause, squeezing through chimneys, but to hear prayers and check up on us? God was such an abstract idea for me that he might as well have been the Easter Bunny, who is nonexistent on the planet until that one time of the year that he makes his glorious appearance, and then returns to nonexistence. Like many people throughout the world and throughout time, I asked the question, what is the purpose of life?

Religion is waning throughout the world, and many people are confronted with the existential question, if God doesn’t exist, what is the purpose of my life? Each finds a different response to the question. Some shed any purpose and engage in the pursuit of pleasure and ignorance, while others are consumed with the question and dedicate their lives to finding meaning through charitable acts and intellectual inquiry. Ultimately though, when religion wanes, governments grow. Instead of placing trust on principles of faith, they look to governments to provide a foundation of principle, hope, and expectations. The problem is that men are fallible, and when they hold power in their hands, tend to abuse it.

But even individuals engaging in indulgences return to the question, what is the significance of my life? Perhaps they get bored, maybe a life altering experience pushes their thoughts higher, but the satisfaction of personal desires becomes insufficient. Maybe they have to leave a mark on this world. They have to be remembered or prove they have lived. Such an idea can warp easily, interpreting any influence upon the world as positive influence. They might want to be rich, famous, or powerful, or be known for something out of the ordinary. But will this really be sufficient?

Quotes recently came through my Facebook feed, many of them by proclaimed non-believers of religion. They explained that life is a series of trials. The same trial presents itself until it is passed well, and then moved to another trial. How would such a quote make sense if men return to the soil of the earth?

To give a little context to this, Americans are sick of politics, stated a New York Times article. Scandals are rocking the current administration as gridlock freezes Congress. America’s trust in Washington’s politicians is ever diminishing, and previous efforts to look to the government as a replacement for shed religions seems foolish. More Americans are bringing up God again, showing political religion to be unsuitable for them. It seems political woes on top of personal woes are reiterating trials that have enough of a pattern to provoke response from these people. And so, like my Facebook friends, they ask, what is the purpose of life?

Religions teach good things, all of them. Not everything they teach is good, but they all contain some true ideas. Moral codes are a commonality amongst them, instructing constituents behaviors that allow societies to function without impending fear of anarchy. They create rewards and punishments that stabilize the rule of law, and provide reasonable expectations for interactions with others. The recurring trials expressed by Facebook friends suggest there is something to reach for and be perfected in. Taoism teaches The Way individuals align to bring stability and purpose to lives. Other religions have similar types of directions. But many of these paths have terrestrial purposes without any particular objective for overcoming trials. How disappointing it would be to work so hard acquiring attributes, serving others, and be met with a finite existence, or to have not satisfied the requirements of a true path that was not followed.

Suppose for a moment that there is purpose in these trials, and the personal development through them is the top priority of earthly existence. All of these difficulties overcome are contributing to an individual who is capable of a higher purpose after the completion of The Test. Some individuals will have failed the test miserably. But suppose they end up in a place that is far better than this world we live in. Does that seem unfair?

There is a place that yields a far superior landscape to that one, where good people breathe, laugh, and live. It wouldn’t be fair to say they were on the path though. Their lives were moral, they sought understanding and learning, but somehow they failed to align themselves with development that allows for the highest purpose in their earthly existence. They were given the opportunity, but didn’t take it. They will serve a purpose after their earthly departure, but it won’t be the high purpose it could’ve been.

Continue by supposing some did align with the path, and proved that they would be faithful to the principles they’ve grown to know. They showed that they are willing to sacrifice everything for that cause and set high principles above their own will. The path was rewarding while they were walking on earth’s soil, giving them a clear sense of duty and purpose. This gave temptations and sins, as they came to know them, no hold upon them. Suppose that purpose led them to glory and recognition that were absent as mortal beings. That glory gave them the authority to administer over those who failed to find the path, but due to subscription to the path, they administered effectively and with flawless judgment.

If this state does in fact exist, wouldn’t it be essential to know which path leads to this?

As I was coming out of high school I prayed and found assurance of the path I would follow thereafter. It is a path that sees purpose in life’s recurring trials both as an earthly being and as a test for something greater. This path doesn’t rely upon fallible men to make decisions for me. It doesn’t trivialize life as an experience to be lived up, but sees the meaning of life as reaching every single day for better relationships with friends, family, and communities. It demands I seek to help others to find the path, and to reach through every thought and deed to be a better person.

Unfortunately, many religions have looked down upon lifestyle choices individuals have made, shamed decisions, and allowed little substance of hope for them to grab firm. Maybe they’ve seen ecclesiastics behave improperly, or authority in family life was missing or involved in indecent actions. Simultaneous innovations in science and technology are allowing man to overcome life's woes and harness power never before seen. Rationality is not being taken for granted today. Amidst this confusion is it any wonder people's faith has diminished?

Despite this confusion, the purpose of life has not been satisfactorily offered to many people. Rationality and technology prove to not be entirely satisfying, and alternatives given don’t mend the emotional and spiritual wounds we all receive along the way. But developing a sincere relationship with our Heavenly Father does mend wounds, and proves enough. No matter where you are, you can still enter the path and find peace of mind and purpose in the life to come.

If this resonates with you, check out this website and leave me a comment below.

Response to "Does Great Literature Make Us Better?"

I read an NYT article that I've been teasing the past little while, "Does Great Literature Make Us Better?" The article discussed arguments for and against the question, but concluded with no certain answer. I played with the article in my mind, and put together the experiences I believe individuals have that will both allow them to gain from literature, and to remain untouched by powerful prose.

Novels tend to create a temporary primer of feeling that influence how I view things around me. Have you ever watched a movie and wanted to be the millionaire hotshot gunslinger who gets the babe in the end? I've noticed myself entertaining thoughts like that walking out of movie theaters. Literature for me has the power of deep reflection, of fun and frolic, and also sensuality, just like movies. Almost never are they life-altering, but for a little while I'm moved in some way.

But I think literature can have a much more profound effect.

Though I hold my own views, poems by Walt Whitman have an empowering effect upon me that seemed to minimize my appreciation for God's work, and I feel justified in crediting myself instead. This is conflicting with my ideology, and if I were unobservant I might begin to incorporate Walt Whitman into my overall ideology, or any other of the myriad of writers peddling ideas. Some might like to say that religion modifies easily to new leaders, situations, and with the passage of time, but that can be an explanation for the additions individuals have brought from the outside that are influences from other sources. The author of the article says that, "everything we know about our understanding of ourselves suggests that we are not very good at knowing how we got to be the kind of people we are." What sources have influenced our founding ideologies aren't entirely apparent to us then, and it's possible our views are fundamentally different from the institutions we associate with, or with politics we endorse. 

Literature seems to me most poignant when it reinforces ideology. I'm a Christian, and when I read canonical works I feel I pick up new practical things as I understand stories that have been enigmatic to me, or that I've seen in a different light. Stories reinforce each other, and give me the feeling that they're right. I've had similar experiences reading Confucianist, Buddhist, and Shinto writings, feeling the substance behind the words is good, and combines well with my ideology. Western literature has also had similar effects upon me. Les Miserable was a vehicle for me to understand and have working examples of canonical teachings like love, hope, sacrifice, and redemption. Putting down the book after reading sections gave me more resolution to live my faith better. Many of these books have accurate depictions of the nature of men, and regularly demonstrate man's capacity to change too. The writer says that, "We regularly attribute our own failures to circumstance and the failures of others to bad character," but great literature I've read has given men the benefit of the doubt, and explains away misunderstandings.

I think literature can be useless when the individual is not prepared to learn things about his or herself. Classical music for me--actual music from the classical era--has a profound impact on me. I wrote the following a little while ago which captures differences from pop music:

Pop music doesn't get me any closer to uncovering truths about myself. Classical music on the other hand is introspective and bridges life's complexities. But those complexities are non-existent in pop music. The music provides scenarios, and the listener measures up. Classical music on the other hand provides the vessel that floats listener's thought processes. But while classical music instigates self-awareness, pop music tries for conformity. Visual fashion and codified appetites follow pop music, but the listener of classical music may replace those with passion and direction. 

The places that many individuals live, the constant activity of city life, and music, TV, film, and literature that are persuading audiences to conform to products to sell those products, inhibit people from making self-discoveries. Two people can check out War and Peace at a library and have entirely different experiences. For one reader it may be a window into the workings of men, it can give him hope and advice. It can be a spiritual experience. The other might be bothered with boredom, or take to the novel in a critical or analytical way that minimizes the learning experience, noting instead its technical qualities.

Literature, like other art forms, I believe, can demand conformity from individuals, and instead of teaching self-awareness teaches current behaviors to be included in a group and be involved in discussions where invested people gain monetarily. While this has little to do with great literature, bad literature that is esteemed by some to be great literature can actually be robbing readers of the powerful experience that instigates self and societal awareness, and spiritual as well as emotional response. In my opinion, the writer was spot on with his analyses, and my suppositions here offer an explanation for why that can be.

The Virtues and Vices of the Individual in Politics

How people internalize events happening in their lives, and events with broader social, political, and economic consequences has been of interest to me. "My grandmother sees political events from a personal point of view," said my former professor of international politics at BYU, Jeffrey Ringer. He explained that there are different levels of analysis that political scientists take, some of which are foreign ways of thinking for many people unfamiliar with this type of analytical work.

Great leaders have the ability to internalize current events in an individual level which identifies fears and how individuals who receive their message will most satisfactorily respond to messages. Indecent leaders can manipulate audiences by deceptively appealing in the same way. There is psychology involved at this level as it is the most common level employed, and is mainly based upon stability of the individual's world view.

Another level is the domestic level, which is the next common. This level utilizes public opinion, political parties and elections, as well as gender issues. The interstate level considers the acquisition and balance of power, trade agreements, diplomacy, and wars. The most abstract level, after the interstate level, is the global level. This level considers world regions, imperialism, the world environment, and terrorism. It is the antithesis of the individual level as the individual level will examine how policies affect the individual and their standard of living, while the global level is inconsiderate of any particular individual but the influence of key players on masses of individuals.

I'm most interested with the individual level in this post, for while individual's perspectives are the fabric of a thriving civilization, it seems to equally be the vision of vice and societal corruption. Salacious urges manifest themselves when, as Walt Whitman unleashed Freud's id, said: "There is no God any more divine than Yourself (Leaves of Grass)." When the individual can justify actions according to personal criteria rather than a moral code, there's nothing to stop that devil from justifying just about any impulse beckoning. "Only the primitive savage," wrote conservative intellectual, Russell Kirk, "manages to get along, after a fashion, in a 'practical' way, without much reference to moral or intellectual concepts (The American Cause, 10)."

My aim here is to bring out the material I've found on the virtue, or lack of it, of the individual level. While Adam Smith said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations)," there is nothing inherently devious in the employment of self-interests, but the content of some of those interests. Democracy works when individuals are free to govern their lives according to their will and desire, but only when doing so does not infringe on the liberty of others. Dependency, entitlement, and vice from any individual's level, not just key players, has a crippling effect upon society, limiting other's freedom in the pursuit of happiness. Almost as bad is neglect of one's democratic responsibility in electing honest and capable leaders and voting for fair and equal legislation. Adam Smith could be wrong. When it comes to political promises of entitlement and dependency, the corrupted body will choose what's in their self-interest which is also economically and politically harmful to society.

Amazingly, insights from 17th century Buddhist monk, Yamamoto Tsunetomo, are as poignant characterizing human tendencies today as when he wrote them: 

You'd suppose everyone could think of profound things if they thought deeply, but they think based on themselves, so it's all stuff that turns bad by the action of perverted intelligence. The conditioning of ignorant people is such that it's hard to become unselfish (Training the Samurai Mind, 110).

Tsunemoto's critique is basically accounted for by Adam Smith's analyses of functioning self-interest. The departure I see today is not necessarily the existence of amorality, but when perverted intelligence accompanying the individual's urge to rectify godlessness leads them on a path that encourages paternal figures who propose limiting amendments to liberty, cradling the ideological replacement from theistic religion to political religion. It is there that a division in civilization occurs, mainly along theistic/atheistic lines, in which a large portion of the population holds conservative views, and the other subscribes to politicians and legislation limiting liberty for both views.  It thrives with the individual level, where spiritual ailment is addressed through broad legislature, encompassing all the selfish and immoral desires included.

The freethinker of Leo Tolstoy's following quote disappears when individuals become entitled, dependent, and are riddled with vice. They shift to become defenders of those things and vilify individuals who threaten access to addictions. Tolstoy said:

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for the right thinking; where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless.

Atheists tend to use this quote to validate their stance amidst overpowering theistic influence. But Leo Tolstoy was not atheistic, and results indicate views constrict with the loss of religion, and legislation of dependency, entitlement, and vice. In order for a society to be free, not only leaders and lawmakers need to be honest, moral people, but also the body of people whose individual level vision shapes who goes into office, what they’re allowed to do in office.   

Why Non-Competitive Markets Suck - Russell Kirk & Karl Marx

I certainly can't do any justice to Russell Kirk's, The American Cause, by trying to add, interpret, or expound upon things he's written. He nailed it. But the book was designed for that purpose, so it seems I'd actually fulfill his purpose rather than detract from his brilliance by writing about it.

Lots of things have changed in the country since the book's publication, perhaps his praise for America today would be less emphatic, but Kirk's analysis of the exertion necessary to turn the country socialist rings true. His assessment of the characters of socialist and free-market democracy governments are intriguing, capturing the personalities and implications of players involved, who's affected, and how they combine with human reaction in both cases. What I was interested in was how changes to collectivist government, or socialist and subsequently communist governments, are internalized within larger bodies of people, the mass. That is what I'll write about here. I'll begin quoting Kirk, saying:

What really creates discontent in the modern age, as in all ages, is confusion and uncertainty. People turn to radical doctrines not necessarily when they are poor, but when they are emotionally and intellectually distraught (119).

That helps me to grasp the personal enigma I've observed why educated people I know would subscribe to foolish ideologies that are perilous at every turn. He continues:

When faith in their world is shaken; when old rulers and old forms of government disappear; when profound economic changes alter their modes of livelihood; when the expectation of private and public change becomes greater than the expectation of private and public continuity; when even the family seems imperiled; when people can no longer live as their ancestors lived before them, but wander bewildered in new ways--then the radical agitator, of one persuasion or another, has a fertile field to cultivate (120).

Faith in the world has undoubtedly been shaken by the economic woes of the Great Recession, by rapid urbanization, by a broad decline in religion, and by political scandals and turmoil. It has been enough to ignore these things and focus on internal issues like social equality where investment in personal and influenceable issues is possible and not out of a given person's hands. Kirk quoted J.M. Reid, a Scot, who described inclusive European sentiment about 1950s Americans, "you still feel, as we once did, that the individual should be able to do something effective about things that trouble him, whereas most of us [Europeans] have come to think that what is wrong with our world is beyond our control (140)." Kirk completes the idea writing:

When people have lost their accustomed beliefs and their established ways of life--whether they are rich or poor--they tend to seek political religion, some fanaticism which promises them peace of body and mind. Knowing this ancient weakness in human nature, revolutionaries of the twentieth century have been able to make themselves attractive to many in the developing world. They have flourished by the indecision and groping discontent of the majority of the people (121).

But we're not in the developing world, only reacting and making decisions like it. Despite no political record, being a junior in the Senate, and having preexisting associations to radical individuals and groups, Americans voted in Barack Obama on the slogan, Change. What's more, they bought into the political ideology he's presenting to pacify body and mind. Kirk's vision has been useful understanding what happened here, that family, faith, and expectations are shattered in confusion, and indecision has seemed to grope the discontent of the majority of the country. But, "Philosophically and historically speaking," wrote Kirk, "the ideological Utopian is mad (122)," and Americans are buying into this madness.

An easy indication of socialist leaning was Obama's, "you didn't build that" indoctrination attempt. That flies in the face of Kirk's suggestion to "humanize mass-production, and to restore craftsmanship and personal accomplishment to work (117)." Interchanging socialism and communism on a gradient, the Communistic state needs individuals to recognize that they have no authority for such credit. "Such a system keeps men and women in perpetual childhood, their wants provided by the central authority, and their choices, in proportion, made for them by central authority (102)." As much as socialists promise care-free living, that's not what happens. "It is the lack of competition that makes a society ruthless," wrote Kirk, "because in a competitive economy people work voluntarily for decent rewards, while in a non-competitive economy a few harsh masters employ the stick to get the work done (100-101)."

Recent discussions call for unequal taxation between the rich and the poor, the rich bearing a heavier load. "Even Karl Marx," wrote Kirk, "knew that Communism must treat unfairly--in any established meaning of the word "fairness"--the abler and more talented (104)." He continues:

"In order to establish equality," Marx wrote in Das Kapital, "we must first establish inequality." By this he meant that the Communistic state will take away from the strong, the clever, the thrifty, the ingenious, the dependable--from all the people who have unusual abilities and savings--and would give their property and the product of their energies to the weak, the dull, the improvident, the routine-minded, the slack (105).

But there's a reason why the Communistic state would do this. The revolutionaries "are not really concerned with improving the state of existing society, or with lessening the confusion and disorder which form the recruiting area for them...they know quite well that they will not be humane or equalitarian or even sufficient (125)." Power, he says, is what they want.

As is evident in American politics today, "the answer seems to be that the revolutionary movement is greatly assisted by popular ignorance and popular envy (126)." I wish every American would read The American Cause to educate themselves again, or even for the first time, on what has made the United States a unique, and extraordinarily tolerant place. A short blog post can only highlight a couple of areas Kirk delves into, but the book wastes no time with pleasantries or crafty writing. My objective using his words is then to convince the reader to pick up the book, whether for genuine study or refutation. Concluding:

"to consider whether Marx was 'right' or 'wrong'; to dredge Volumes I and II of Das Capital for inconsistencies or logical flaws, to 'refute' the Marxian system," Professor Alexander Gray writes, "is, in the last resort, sheer waste of time; for when we consort with Marx we are no longer in the world of reason or logic"...for "true Marxism" never can be attained so long as human beings remain human (93).

I can imagine that some reading this are thinking, who mentioned Marxism today? Nobody did, and that's the problem.

A Case for Musical Tastes

Pop music doesn't get me any closer to uncovering truths about myself. Classical music on the other hand is introspective and bridges life's complexities. But those complexities are non-existent in pop music. The music provides scenarios, and the listener measures up. Classical music on the other hand provides the vessel that floats listener's thought processes. But while classical music instigates self-awareness, pop music tries for conformity. Visual fashion and codified appetites follow pop music, but the listener of classical music may replace those with passion and direction. The classical listener just might appreciate the hard work put into democracy, while sensitivity to woes will probably characterize the pop listener. The pop listener is more likely then to defer to government for personal stability, while the classical enthusiast is equipped to buckle down.

The Political Ideologue - Russell Kirk and Gleaves Whitney

Over the past couple of years I've kind of taken a blind stab trying to explain something I've observed. The idea is that secularism or the welfare state provide the substance to replace fundamental world views that would otherwise be the jurisdiction of religion. Though blind, nothing seemed to adequately reject its premise, and small bits here and there alluded to an understanding of this. Russell Kirk, one of the architects of the postwar conservative intellectual movement explained in his 1956 work, The American Cause the bearing religion has upon a civilization. He says:

Civilization grows out of religion: the morals, the politics, the economics, the literature, and the arts of any people all have a religious origin (18).

Communism's labor was to replace religion on every one of those aspects, and provide the substance that allows the load-bearing weight of individual's aspirations, fears, and anxieties to shift to communism's dependency. Kirk explains the tactics for implementation, saying:

...communism was really a caricature of Christianity, borrowing certain of its moral affirmations, imitating its dogmas, and even appropriating some of its phrases. This made communism all the more dangerous: for the superficial similarities between Christian morality and pretended Soviet morality sometimes deluded Americans and people in other free states into thinking that communism had high moral aspirations (ibid.).

But that just wasn't true. It was designed to transition between ideologies, and offered only superficial satisfaction. Gleaves Whitney, senior fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, wrote a compelling intro to the 2002 reissue of the work utilizing some of my other interests like interventionism and transforming human nature, while at the same time elaborating on political ideology. He wrote:

What threatened the American mission, according to Kirk?

The ideologue. Kirk defined the ideologue as one who "thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature." Unleashed during the most radical phase of the French Revolution, the spirit of ideology has metastasized over the past two centuries, wreaking horrors. Jacobinism, Anarchism, Marxism, Leninism, Fascism, Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism--all shared the fatal attraction to "political messianism"; all were "inverted religions." Each of these ideologies preached a dogmatic approach to politics, economics, and culture. Each in its own way endeavored "to substitute secular goals and doctrines for religious goals and doctrines." Thus did the ideologue promise "salvation in this world, hotly declaring that there exists no other realm of being (xvii)."

I found this passage from Kirk particularly useful in understanding American habits today, 60 years after its publication:

When, in the Second World War, our troops landed in North Africa, the French were astonished at how politically naive American soldiers seemed. For most Frenchmen are passionately interested in political notions; while most Americans--like most English people--are not. This lack of interest in abstract politics is not always a harmful thing. One reason that the Americans, like the English, do not spend much time arguing over politics is that for a great while nearly all of us have been contented with our society and our forms of government. We have not been revolutionaries since 1776 because we have felt that we have enjoyed as good a society as any people reasonably can hope for.

When this political naivety is combined with impending threats from what Kirk termed, "anti-American ideologues", it would make sense why many Americans are not equipped for the discussion, and end up compromising the principles that are actually fundamental to their political views. I found this statement particularly poignant:

When revolutionaries willing to lay down their life for their movement have more faith in their ideology than we have in our ancient principles, and when anti-American ideologues on college campuses can bewilder even American university students by their arguments, then our American cause is in peril.

I've formed the new opinion reading Kirk's and Whitney's words and looking around at the world, that difficulties implementing democracy abroad are a compelling sign of its virtue. Democracy effectively functioning limits any particular person or party's ability to acquire tyrannical authority. Who would want to relinquish their power? It seems as difficult to hold on to also. Democracy will always be the most difficult form of government to implement and maintain, and that's because it requires a moral code surviving ideologues. 

Music and Eames Chairs

My wife and I have been listening to Classical 89 a bit more lately. There's no particular reason for it, but we chatted today about how it affects us differently than the other music we'd otherwise listen to. The music, we decided, provokes a different response from us. Pop will try to captivate us with an ensuing head bob or hip shake. The music will retrieve your attention when tempted to contemplate or reflect. Classical music, as Lindsay explained to me, is always background music. It is background music to thoughts that I have, and it merely adds a thread of sentiment and allows me to fill in the rest with my past, present, and future.

Not to put down Alain de Botton in the slightest, but his work, The Architecture of Happiness, showed me that it is alright to re-articulate things like this that are by no means original thoughts, but which contributed to my broader understanding. Really, he showed me that it's alright to discover for myself things that are already known, to continue to think for myself. It's not a curse, was my conclusion. I intend that as a compliment to his work.

On a separate occasion, I went to a friend's house and discovered that he'd purchased four Eames chairs. It was the first time I'd been there, and as I entered his craftsman style home I noted tudor panels inside his living room. He thought that tearing them out would lighten the interior, but I thought it added an interesting feel with other furniture in the room. He flavored the walls with colorful artwork, utilizing neon colors carefully. A rough paneled table with a brass pipe frame surrounded the Eames chairs. The Eames chairs were kind of a khaki color, working well in the space, but still standing out to me as impressive objects. It wasn't the normal interior I'd regularly find in Provo, but one connected with larger architectural and design concepts. A line in The Architecture of Happiness rang true with my observations:

Chair designed by Charles and Ray Eames

Unfortunately, the self we miss at such moments, the elusively authentic, creative and spontaneous side of our character, is not ours to summon at will. Our access to it is, to a humbling extent, determined by the places we happen to be in, by the colour of the bricks, the height of the ceilings and the layout of the streets. 

Solitude: Alain de Botton & Octavio Paz

I found a book at the bookstore that really intrigued me, The Architecture of Happiness, by Alain de Botton. He wrote how architectural spaces can allow personal reflection. "We might...need to be a little sad before buildings can properly touch us (25)," he wrote. This quote hits upon an idea I've been trying to articulate for a while. Octavio Paz's, The Labyrinth of Solitude, tipped me off to the idea that spaces can be places of solitude, where individuals retreat to understand themselves, and to form concepts of self.

Paz wrote that:

...solitude is a distinctive characteristic of adolescence. Narcissus, the solitary, is the very image of the adolescent. It is during this period that we become aware of our singularity for the first time. 

He further contextualizes men and women of the city, writing:

In an epoch of group work, group songs, group pleasures, man is more alone than ever. Modern man never surrenders himself to what he is doing. A part of him--the profoundest part--always remains detached and alert. Man spies on himself. Work, the only modern god, is no longer creative. It is endless, infinite work, corresponding to the inconclusive life of modern society. And the solitude it engenders--the random solitude of hotels, offices, shops and movies theaters--is not a test that strengthens the soul, a necessary purgatory. It is utter damnation, mirroring a world without exit.

Octavio Paz

Solitude, as Paz explains it in the modern context, is not a retreat to self to allow articulation of desires, longings, fears, stresses, etc., but a permanent way of life. The individual in this situation doesn't look forward to solidarity with others through activities but develops coping mechanisms to survive this lifestyle.

Botton harmonizes on this point, and develops it saying:

We may need to have made an indelible mark on our lives, to have married the wrong person, pursued an unfulfilling career into middle age or lost a loved one before architecture can begin to have any perceptible impact on us, for when we speak of being 'moved' by a building, we allude to a bitter-sweet feeling of contrast between the noble qualities written into a structure and the sadder wider reality within which we know them to exist (22).

Under the modern sense of space, the implication is that solitude with the outcome of  self-awareness is deferred to later ages, when it serves as a test that strengthens the soul, as Paz noted. That self-awareness occurs after indelible marks have influenced lives, and perhaps perception of, what would it have been like had I known this about myself.