Re: Seeing Complexity But Not Being Overwhelmed By It

Professor J,

Your first paragraph tempts me to digress into a discussion of the difference between education and training.  I am going to show some restraint, however, as we already have a lot on our discussion plate.  Rest assured, this topic will be returned to in the future. The things you mention illustrate the exhausting shallowness of what we value as a culture; busyness over rest, incessant noise over the quietness needed for deep thinking, and material accumulation over nearly all else.

You asked, "Are we so in need of simplifying excessively that we need labels and categories for our views?"  People do seem to be grasping for ways to gain some basic (simplified) understanding of what is going on (often conveniently offered up by some of the culprits you mention) in the limited time left to them after working all day, helping kids with homework, and paying bills.  And those corporations you mention, that are working employees more and more thus leaving them less time to think about exactly how all the pieces might fit together may be doing themselves more of a favor than they realize. To think they understand exactly what they are doing is  a diabolical scenario and I don't think it's true, but lurks in the realm of possibility.

As for the Chomkys, Gingriches and their ilk: You can't claim to be the hero/savior unless you can convince people there is someone/thing/organization or idea they need to be saved from and that you or your ideology can provide that.  I can think of several organizations that would cease to exist if the problems they claim to be addressing were suddenly "solved". Pretending to seek answers to the problems while stoking the fires all the time to ensure your survival (the first priority of any organization, followed by growth) is a very useful tactic and apparently quite popular on all sides.

So in the future...no labels. Assessing ideas individually for merits or flaws. Very well, then.

I can hardly add anything to your brilliant analysis of the situation and connections between the major players.  Most of the problems we are discussing seem to fall within two categories: First,things that could be solved if corporations and our elected officials (the elites) actually cared about solving problems and making things better more than they care about making money and maintaining their place at the power table. Second, issues that could be resolved if we could figure out the proper balance  between individual rights and what is good for our communities.  How to be part of a healthy, voluntary collective while maintaining individualism and personal rights?


 A 2000 study showed that people who thought of themselves as part of a community and valued that sense of belonging were happier than those who thought of themselves as mainly individuals. This is also reflected in the fact that Scandinavian countries always are ranked among the "happiest countries" (along with the fact that basic needs are met and the average income is high by comparison to the rest of the world). Yet I'm reading The Journals of Ayn Rand, and she ponders some of these same issues noting that all great discoveries are made by individuals working alone. On the surface that seems true since she is mainly speaking of the Einsteins and Edisons of the world. Other things like expeditions of discovery we could say were collaborative ventures but even those seem to be driven by the IDEAS of a strong individual or small group.

Side note about Rand: In her journals THE great Capitalist ideologue muses over whether or not size might make a difference and if unregulated giant corporations might trample the individual and give him little recourse against them. At the time she seems to think it will work itself out in favor of the individual but 60 years later if she could see the multinational behemoths that exist I wonder if she would hold to that philosophy. 


I'm also thinking over how those strong communities foster a sort of non creative group think that people fall into.  If the influence of the "collective" is too strong the individual is stifled and it becomes difficult for him to break away and maintain his own identity.  Sometimes the "wisdom" of the group needs to be shaken off so that new thinking can move ahead.  The group (and its popular thinking) is a powerful force whether it is wrong or right.  It's the rare person who can say to it, "I'm not going that way; I'm going this way and I don't care what the price is."  Isn't it so rare in fact that these are the very people history remembers and honors by making sure their names are recorded?


Hmm...how to find and walk the tightrope of balance between the two? It seems that not just this particular discussion but most of ours hinge on finding the answer to this question. Many things seem to connect back to it.