Further on Marx

It was interesting writing something in my last post about what I see as the obvious limitations and failure of Marx's program from the standpoint of the theoretical historical paradigm it was intended to address. One thing I left out was a small yet very important philosophical distinction made by Marx through association with the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach. 

Marx continued Hegel’s explicit attack on a priori knowledge. The idea that there were first principles in thinking or principles that didn’t correspond to phenomenology was implicitly rejected by Hegel and marked the beginning of the shift into Marx’s analysis of history occurring in stages based on material causes, including types of ownership, wealth and class struggle.

Interestingly, this most important issue, wealth, was left out of Marx’s writing, because wealth was, to the economists of the time, only considered as an entirety, that measured the results of all of mans activities within a nation. It didn’t matter what individuals accrued, since their wealth was part of what their nation owned anyway. Marx was interested in building a large movement, the International, which needed to attract wealthy individuals as members and donors.

Today we have the internationalist view of wealth, where it doesn’t matter where an individual of a nation invests his wealth; he can send it to other countries, as long as he has earned it. This corresponds directly to a continuing wider distribution of the planet's resources, which more and more include wealth, life styles, and education. 

Yet capitalism is as firmly in place as it ever was, with international programs already aimed at restricting consumption, health and population. Countries like Peru get money from the United Nations for not providing electricity directly through grids to their native peoples, for example, while people die in countries like Ethiopia where governments are currently being paid off for not using pesticides. 

What of Marxism?

We all know how fun it is to speak of Marxism: Unlike politics in general, Marxism has great breadth. It is teleological without stating that it is necessary to have external deities, as in religion. It is militant, like countries out to fight battles for great causes. It is salvatory, since it can prescribe an improved order of society, and finally, it is sociological, in that it can be, and is used to explain many customs and events.

Stating that mankind has classes, which are forever doomed to fight, unless a historical resolution takes place at some juncture, what is empirical in Marxism is that it shows up and points to the upheavals which apparently must occur when classes do not anticipate and participate properly in the amelioration of existing evils in a society.

Karl Marx would react and anticipate my last sentence by stating that classes are not people and don’t react with a conscience. According to Marx, classes do not care about the evils done to others, but rather, unlike moral individuals, always act in their own interests. I don’t mean to imply here that men always act in the interests of others, but what I will imply is that men and women whom are aware of their existence as part of a self-conscious race, do tend to side with others on occasion, even if this is only the, “do unto you…,” moral phenomenon in action.

So Marx’s assertion that classes must always act in their own interests, would seem to apply based on empirical principles and carefully collected 18^th and 19^th century data, but only in that sense. In other words, teaching someone to be a Marxist is a lot like teaching someone to be a religious convert: The convert must be led to bridge this divide between individuals-like-himself whom are for-each-other, and classes which are against-each-other-for-themselves. Being able to accomplish this mental maneuver is indeed, a little bit like mastering a religion.

To be fair, Marxism also does assert that there was a precise tendency for people to become more, “for-each-other,” as they are “proletarianized.” The idea of a family moving from an originally well-balanced social habitat to the city to find work, or even to become social refugees and move from one country to another, could be the idea behind this notion. If I work as a peasant, which many people have done in the past, and because of mechanization or some other cause, find it inconvenient to continue my current existence in the country, I may decide to move to a city and find work there. The lifestyle of a poverty-stricken family in that new situation in a strange city may not always be comfortable, but it may tend to bring the individuals closer. Conversely, the proletization of the working individual and family could just be a convenient illusion based on the communal attitudes and ethics of people coming from the country. Whether Marx was right, or deluded in his concept of the, “revolutionary proletarian,” is in this way, something quite in doubt.

Marxism can be seen as an interesting 19^th through 20^th century trend in social and historical science. The possibility of assigning class causes for everything from historical movements and art trends through contemporary signs of progress has always been a favorite pastime of Marxists. 

Wait a second. Even if all of that stuff is true, but what about the interesting points that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels made about changing society? Isn’t it important that they predicted Feminism as, “The Community of Women”, and explained that roles in society would be reversed with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat? These ideas bear a careful further look.

Marx and Engels predicted, based on anthropological research and the abandonment of religious scruples, that women would attain a new level of status and freedom in society. Doubtless some of that has been realized today, if partially due to technology and shifting values such as family role-playing being considered less important in developed countries. Marxism, however, proves that it has a its own persistent influence – the Second Sex having been written in post-war France, for example, where the influence of Marxist parties was quite wide.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat predicts that an absolute dictatorship is necessary, replacing democracy in order to accomplish the continuing worthwhile goals of civilization, once the capitalist class is no longer in power. This has been widely debated, with many sincere Marxists falling on the side of “social democracy”, against this idea, even before the “cults of personality” emerged in the 1930s. In my opinion, while the cult of personality is never something desirable, the use of democracy as a palliative has also become commonplace, with individuals calling for “more democracy,” while at the same time pining for, “someone to come in and put things right”. 

The Value of Art

Suppose we divide objects and occasions, all the things and events that happen in our lives into two spheres of influence, the practical and the artistic, would that be even possible?

We can start by looking at the practical side of life. Preparing ourselves for work, feeding ourselves, dressing ourselves, the things we own, our house, our car, but already this list is giving us an uncomfortable feeling, since there was a certain amount of art involved in the design of a car or our house which gives wonder to the notion of where art begins and ends.

Even if art is an object, there is clearly an occasion during which the art is created. There is also an occasion during which the art is viewed, or experienced.

One of the most amazing art works I have seen that has been the most meaningful to me is the Lascaux cave paintings. These drawings, however accurate and complex, to me, are not exactly like the art in a museum. It is believed that at least some of them were used in training rituals to show correct strategies to be used in hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux#Interpretation_of_images

There are two very apparent aspects to art: One is that it exists in a consumable form. The second is that it can be created. There is a third issue: Is there the possibility that art, or its equivalent, exists that is not only created by humans, but is also inherent in nature? Is there a fundamental deciding difference between what is created by men and what is created by nature, or is it more that natural origins are held as original, or perfect, while all human imitation or reproduction is synthetic or false?

Nature provides humans with two different levels of participation in art, through the sensing and analysis of it, and by creating it. Art is a kind of participation. Serendipitously, our participation in life may be lasting. This is probably true even if our participation is not memorialized. Art is the same way. When we participate in creating art, the artistic result has value – The net value can be said to be what can be derived from experiencing it.

While art itself may be an object, or an event, so may be the experience of it. I go to the museum, look upon a painting, say, or put on a recording or a video to experience an art object. However, art is also an event. There are shows, gallery and museum tours, and concerts, which are events during which many different art objects or at least many different gestures of art will be presented over an interval of time, even if that interval is one we choose.     

If you’ve spent a lot of time in galleries, you know that painting is a form of art that became very important in the last few centuries. Prior to this, the chief source of artists’ incomes was the Church. An educated rich class eventually evolved due to capitalism that could afford to put images by trained artists on its walls. Typically, these were the portraits of family and friends, sometimes engaged in favorite activities. A few paintings were biblical or mythological. Regardless of whether the purpose of the transaction between the owner and the artist was memorialization, or for recognition of the owner’s values and tastes, the notion of art as a type of commodity could finally begin to mature.

From this I think we can conclude that art is something that can be experienced, which memorializes or expresses value to the consumer, regardless of its format or the exact attitude of the consumer. (I understand consumer as an ‘owner’ of art, or someone who has the right to experience the art in question, whether he paid for that right or not.)

Music is a favorite form of art, since it encapsulates the temporal beauty of sonic forms. The process of making music and listening to music is related in the same way as in the visual arts, however the temporal element is held manifest, while in the visual arts, the temporal element may be hidden. We say, “Look at this painting,” in which the temporal element of experience is hidden from view. For many viewers of visual art, time only forces its way into the picture when the viewer is asked to tour an entire museum. Only then does the casual art viewer commit a large amount of time to one artistic venture, only then is the viewer showing the same level of commitment as the artist; the viewer by touring a museum will perhaps spend hours viewing art at his own level of attention and love for detail, thus for this time perhaps, mimicking the love and attention to artistic detail expressed by the painter or sculptor of each individual work.

The process is similar for the composer of sonic, theatrical or cyber art. She must labor, sometimes for months over his creation, and then allow the consumer to experience the entire work in a period appropriate to their expectations, whether 3 minutes for a popular song, up to 1 hour for a symphony, up to 3 hours for a play, film or opera, or 30 to 40 hours for a computer game.  

So while realization and consumption are opposite poles of art, they are entirely related, in that the consumption of art cannot proceed according to expectations without the care of the artist involved in presenting his work and the proper presentation.

More than any other commodity, it is difficult to estimate how the capitalization of art will evolve in the cyber world. Most likely what will evolve over time is that more markets and forms will come available, although piracy and forgery is a continuing concern. Perhaps the great art criminals of the future will be individuals skilled in cyber art. On the other hand, perhaps encryption and identification systems will nullify such attempts. 

The Great Gatsby

I saw The Great Gatsby on the weekend, and I’m quite excited about it. I was glad to hear the director say that living to repeat the past is quite impossible, but I have to admit that Fitzgerald’s suggestion is quite fascinating, even if it seems  wrong-headed. Since time points forward for us except when indexing thoughts and media, we never look into the past, even relativity doesn’t permit that in any direct sense. The past is read-only. Our minds can survey the times that already happened, and we commonly assume that it is unhealthy to dwell in the past excessively.

That’s what the novel is about, at least. It is a fascinating attempt by a character to live out his own religion not so much in a quest for spirituality, but in a quest for something he feels a need for in his life. Since life is very much about needs, this opens the question of in what contexts it becomes important or relevant to recreate the past.

One recreates the past whenever one tries to preserve love. Love only happens in an instant, and the spectacle of couples trying to preserve their custom of alliance with each other is clearly one in which reproduction of the past plays a big part. That is “Great” Gatsby’s great insight: That the moment of memorializing love, in essence attempting to make it eternal, is the reproduction of, and return to the past through repetition.

An attempt at dialectic

Sitting here isn't pretty. Siting here without a device is worse. Simply existing on the earth doesn't justify anything. Sitting in a parlor by yourself justifies even less, since most of the good part about the earth is missing from view. (It is nighttime.)

Going to the next level and realizing that the the Earth is available through your fingers if you operate a device is a great achievement. The Earth is realizing itself right now through your fingers. What a great brag! But it's worth it, even if people do think me arrogant, or misguided, the fact remains that sitting here with a device is yet so much greater than idolatry. So how do I escape from this idolatry? (I learned how Idolatry was a sin, since I grew up Catholic, and that was one of the only lessons they taught that could be considered an ethics lesson, plus it stuck with me.) I now consider myself and unabashed workaholic, especially when I'm working for money.

Dialectics - What is that? I mean that I've read enough about it. I almost have a degree in it. I've read Marx, Hegel, Heidegger. I definitely understand what it is and what one can get from it, but have I really ever practiced it? Have I really ever expressed myself through it, instead of through the limitations of my "Self"? Self is so limited for some of us as to be an unproclaimed disability. We can live with it because it is ourselves, but it stifles us even to the point of stifling our creativity, which make one wonder if it were possible to do without it. Of course, it's not; it is not possible to not be a self. We self-orient ourselves all our lives, and for good reason. We are not those others; we are selves quite different and we have to pinch ourselves and wonder sometimes how it is that these others have become so different from us.

So I like to sit and philosophize and wonder how things could be better and how it is that individuals waste so much of their wastable lives and come to the conclusion that the possibility of circumventing a lot of it is approachable - if I only embrace my self. How does one's self become the reason for progress? After all, wasn't it just a couple of paragraphs ago looking like it was the main obstacle to becoming part of the better part of humanity?

It is through will, of course, that we become something hoped or wished for. If we will it, often good things, previously unconceived or unrealized can become accomplishments already in our past - like this post wanting to be a dialectical exercise or treatise, yet really standing as a commentary on the limitations of self, and self-consciousness. Self-consiousness is fine when it leads us somewhere, but it can also cause us to accept our being hamstrung and limited to a repeated vision and pattern of what may be possible for us going forward.

Forward may seem like a dirty word, but there is no backward, not in time anyway. Backward in time covers a wonderful place where our ancestors lived (more people who are not us) and ourselves when we were kids and various gradations of younger. Forward says we are going someplace else, not necessarily where we have been, or where we are now, but where we might go in a while.

Dialectics is an art in which we discover the contradictions in a thing and try to destroy it. Simply destroying something is not yet and act of Love, so we may need to destroy it two or more different ways to really experience what were the possibilities of that imperfection or contradiction. For example the contradiction of Inaction.

Inaction is terrible, not only because it can lead to or constitute idolatry, but because it causes self-doubt. When we lose our velocity or vitality, it starts to show in ways that are troubling and we feel we need to compensate for these shortcomings in various ways. Some of the ways we do this will not necessarily lead to good ends, for example, we may even dig ourselves deep into a state of depression or physical degeneration rather than try to recover from the stigma of this loss directly.

Fortunately, society is a panacea. Simply looking at how other people live, can give us the opening we need to become active and vital again and accomplish the breakthroughs that were needed. Depression is useful, but we can only tolerate so much of it without looking for relief, and when we find good relief, the ejaculatory feeling of accomplishment is parallel to a cognition of perfection.

Perfection is, in a way, is an antonym of Inaction, since apparently nothing is made perfect though Inaction, but there are some dissenting points to be mentioned: We can say, "If it's not broke, don't fix it." Engineers and Technicians say this all the time. The downside of this shibboleth is that when something is not fixed preventively, it will likely fail anyway sooner or later and eventually need fixing.

So the avoidance of unnecessary maintenance does not shield us from the danger of failure later; it merely defrays unnecessary current costs to an unknown time in the future, or at the very least, to a probability. Unnecessary fixing, or "repairs" as we might call them, did not seem inappropriate, can cost money and effort, and may actually end in failure. This is why Engineers avoid it. If you fix something, there is always a probability that your repair can lead to further breakages and repairs, which were unforeseen.

"Rust never sleeps", however, so if you can avoid inaction to the extent of repairing all the parts of your life, or those around you, or whole groups of people, you will have accomplished a little bit of dialectical wisdom and have kept yourself busy, as well.