ShrinkWrapped

Solipsism and the Apocalypse

It is a truism that human beings are fascinated by the Apocalyptic.  Since the dawning of civilization, myths and legends of Apocalyptic times past and future have been a regular element of human discourse.  Legends of a great flood are common across cultural mythologies.  Wishes for the transformation of an Apocalypse are incorporated in major religions. 

Apocalyptic fantasies serve many purposes, not least of which, is as a defensive screen behind which genuine dangers can be hidden and ignored.  Apocalyptic fantasies tend to germinate and grow when the fertile soil of deprivation and failure or personal solipsistic emptiness occur.

We are all, by this time, all too unhappily familiar with the Apocalyptic fantasies of the Islamists.  Whether it is the Sunnis who believe that they can destroy us and bring about a Utopian Caliphate (and have no compunction about murdering millions of their own along the way) or the more direct Apocalyptic desires of the Shia, who believe that by facilitating the Apocalypse they will hasten the return of the 12^thImam, the belief in and desire for end times as a way to escape the stultifying failure of their present is overt.

The Apocalyptic fantasy structure for the civilized Western solipsist requires more examination. 

Note that I am not discussing the Western fundamentalist Christian who believes that the second coming will be ushered in by the Apocalypse.  Despite the plethora of inane stories in the MSM reporting on the habits and thinking of the exotic homo religioso, there is little evidence that fundamentalist Christians seek to behave in ways as to provoke the Apocalypse. 

In a beautifully elegant and pun-ishing post, Gagdad Bob discusses the terrible damage that the PoMo Deconstructionists have done to reality:

I'm simplifying here in order to be abusive, but those naughty French folks responsible for deconstruction turned reality upside down by suggesting that the signifier did not point to any objective reality, -- any ontologically real signified -- but instead creates the signified. This obviously blows a huge crater in the middle of reality. However, as a consolation, it means that The Tenured™ get to usurp unprecedented power, since they are the ones who now interpret reality with their endless verbal games of deconstruction.

Here again, this is one of the master keys to understanding the postmodern left. In order for leftism to be effective, it must first dissolve the sacred covenant between word and thing -- which is where truth resides -- and replace that bond with mere power.

Dr. Sanity takes his points, discusses the connection between Metaphysics and Epistemology, and amplifies in an important way:

For those of you who think all this philosophy business is too abstract and irrelevant to your life; you are very very wrong. Catastrophically wrong.

These ideas have everything to do with your life and how you live it. They are also the crux of why the world we live in seems to be more and more incomprehensible and insane. When you start off with the belief that reality doesn't exist outside your own head, [Emphasis mine-SW] then, it is just a very short--and minor--leap to accepting that words don't matter and can change meaning; or that it doesn't matter how you behave; that everything is relative anyway, including truth and morality.

This is the core of solipsism, the belief that the world exists only in your own head.  It leads to an empty existence, devoid of any true connection to another person, a gateway to the sociopathic and malignantly narcissistic belief (and assumption) that the Other has no independent value except insofar as they affect the solipsist.  Solipsism as an adolescent or college sophomoric affectation is harmless (except to the solipsist) but the psychological analogue of solipsism, narcissism, is the prevalent psychopathology of our time, and here is where the Apocalyptic predisposition arises.

For the Narcissist, or the Solipsist, since the Universe revolves around them, the Universe effectively ends with their death.  Thus, every potential personal threat becomes an Apocalyptic threat.  (Note well how our nation of Narcissists react to the danger of Swine Flu, which has so far not been shown to be any worse than any other garden variety Flu, but has consumed the more excitable.)

In April, 2000 Bill Joy discussed the near future threats that could occur from our technology.  (Why the future doesn't need us)  By extension, he suggested that empowered individuals (and small groups) could use or misuse certain technologies to pose an actual threat of extinction to the human race (and indeed to the entire biosphere.)

We have done little to address these threats and almost nothing to address a number of other near term threats.

More to follow.

Computer Issues Resolving

Post to follow.

Computer Issues...

are interfering with blogging today.

Time Pressures

It is always unfortunate when work interferes with blogging...

A Member of the Tribe

I remain agnostic about Barack Obama.  I do not think I know enough about him and how he thinks to get an accurate reading of his character.  People who have a great deal more certainty than I do have variously proclaimed him to be the embodiment of an idealistic liberal, a quasi (or actual) socialist, a Chicago pol complete with petite and grand corruption, and a spineless facade for powerful and often nefarious interests.  I am determinedly omitting the most extreme possibilities, that he is the "light bringer" who will stop the seas from rising or a Manchurian candidate dedicated to the destruction of America. 

I often wonder if, in four years, I will be any closer to a decent reading of Barack Obama.  Until now he has shown himself to be an ambitious President whose wishes and rhetoric border on the grandiose, with little evident awareness of the complexity of many of the problems he hopes to tackle and with little apparent ability or desire to confront the most aggressive among his friends or enemies. 

Yesterday , EJ Dionne offered a very supportive, bordering on hagiographic, depiction of Barack Obama and his Presidency in its early days:

EJ Dionne Ironies of 'a Devout Non-Ideologue'

But the most intriguing aspect of Obama's presidency so far may be the way in which he combines intelligence and intellect. The two are quite different, as Richard Hofstadter noted more than four decades ago in his instructive book, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life."

Intelligence, Hofstadter argued, is an "unfailingly practical quality" that "works within the framework of limited but clearly stated goals." Intellect, on the other hand, is the mind's "creative and contemplative side" that "examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, imagines."

For Obama's base of progressive and liberal supporters, it is his intellectual side that draws such fierce loyalty and admiration, while his conservative foes mistrust the very part of him that imagines and dreams -- because they do not share his dreams.

But Obama's continued high standing in the polls rests on the great middle of the electorate that doesn't care if he's intellectual as long as he is smart enough to fix things. Obama and his aides know this, which is why our intellectually inclined president will continue to sow mystery by casting himself as a mechanic, a problem-solver and "a devout non-ideologue."

Jenifer Rubin disputes Dionne's characterization by pointing out that Barack Obama has been, thus far, a rather doctrinaire, neo-liberal (as opposed to a classical liberal):

Good Intentions

Sometimes unintended consequences are so obvious that it is a wonder how so many people can convince themselves that such consequences are a surprise.  Nassim Taleb became famous for positing that "black swan" events could destabilize complex systems, yet so many "black swans" are actually white swans.  For example, the idea that we could offer mortgages to people who would never be able to afford them and then hide the risk via derivatives, should have never made sense to the people who were involved in setting up the scheme, yet because small portions of the structure seemed workable (and made many people a lot of money) the overall in-viability of the system was ignored. 

While the future is never predictable, certain unintended consequences are so likely as to be assured.  There are a number of areas of concern where we are assured that novel approaches designed to solve very complex and difficult problems will bring us prosperity, more security, and greater fairness.

In The New York Times, an ongoing problem that will be markedly exacerbated by attempts to provide Universal Health Care (Insurance*) has been noted:

Shortage of Doctors Proves Obstacle to Obama Goals

Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.

The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.

One proposal — to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists — has touched off a lobbying fight.  [Specilaists, as well as Primary Care Providers, are already dropping out of Medicare because the compensaiont does not allow for a Doctor to run his or her practice at a profit; shifting around the payments and expecting Generalists to provide specialized care will cause all sorts of problems and will not solve the basic problem, which is too little compensation for the job.-SW]

Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors — a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.

Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Obama’s goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.

The need for more doctors comes up at almost every Congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. “We’re not producing enough primary care physicians,” Mr. Obama said at one forum. “The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they’ve got to specialize.” New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.

Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health care professionals is already having serious consequences. “We don’t have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty,” said Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.

If we decrease the cost of a service, in this case Medical care, the utilization will increase.  If we don't pay Doctors enough to make it worth the time, money, and effort involved in becoming a Doctor, we will have less Doctors.  This is not rocket science, but simple supply and demand.  For what its worth, we already have Universal Health Care; we do not yet have Universal Health Care Insurance.  If we decide that we can not accept rationing health care partially by cost and partially by patient responsibility, then we will have to limit the health care to everyone in order to keep the costs manageable.  Everyone, except members of Congress and those lucky enough to share their insurance policies, will notice the rationing in short order; even the Congress will find their health care rationed, but since it will primarily consist of opportunity costs, it will be easily hidden and deniable.  Medical rationing as a consequence of Universal Health Care (Insurance) is an inevitability; when people begin to die for lack of MRI scanners (cf N. Richardson) it will be depicted as an unexpected surprise; in fact it will be the whitest of white swans.

Consider an even more egregious example of good intentions leading to pain and suffering:

Zero Risk Tolerance, Panic, and Terror

Fabius Maximus considers a recent on line interchange devoted to the question of America's tendency toward panic in the face of threats and terror: 

Are Americans easily panicked cowards? I think not, but many experts disagree.

This question was raised during a few rounds of cyber tennis between two experts on 4th generation warfare, Chet Richards and John Robb — posting at their websites Defense and the National Interest and Global Guerrillas.  This being an open game in which any number can play, this post discusses one aspect of their debate. 

Since any number can play, I thought I would join in since the question begs for a Psychological approach.  First, to summarize, John Robb is the proponent of the theory that small group terror will ultimately destabilize large and slow bureaucracies.  The initiative is with the terrorists and our ponderous responses almost guarantee that terrorists will be able to destabilize states as time goes on.  Implicit in this is an echo of Bill Joy's seminal discussion of the increasing lethality of modern technology that empowers the individual.  This would be the inverse of Glenn Reynold's Army of Davids; perhaps we can think of it as an Army of Psychopaths.   Chet Richards, on the other hand, believes that our panicked response to 9/11 provided the leverage for the terrorists and that our out-sized fear of a relatively minor threat is distorting and damaging our polity.

Fabius Maximus concludes:

9-11 was one of the most effective single military operation in the history of the world, esp on a cost-benefit basis (for more see this post).  But we are far more prepared today for any attack.  Not just have vast sums been spent on intelligence and domestic preparation (facilities, equipment) — right down to the local first responders — but equally important is the training and practice exercises. 

Planning a successful attack without detection is more difficult.  Executing it without interception is more difficult.  Our response — both first and second responders plus regular citizens — will be better.

But that is the least important aspect.  More important is the cause of 9-11’s effectiveness.  It was the government that panicked.  [Emphasis mine-SW]  Perhaps as a matter of policy, to build public support to invade the Middle East, expand spending on defense and national security, and in general increase government powers.  Or perhaps it was real panic.  Or perhaps this is yet another example of America’s broken observation-orientation-decision-action loop (OODA loop; at the end are links for more about this).

Whatever the reason, I do not believe that the US public panicked then — or will panic in the event of another attack.  The basis for this reasoning is IMO flawed.  More importantly, the national security apparatus (including non-government experts who thrive with the Long War) believes it to be so because it is in their interest to do so.

Let’s hope I am correct.  If Robb is right — that Americans are easily panicked cowards – we are finished.  It’s just a matter of time until we crash, and rightly so.

I agree, in part, with his conclusions.  I do not think the American people panicked post-9/11.  I think parts of our government performed poorly in the aftermath of 9/11, though I do not count the war in Afghanistan or the follow-up in Iraq as caused by a panicky over-reaction to 9/11.  While it is possible to disagree with the actions of the Bush administration in this regard, they were clearly acting in accordance with their strategic understanding of the situation in the Middle East.  That the execution and long term follow through were problematic should not cloud us to the fact that the policy was supported by most of the country.  If there was any post-9/11 panic, it was in the rush to form new layers of bureaucracy in our government, in the intelligence arena, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and most egregiously the creation of a large bureaucracy devoted to harassing Airline patrons in the interest of a politically correct, relatively mindless, appearance of risk mitigation.  However, panic only partly explains this.

Moral Preening and the Torture Memos

The MSM and left wing Democrats are engaged in a feeding frenzy with the release of the "torture memos."  We have been here before.  In 1975, in the wake of Watergate, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee to investigate CIA and FBI abuses during the Nixon administration:

By the early years of the 1970s, the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and the unfolding Watergate scandal brought the era of minimal oversight to an abrupt halt. Congress was determined to rein in the Nixon administration and to ascertain the extent to which the nation's intelligence agencies had been involved in questionable, if not outright illegal, activities.

A series of troubling revelations started to appear in the press concerning intelligence activities. First came the revelations of Christopher Pyle in January 1970 of the U.S. Army's spying on the civilian population^[1][2] and Sam Ervin's Senate investigations that resulted. The dam broke on 22 December 1974, when The New York Times published a lengthy article by Seymour Hersh detailing operations engaged in by the CIA over the years that had been dubbed the "family jewels". Covert action programs involving assassination attempts against foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens.^[3]

These revelations convinced many Senators and Representatives that the Congress itself had been too lax, trusting, and naive in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.

In 1975 and 1976, the Church Committee published fourteen reports on the formation of U.S. intelligence agencies, their operations, and the alleged abuses of law and of power that they had committed, together with recommendations for reform, some of which were put in place.

Among the matters investigated were attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Diem brothers of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of Chile and President John F. Kennedy's plan to use the Mafia to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Under recommendations and pressure by this committee, President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905 (ultimately replaced in 1981 by President Reagan's Executive Order 12333) to ban U.S. sanctioned assassinations of foreign leaders.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with the stance that the Church Committee took, there is little question that the hearings and eventual legislation crippled the CIA's ability to do its ob.  They were no longer able to recruit morally questionable agents or to use morally questionable methods.  The separation between the CIA and FBI was made more airtight, and further tightened in the 1990s under the Clinton administration, largely through the efforts of Jamie Gorelick (who later on helped the bureaucratic CYA meetings post-9/11 and then made millions of dollars at Fannie Mae.) 

A line of dots can thus be connected from the Church Committee to 9/11. 

Talking About Race

There are a few simple rules one must follow when talking about race.  One must carefully adhere to the position that any inequality between Whites and Asians in which Hispanics and Blacks et al fare poorly must be explained as caused by racism or the legacy of racism while any inequality that favors Blacks and Hispanics must be studiously ignored.  Without considering whether the disparity is caused by Nature (genetics, constitution) or Nurture (parenting, community standards, culture) it is clear, but dangerous to one's career for a White person to point out, that Blacks tend to be better athletes than Whites.  (It is unexceptional for Charles Barkley to quip that "white men can't jump" but for a White commentator to make a similar point is to risk social opprobrium or worse.) 

There is a high cost associated with our inability to speak honestly about race.  Several recent examples come to mind.

Part of the reason for the financial collapse and our current recession is that people were given mortgages for over-priced properties that they had no real hope of ever being able to support.  A majority of such mortgages were in four "sand states" (Florida, Arizona, Nevada, California.)  As Steve Sailor has pointed out, there is something besides sand which these states have in common:

... the bubble was worse in Florida and California than in Georgia and Indiana. In the sand states in the fall of 2006, there were still Greater Fools around who believed that Hispanicization meant an unending increase in home values. The idea never gets fully articulated -- are home prices high because Hispanics can pay high prices? Or are home prices high because non-Hispanics are desperately paying high home prices to get their kids away from public schools full of Hispanics? When you spell out the logical alternatives, neither one sounds terribly sustainable, but the point is that political correctness keeps people from thinking it through. Young Wall Streeters just all emotionally believed Diversity = Goodness = Money.

It's one of those ideas -- that a constant influx of Hispanics meant ever growing property values -- that people get in their heads vaguely, but aren't allowed to interrogate under our reigning worldview and our reigning EEOC regulations, under which Malcolm Gladwell makes a fortune and Charles Murray makes nothing lecturing corporations.

For those with short memories, it is worth recalling that the impetus for the development of exotic mortgage products included the need to hide (and deny) the risk associated with changing lending standards for minorities, who had been "red lined" by racist banks and thus were unfairly denied homes.  If we remain mute and in denial of this unfortunate fact, we will find ways to replicate the current disaster.  In other words if we understand the disparity in home ownership as being based solely on racism rather than as a multi-factorial, complex array of inputs that eventuate in higher default rates for minorities than Whites or Asians, our "cure" for the financial meltdown will necessarily include the seeds of the next meltdown.

A second area where our denial distorts our social and economic functioning is on display at the Supreme Court.  The New York Times offers a classic example of the kind of Mobius strip thinking required to support the insistence that discrimination is the only acceptable discourse to explain the disparity between White and Minority functioning:

When Summing Our Irrationalities Fails: AGW

Since the beginning of the recession, distrust and repudiation of markets has become a prevalent meme.   Dan Ariely, the James B. Duke Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University and a visiting professor at MIT’s Media Laboratory, suggests in the Technology Review, that Adam Smith had it wrong:

Irrationality is the real invisible hand

Adam Smith first coined the term “The Invisible Hand” in his important book “The Wealth of Nations.” With this term he was trying to capture the idea that the marketplace would be self-regulating.  The basic principle of the invisible hand is that though we may be unaware of it, an unseen hand is constantly prodding us along to act in line with what’s best for the whole economy. This means that when this invisible hand exists, when we all pursue our own interest, we end up promoting the public good, and often more effectively than if we had actually and directly intended to do so.  This is a beautiful idea, but the question of course is how closely it represents reality.

...

We are now paying a terrible price for our unblinking faith in the power of the invisible hand.

In my mind this experience has taught us that Adam Smith ‘s version of invisible hand does not exist, but that a different version of the invisible hand that is very real, very active, and very dangerous if we don’t learn to recognize it. ...

In Adam Smith’s world the invisible hand was a wonderful force, and the fact it was invisible made no difference whatsoever. The irrational invisible hand is a different story altogether - here we must identify the ways in which irrationality plays tricks on us and make the invisible hand visible!

It is gratifying to see that economists are catching up to my blog.  On a number of occasions I have commented that democracy works better than other systems because it allows us to sum our irrationalities: