grunin - ideology

From: grunin@mindspring.com
Date: Friday, October 5, 2001 2:08 AM
Subject: Ideology and its discontents

Ave Eve!

I usually avoid wading into these waters, because most people don't have the patience for such things. But these subjects keep coming up in our conversations (over the years, even), so I'll stick with it.

1) Ideology

When you speak of 'pushing' ideology, I think you mean two different things.

First meaning: (1) Let us assume that no closed system of belief can encompass all human experience. If so, then: (2) all ideologies are imperfect, except those which believe in their own incompleteness. (3) ideologies which don't allow for such incompleteness inherently misinterpret observed human behavior. In other words: they inevitably lack empathy, one of the roots of evil behaviors (see below). This is the primary charge against both communism and capitalism. It also describes 'academicism', at least according to Pound.

Second meaning: some ideologies explicitly deny the human dependence on empathy. This is characteristic of fascism, racism, and militarism.

2) The question of evil

You're approaching the question of 'evil' scientifically: just as one deduces the presence of 'infection' from observing pus, you assert the presence of evil when you observe certain extreme behaviors. These behaviors feature either the absence or the perversion of empathy, the fundamental interpersonal connection. That is, they are either profoundly heartless or sadistic.

Some questions:

1) Does this 'evil' exist in the absence of action? Is a person or ideology evil before they commit evil acts, or only after? Was Pound evil before he went on the air, or only 'potentially' so?

2) There seems some evidence that certain autists have an inherent inability to experience empathy, and yet seem otherwise normal. Are such people more or less inclined to antisocial acts than us 'normals'?

3) Is it possible that 'evil' is like drug-resistant bacteria, a dangerous by-product of seemingly inocuous human actions? If you oppress a people for a century, might you get a tribe of monsters? In such a case, has evil begotten evil? Is it possible that the evil you get is worse than the evil you put in?

4) For what it's worth, I've always assumed that it was possible to stunt or extinguish the capacity for empathy in a person, and if you did so they would do evil things. I *don't* think there are "good and evil spirits within us." We balance self-interest with empathy, as in, "if I take the last cookie, will my roommate be upset?"

xoxoxo
eg

[I'm posting this now, and I'll have a response to you soon, eric! anyone else want to jump in?!?!]


	From: grunin@mindspring.com Date: Friday, October 5, 2001 2:08 AM Subject: Ideology and its discontents Ave Eve! I usually avoid wading into these waters, because most people don't have the patience for such things. But these subjects keep coming up in our conversations (over the years, even), so I'll stick with it. 1) Ideology When you speak of 'pushing' ideology, I think you mean two different things. First meaning: (1) Let us assume that no closed system of belief can encompass all human experience. If so, then: (2) all ideologies are imperfect, except those which believe in their own incompleteness. (3) ideologies which don't allow for such incompleteness inherently misinterpret observed human behavior. In other words: they inevitably lack empathy, one of the roots of evil behaviors (see below). This is the primary charge against both communism and capitalism. It also describes 'academicism', at least according to Pound. Second meaning: some ideologies explicitly deny the human dependence on empathy. This is characteristic of fascism, racism, and militarism. 2) The question of evil You're approaching the question of 'evil' scientifically: just as one deduces the presence of 'infection' from observing pus, you assert the presence of evil when you observe certain extreme behaviors. These behaviors feature either the absence or the perversion of empathy, the fundamental interpersonal connection. That is, they are either profoundly heartless or sadistic. Some questions: 1) Does this 'evil' exist in the absence of action? Is a person or ideology evil before they commit evil acts, or only after? Was Pound evil before he went on the air, or only 'potentially' so? 2) There seems some evidence that certain autists have an inherent inability to experience empathy, and yet seem otherwise normal. Are such people more or less inclined to antisocial acts than us 'normals'? 3) Is it possible that 'evil' is like drug-resistant bacteria, a dangerous by-product of seemingly inocuous human actions? If you oppress a people for a century, might you get a tribe of monsters? In such a case, has evil begotten evil? Is it possible that the evil you get is worse than the evil you put in? 4) For what it's worth, I've always assumed that it was possible to stunt or extinguish the capacity for empathy in a person, and if you did so they would do evil things. I don't think there are "good and evil spirits within us." We balance self-interest with empathy, as in, "if I take the last cookie, will my roommate be upset?" xoxoxo eg [I'm posting this now, and I'll have a response to you soon, eric! anyone else want to jump in?!?!]
	back to responses 3 to newsnotes table of contents