< The DSK affair has developed into a Shakespearian tragedy with the French media not sure who the victim is. >

He might actually get a fair trial! All too often in cases like this, the alleged perpetrator is deemed to be guilty and tried and hung by the media. They’ve then got to absolutely prove their innocence, which sits in stark contrast to the fundamental principle of law that one has to be proven guilty or shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable double or else they walk!

One of the best articles I've read in ages!
More a Shakespearean "History" though than tragedy, I think. The author has decocted the complex play of events brilliantly into gripping diegetic form. The litany of statistical infamy he cites reverberates like background percussion as the scandalous events unfold and the protagonists gradually acquire their garb of modesty and regalia respectively.
Sorry, I'm all enraptured!
The case is fascinating in its extremes:
how can DSK get a fair trial?
How can the parlour-maid meet the dream-team in court?
How can men defend the clear fact that they are inveterate rapists? How can women continue to be complicit in their passivity and silence? How can the IMF, or the decadent rich in general, be cleansed of the overall stain it must share?
How can the French Socialist Party claim to be for the people?

The whole affair is like a putrid wound on the face of the great Western dissembler, exposed like Dorian Grey when the curtains (ideology) are drawn back and his picture is revealed in all its fiendish glory!

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You pose some very interesting questions. I am sure William Shakespeare would have come up with some fascinating scenarios in response. But on reflection, the real life version that is about to be played-out in room 51 on the 13th floor of the New York criminal court at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan will probably be just as captivating.

The stage is set and the roles distributed. The actors must now learn their parts and there will be many rehearsals before the first performance. Unless there is some unforeseen, dramatic turn of events, the official opening of this extraordinary screenplay will probably not take place until the end of the year. We shall have to arm ourselves with patience.

What an unlikely couple they make: Dominique and Ophelia, man and woman, old and young, white and black. Jew and Muslim, rich and poor, powerful and modest, politician and chambermaid. Fate has thrown them together. Will fate decide their future or will justice be done? ... man-made justice, that Achilles' heel of democracy, American democracy ... for those two foreign nationals, a visiting French man and a resident Guinean woman whose paths just happened to cross at noon one fatal day in the month of May.

Will truth and morality prevail or will it be cynicism and injustice?

And what effect will it have on our lives ? Will it change anything ? Will the rich and powerful change their ways ? And the ordinary, every day rapist amongst family and friends, will it change anything for them ?

.

The rumours are that DSK was developing a conscience and did not like the financial rape of the PIGS,so he had to go.

In 99% of alleged rape by such a high profile person,a few hundred thousand EUROS would have appeased the alleged victim,but alas,some higher authority may have been paying a lot more.

The financial rapists get off Scott free time and time again killing millions,but the media whores ignore the reality.

I too thought the article was fascinating and well written.

The story of these two people was made more clear to me from this article, but at the end of the day, I bet he gets off, whether he raped her or not.

The only question I have is, did they find his DNA in her saliva?

.

Dear Arjay,

.

That's surprisingly strong language for somebody whose intelligence, morality and moderation I have come to respect on OLO.

Though I do not often participate in the debates here, I follow some of them occasionally.

Having said that, you do have a point which, I must say, I share with you.

Dominant males are to be found in all spheres of power: sex, finance, politics, religion, industry, the media, public service, culture ...

.

.

Dear suzeonline,

.

In accordance with American criminal procedure, following DSK's "not guilty" plea on 6 June the "discovery" phase commenced on that date and will last until the 18 July as determined by the judge.

Evidence collected by the prosecutor will be communicated to the defence lawyers during this phase and they will be free to have it examined by independent experts. This will include saliva DNA tests etc.

Perhaps some of the results of these tests will be filtered through to the media as time goes by.

The current strategy of DSK and his lawyers seems to be not to deny there were sexual relations but to deny that Ophelia was not a consenting partner. They may even go as far as suggesting that it was she who took the initiative.

As there were no witnesses, it is just the word of DSK against the word of Ophelia. It will be up to the jury to decide who to believe.

Perhaps a bunch of dollars distributed to the right people in the Bronx where Ophelia lives might encourage one or two of her hard-up and unscrupulous neighbours to testify that she is capable of doing something like that.

It all comes down to a question of poverty, human values, morality and economic necessity.

.

Yes, 'tis hard to think Ophelia won't agree to some kind of compensation (although her namesake couldn't be appeased), or else won't be betrayed, as Banjo P says, by acquaintances--or something of the sort.
Within a country whose criminal judiciary was capable of acquitting O J Simpson, it ought to be a breeze for DSK, guilty or not.
As all the binaries at play suggest, though, it's the whole reeking system of gross inequities and powerplay that's really on trial. Something's rotten in the Western States, and will continue to stink to high heaven regardless of the verdict.

Banjo,I'm not bagging Rodney Crisp.I just think DSK may have been set up.see Max Keiser on Greece and how they set them up.http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ see episode 152

The Central Banksters in conjunction with the IMF whom they fund,are continuing to plunder our economies.

.

Dear Arjay,

.

Thank you for the link to the Max Keiser blog. He seems quite intelligent and entertaining.

The sovereign debt problem is a time bomb that the IMF and others are trying to delay so that people can take shelter before it explodes. Unfortunately, it not only concerns Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy but the US as well. If that one goes off we're all be blown to smithereens.

All this is the result of the sub-prime mortgage crises in the US that hit the European banks and financial institutions in 2008 like a tsunami, obliging their national governments to bail them out with borrowed money which now constitutes sovereign debt that is sending those countries bankrupt.

The US started the tsunami. The IMF is trying to keep the countries afloat. I agree with Keiser's guest economist that throwing more money at the problem is simply gaining time. It is not solving the problem.

Unfortunately the consequences of disarming the bomb are likely to be almost as destructive economically, socially and humanly as letting it explode.

.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"Something's rotten in the Western States, and will continue to stink to high heaven regardless of the verdict".

I am tempted to agree with you but somehow continue to harbour a very tiny flame of hope that justice is possible.

I consider, I think realistically, that I do not have all that many more years to live and am considering that the DSK affair is an ideal test case to see if justice is possible before I take my final bow. I shall probably not have many more opportunities of witnessing a case of this nature and quality.

All the actors appear to be excellent and well-fitted for their role. American democracy is about as good as one can get on this earth and the justice system seems to me to be of quite a high standard.

The case in hand is perfect for my purpose. As in almost all cases of sexual aggression there were no witnesses. The popular jury will have to judge the case on the basis of forensic evidence provided by modern technology, personality analyses, accusatory and defensive rhetoric and guidance from the judge.

This type of case rarely goes to court. It is extremely difficult to prove guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt".

That is a terrible injustice done, principally, to women and young girls in every country of the world, throughout history, every single day of the year without exception.

Mankind has made great progress in the sciences. The flame of democracy is spreading. It leads me to wonder if justice is possible and, if not, how it can be made possible within a democratic environment.

.

Banjo Paterson,

I can empathise with your sense that the years ahead are few ...

My view is that while I'm sure justice is done, in the US and elsewhere, everyday in discrete cases, gross injustice remains the norm--in fact is not even on trial.
Democracy is a sacred cow that exists in name only, in my view, and not in any inclusive or aspirational sense that facilitates human fulfilment or potential. Popular democracy is just the most efficient means found so far to harness collective productivity so as to maintain elites--admittedly more diverse.
So yes, I think justice is "possible [selectively] within a democratic environment", but it's the injustice of the democratic environment per se that ought to be on trial. Democracies are not democratic any more than the freedom on offer is freedom in any qualitative sense. Democracy is certainly a huge improvement in the human race's social evolution, but it's a mistake for us to laud it as the end of history, as consummatum est, the best of all possible worlds, as good as it gets. Democracy yes, but the current state of democracy leaves much to be desired. If any Western country is likely to lead the way, it's surely France.

Anyhow, may I suggest that you keep the articles coming on this Shakespearean Tragedy, especially since it's a bigger story where you are than it is here in the conservative heartland.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"Democracy yes, but the current state of democracy leaves much to be desired".

That pretty much sums-up my opinion too, Squeers.

The emergence of the individual is a slow and lengthy process. Progress is almost imperceptible. When I was a youth, capable of rationalising my environment with a critical eye and flowing over with unbridled imagination, I looked back and saw where we had come from and nourished the hope that, perhaps, in my lifetime, I would be able to perceive the first signs of the approaching completion of that evolution, the light at the end of the tunnel as it were.

The long journey from matter to mind seemed to me to have already lasted an eternity, that from animal to human being as well. Happily those interminable initial phases were followed by an acceleration from tribe to clan and from family to dispersion within large, sedentary groups of "individuals" who developed multiple, dispensable, replaceable relationships with other "individuals" of vastly different origins and cultures.

The next and final step I imagined was that those so-called "individuals" would eventually attain full emancipation, i.e., their conscious acts and decisions would no longer be determined by external forces such as nature and environment. They would take full possession of their conscious minds and be their sole masters. They would exercise their own free will in all matters and assume full responsibility for their personal and collective acts and decisions. Call it anarchy if you will, though I did see a role for the state, albeit a modest one.

It seemed to me that this evolution was possible within a democratic political environment, despite all its imperfections. I saw capitalism and socialism as stepping stones to the full development and ultimate emancipation of the "individual", with the state assuming a purely administrative role of coordination of public services for the common good.

I assumed without question that a fully emancipated and truly responsible "individual" would not turn his back on somebody in need.

Those youthful thoughts now serve as a beacon in the twilight of my life

.

Banjo P.,

Perhaps societal paradigms, like all closed systems, are vulnerable to entropy once a certain apex has been attained.

The freedom bestowed upon the " individual" in a modern democratic society carries with it certain responsibilities, but also allows him the autonomy to jettison that responsibility and close his eyes and mind to things that do not affect him personally, while simultaneously allowing full rein to his greed and excess.

I agree, Poirot, but wasn't sure how to put it.
I'm inclined to agree that individuality is the only way ultimately that we get to experience the world. Though how much of the Self is individual? Jacques Lacan says we are exogenously constructed from the symbolic order--cultural beings whose self is not within, but without. And of course individualism is the central plank of (neo)liberalism. The commodified modern individual is not an individual at all in any qualitative sense that might be ascribed to the Buddha, Montaigne or Emerson (though the latter two don't belong in the same company). That kind of individualism is vested in renunciation, whereas liberal-humanism is inflationary for its own sake, hedonistic.
I do believe in the individual, but so far its only recourse has been renunciation--religion or aesthetics. The world has to change before the individual can.
I recommend you read Hermann Hesse's "Narcissus and Goldmund", Banjo, if you haven't already.

.

Dear Poirot, Dear Squeers,

.

Whenever I approach this subject (of the emergence of the "individual") I have the unpleasant impression that I am trying to find my way through a fog - hence the reference to the "beacon" of my youth.

I am afraid my ignorance knows no bounds, including in the field of social anthropology. It seem more than likely, Poirot, that social and individual evolution includes alternative phases of entropy and organisation.

As regards your second paragraph, I confirm my agreement with that of Squeers. However, it seems to me that Lacan has captured only part of the picture with his exogenous theory as cited by Squeers. My understanding is that we are also largely determined genetically and that not only our unconscious thought but also much of our conscious thought is governed by our instincts.

Neurotheology scientists, for example, ground religious belief within evolutionary-adaptive cognitive functions, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex - which are unique to humans - and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.

The divide between instinct and conscious decision through the exercise of free will is by no means evident to me though I consider that difference to be a crucial factor in defining our (eventual) "individuality".

The "fog" which envelopes the intricate interaction of all three of these factors, instinct (genetics), Lacan's exogenous influences, and free will, is probably due to the fact that much of our thought is a combination of all three.

In other words, it seems we are not quite there yet. The "individual" has not yet completely emerged from the dawn of his genesis to be able to assume full responsibility for his actions and decisions.

That is why I feel we should treat the question of responsibility and justice with infinite caution.

Many thanks, Squeers, for your recommendation of Hermann Hesse's novel, "Narcissus and Goldmund". I'll see if I can find it at my local library.

.

Banjo P. and Squeers,

Thank you for your thoughts.

Banjo - same goes for me, as I always feel on subjects like this that I'm groping around in the dark holding a very small candle.

I think you're right that evolution has periods of alternating organisation and entropy. Things build up and things break down, and often there is a regression or a recoiling before the next phase of development gets underway.

You might also be interested in Arthur Koestler's book, "The Ghost in the Machine". He covers many areas concerning our individuality verses our integrative tendencies, and suspects that the connection between our neo-cortex and our mammalian brain - between our intellect and our instincts - is rather tenuous at times leading to no end of conundrums for our species.

Squeers,

Good point, that individuality is perhaps only truly achievable in the (spiritual?) renunciation of this world. The "individuality" achieved in modern western society is more of a blindfold masking his true reliance on the smooth operation of industrial society.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

That does sound interesting. I'll see if I can find Arthur Koestler's book, "The Ghost in the Machine" at the library too.

It seems fairly evident the behavioural patterns of much of humanity is closer to resembling those of sheep than what may be considered "individual" human beings. We more often obey our instincts and a host of exogenous influences than our own, independent, free will.

However, I am not so sure we can escape into the "individual" by simply becoming hermits. I fear we would carry our prisons with us and huddle inside them wherever we try to hide. The possibility of separating ourselves from the rest of humanity in our present state of evolution seems to me to be an illusion.

I am inclined to think that "individuals" are characterised more by their exceptional talents than by their voluntary isolation from society. I attribute the exceptional talents of "individuals" like the Buddha, Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Rembrandt and others to the same random phenomenon that produced life in the first place.

That tends to situate the emergence of the "individual" in the natural process of biological evolution which, unless we do something radical to stop it, appears to be inevitable. I do not see it as having anything to do with any of those political ideologies evoked by Squeers, nor any personal decision any of us can make.

If we continue to trace the curve in the same direction as it has been drawn since we humans branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago, somewhere further down the line from where we are today, most of mankind seems likely to be composed of what may be considered true "individuals".

It does not necessarily follow that they would all be egocentric and totally autonomous, each living independently of the others. I see no reason why the same factors of efficiency, comfort and harmony should not continue to determine the social order as they always have for the past 5-7 million years or so.

.

Banjo P.,

Interesting.....

Koestler coined the term "holon" in the book I mentioned, referring at once to our being a complete system within our biological bodies, while at the same time being "part" of a wider system comprising our social order....in fact, according to him, "everything' is a holon - complete in itself and yet part of a wider system, from galaxies to speech and its components.

Koestler believes that everything is formed according to hierarchal order, like an upside down branching tree.

I'm not sure if I can agree with you that we are destined in evolutionary terms to become individuals, each with special talents like the Einsteins and Da Vinci's. People like that appear every now and then, but for the most part, human life is more in line with Thoreau's "quiet desperation", whether it's material struggle or mental anguish.

So, I suppose, it's a question of how individual can you get when your whole paradigm of understanding is based around a collective and shared arrangement of symbols and behaviours.

The few who stand out are likely to not only be gifted, but also to have "chanced" upon the perfect circumstances for their gifts to bear fruit.

Banjo P. & Poirot,

sorry I've been slow and unresponsive. I'm fascinated with this topic but have looming deadlines etc.

For me, we know nothing about consciousness and its development, and I prefer not to even impose assumptions such as that we humans are nothing more than the product of "random" natural processes--though I don't ergo recoil from that to some religious or anthropocentric or any other form of flattering genesis.
We don't even know what naturalism is, the chance emergence of life in the universe; we assume we're on the crest of the wave of this natural but pointless unfolding, and may infer everything from what's gone before in purely mechanistic terms.
Teleology remains for me a compelling possibility, even what I might call "retroactive teleology". Everything we think we know, empirically, about life the universe and everything is the product of an aporetic, historicised and fixed temporal perspective.
I'm sceptical then that "the emergence of the individual" is necessarily, or merely, or "ultimately" a natural (that is "stupid") process of evolution.
But I do, as I say, see the individual in the world (whatever its "essence") as behaviourally-shaped by concurrent ideologies; indeed I don't see how this can be refuted. Even if we adopt naturalism as bad parent (though I prefer the Deus ex machina of vitalism) we are driven just as much, or more, by "ideas" as biological imperative.
So for me also we "do" seem naturally-disposed to individualism, but it can only express itself within a given context. Moreover, that predisposition can be, "and is", exploited by ideological (including political) institutions that also evolve opportunistically and adapt to that proclivity.
The challenge for humanity then is to find a way to live in the world such that our essence potential(s) can be realised, rather than being merely exploited and demeaned.
Our "individual" choices as things stand are materialism--accumulation of various forms of capital/hedonism/nihilism (often with religion as palliative) or renunciation/idealism. Lousy alternatives.
I think we have to do what humans do best, change the given context.
You may be interested in this famous essay--passing relevant:http://classweb.gmu.edu/sandrew3/misc/nlr142jameson_postmodernism.pdf

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Thank you for the insight to some of Koestler's ideas. I am afraid I am just as ignorant about what Thoreau had to say too. Never mind. I am used to reinventing the wheel. I do it all the time.

I would dearly like to reciprocate but, unfortunately, I have not read too many books and can't remember what they were about anyway.

What I can say is it seems likely that if I could have a chat with a Cro-Magnon from 35 000 years or so ago, he may feel quite embarrassed by the sheer brilliance of my intellect compared with his own sluggish brain. He might even think I am Bobby Fischer or some contemporary genius.

I would probably feel just as embarrassed if I were to turn up in about 35 000 years from now and ran into a barmaid from Surfers Paradise. I may get the impression I was talking to Marilyn vos Savant or somebody. Perhaps I would swear her workmates were Kim Ung-yong and Bill Gates and think her boss was Einstein.

Neuroscientists actually seem to know very little about the evolution of the human brain. Research has given rise to a certain amount of speculation on the basis of the examination of human skulls from various periods but, of course, skulls are not brains.

It can only be assumed that we human beings are more intelligent today than we were when we broke away from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago. Hopefully, we will continue to improve so that we make sure we stay ahead.

But don't count on me for that !

.

Banjo P.

I know what you mean by struggling to take everything in - although it's fun trying.

Thoreau was an American who wrote a book called "Walden" which was a place to which he retreated in his bid to develop his idea of self-reliance. He was a philosopher too, and encouraged the notion of "simplicity" as the road to fulfillment.

I wonder if our brains were always capable of the sort of conscious knowledge now at our disposal? Perhaps our steady progress and the increase in knowledge is more an evolution of the art of dissemination and uptake than it is an evolution of consciousness. Perhaps our "knowledge" has replaced other knowledge that was part of our early consciousness, and to which we now have limited access.

It is interesting that the average twelve year-old knows so much more that is pertinent to our culture than his learned ancestors.
I wonder, however, if this knowledge is "quality" knowledge, in so much that it enhances his outlook and life or is it something just accumulated and left to amuse itself in the recesses of his consciousness.

I also wonder if your average "educated" Westerner, is anymore emancipated individually than the tribesman who depends on his social group for his identity....in fact, I'm inclined to believe we are just as bound to our cultural construct - perhaps even more so - because we are so dependent on things beyond our control for our daily succor.

Squeers,

A thoughtful post, Have to acquaint myself with teleology - will get back to you when time permits.

Squeers,

It seems that for one to develop or celebrate his individuality, it is necessary to find and authentic response to life.

Late-capitalism dispenses and maintains a stultifying and mesmerising effect on the individual in society - a crushing passivity over individuality by way of media driven materialism.

It's this passivity which leads the individual away from questioning the social controls that shape his perceptions. The individual can only "think" beyond the social controls of work, religion and organised thought by purposely disrupting his own passive absorption of them, in effect, re-mapping his own perspective from beyond accepted societal parameters. However, this is difficult, as he has lost his bearings in a world that often presents him with only material rewards as purpose.

How hard it is to seek an alternative "purpose" when everyone around him is happy enough riding the conveyor belt. How difficult for him to he get off and start walking in an attempt to unify his psychic life with his temporal world?

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Thank you for the link to Fredric Jameson's paper on Post-modernism. It has the promise of an historical cultural fireworks display. I zapped to the conclusion hoping to see the way forward but the author seems to have prudently contented himself with illuminating the sky so we could see for ourselves where we were heading. I shall read it in more detail later.

Mother nature certainly is an enigmatic, ingenious and paradoxical young lady. She has more than one secret up her sleeve. That's for sure. For my part, I do not see pure hazard or "stupidity" as incapable of triggering a favourable outcome such that an incredulous observer may be tempted to interpret the process as teleological. Despite the odds, if something is possible, it can occur and I for one consider it does.

According to the biologists life on earth commenced about 3.5 billion years ago. That leaves room for a fair number of combinations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, before hitting the jackpot. The teleological option seems to me to be of the order of the supernatural of which I need to be convinced.

There seems to be a general consensus among scientists today that Darwin's theory of natural selection is an acceptable explanation of evolution. I see no reason why this should not apply to the human brain and our intellectual capacity - the survival of the (most) intelligent.

Admittedly, that evolution may be partially countered by modern medication and other means which enable us to prolong the lives and intellectual capacity of the weaker among us who continue to reproduce, thus slowing overall intellectual progress through natural selection.

However, I have no doubt this is being compensated by genetic engineering and modern technology enabling future mothers to avoid giving birth to potentially weak and malformed children. We may even be tempted sometime in the near future to artificially assist "natural selection" by genetic engineering. In under-developed countries natural selection appears to be inevitable, but by no means an impediment to constant population growth

.

Bamjo P.,


I've used this piece before by Noam Chomsky quoting biologist Ernst Mayr reflecting on the "success" of higher intelligence, but it's appropriate here to use it again:

"His reasoning had to do with the adaptive value of "higher intelligence" meaning the particular human form of intellectual organisation. Mayr estimated the number of species since the origin of life at about fifty billion, only one of which "achieved the kind of intelligence needed to establish a civilisation." It did so very recently, perhaps 100,000 years ago.....Mayr speculated that the human form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured by selection. The history of life on Earth, he wrote refutes the claim that "it is better to be smart than to be stupid," at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival. He also made the rather somber observation that "the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years."
We are entering a period of human history that may provide an answer to the question of whether it is better to be smart than stupid. The most hopeful prospect is that the question will "not" be answered: if it receives a definite answer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of "biological error," using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and, in the process, much else.
The species has surely developed the capacity to do just that, and a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might well conclude that humans have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically in the past few hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustains life, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with a cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well."

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Thank you for those observations of Noam Chomsky on Ernst Mayr's research. It is a fact of life that mankind has developed considerable power far beyond his own natural capabilities as well as those of all other living species on earth.

The question raised is vital and concerns every living creature. Have we developed the intelligence, the wisdom and the means to effectively harness that tremendous destructive power with absolute certainty?

That is the question Ernst Meyr and Noam Chomsky have posed though its formulation almost misses the target: "We are entering a period of human history that may provide an answer to the question of whether it is better to be smart than stupid".

I have no hesitation in answering that I consider we do not have the intelligence, the wisdom or the means of preventing the tremendous destructive power we have acquired to be unleashed either willingly or accidentally at any time, with or without warning.

On the subject of the "individual", I would like to observe that my brother and I grew up with a dog called Nippy who was like a second brother to me. Nippy shared in all our adventures, fights and battles, joys and punishments. He is still very present in my mind and if ever there was an "individual" in this life, I would say he was one.

I am also pleased to announce I saw an interesting BBC documentary this evening on the life and works of a lady called Jane Goodall whom you may like to check-out on the internet. She did some ground-breaking research on our cousins, the chimpanzees. She wrote a book which may be worthwhile perusing, titled "In the Shadow of Man" if you get the opportunity.

.

Poirot,
I don't think it's just the fault of capitalism. I doubt the world has "ever" facilitated human potential as a social phenomenon (even the privileged few are demeaned, alienated in a staion that can only be maintained by monumental hubris. I'm thinking of Hegel's famous Master/Slave dialectic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_dialectic ), hence the Buddha's defeatist call for renunciation. Even if such a society came into being, one that nurtured human potential (utopia), it seems doubtful it could ever compensate for the shortcomings that form the tension between our material lives and our idealistic yearnings--though it would help at least to eliminate that form of delusion we know as hubris.
It's certainly true too that remarkable individuals in all fields have emerged against the odds in every culture--the product of privilege and blind luck, or debasement and even bad luck. It's tempting then to just accept the social context of the day as inevitable (and it is to a certain extent. When the world changes its people don't change, they die out), but humanity is saddled with a sense of right and wrong, ergo ethical consciousness and a desire for justice (or consciousness of injustice). Not just personal justice, which is not justice at all, but ambition, but a difficult-to-repress sense that inequity is wrong. Physical inequity is natural (the other day I saw a beautiful young girl walking along with real poise, confident and well dressed, and several paces in front a girl of a similar age, but physically disabled and waddling pathetically), but social inequity offends us. Our system tries to validate material inequality as on par with natural law, the way the cards fell, but a large percentage of us just won't have it, seeing through the rationalisations of injustice and shallow ostentation. These are all aspects of idealism that materialists and some sociologists write-off as so much culturally accumulated baggage. But look at the history of human culture, rich with offended idealism. Materialism is to reductive--but suits the capitalist mind-set to a tee.
So while I agree with you, I suspect few are "happy" riding the conveyor belt.

Banjo P,
I realise I'm opening a can of worms invoking teleology, even exposing myself to ridicule in the context of modern mechanical materialism and derivitive "opinion".
However, teleology has a very long and respectable history that's only been "problematically" interrupted, briefly, for the past couple of centuries, and is now making a comeback as "teleological science", which is "primarily interested in discerning empirical patterns of teleological causation, not in resolving the question of whether these patterns ultimately derive from immanent principles (part of nature) or from a supernatural being" (Menuge 2010).
The fact is that modern science begins by "censoring" notions like teleology as supernatural, insisting that naturalism can only be purposeless, "without" establishing the case. This was an understandable reaction against various speculative mysticisms that crowded the field before the Enlightenment. Yet teleology is a viable thesis Kant and many others have tested and not discarded. Even Francis Bacon, a father of the scientific method, though naive in supposing empiricists could free their minds of Human, individual, social and linguistic biases (his "idols of the mind"), he made an important distinction between anticipating nature and interpreting it. Materialism does the former, it dogmatically anticipates nature, whereas neo-teleologists humbly suggest we explore all possibilitities.
Menuge concludes his essay by asserting a survey of the reasons intended to defend mechanical materialism finds "none" of them compelling. Controversially, he favours "methodological realism", via which "scientists can explore the case for and against design without prejudice, and teachers are set free to present all of the relevant evidence".

My idea of "retroactive teleology" (which I won't go into) is admittedly speculative, though certainly not an item of faith, though my speculations are based on subjective experience and logic.
Though currently out of favour, these are the spark of all idealistic achievement, and I'd argue materialism is baron without idealism.
Granted, such assertions cannot be defended here.

Addendum "The discovery of unsuspected function in non-coding DNA and of so-called vestigial organs powerfully supports teleological science and refutes the predictions of Darwinism, according to which living organisms are make-shift compromises riddled with non-functional elements".

Squeers,

Just quickly - your point on the distinction between " anticipating nature and interpreting it" - is what I was referring to in an earlier post when I said that perhaps humankind possessed knowledge - or a consciousness of things - which is now obscured or to which we have limited access.

In our civilised advancement as a species, we may have 'lost' a fundamental understanding of the world around us and its message.

Poirot,
absolutely. I enjoyed your thoughts above and agree with them, as usual. Hope I didn't seem to be contradicting anything you said.
I see our materialism--scientistic, philosophical and lived--as idealistically reductive, negative, lop-sided and plain wrong.

Poirot & Squeers

Would just like to chime in at this point how much I have enjoyed your exchanges.

We are all greater than just the material sum of our parts.

While I remain atheist (which simply means I don't believe in a god as such), I do believe our concentration on profit over peace, acquisition over the arts, dogma over debate and 'winning' over living (the likes of Murdoch or Trump are not winners and limit others to mere survival) we will remain at a intellectual and spiritual dead end.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Given the extraordinary feat nature (random variability of matter and energy, reality) has accomplished in transforming matter into mind, I do not exclude necessity as a possibility of random variability, inevitably producing similar results similar circumstances.

The question then arises that if necessity is a possibility of random variability, can it be considered as serving a purpose? That, I would suggest, is "une vue de l'esprit". It depends on the way you see it; I, personally, do not see it that way. Teleology may come and go, but, for the time being, I am not convinced.

I am, nevertheless, grateful for your detailed explanations which never cease to delight me. As I have already indicated here, my ignorance knows no bounds and I am extremely grateful you are willing to share your knowledge so unconditionally.

Allow me to make a brief comment on your analysis comparing a beautiful, valid girl and a physically disabled girl in the street:

"Our system tries to validate material inequality as on par with natural law, the way the cards fell, but a large percentage of us just won't have it, seeing through the rationalisations of injustice and shallow ostentation."

I too enjoy admiring young ladies in the street. It is a pleasant pastime sitting at the terrace of a Parisian café sipping a cup of coffee and watching the girls go by. I had a similar experience to yours except that the girl I found myself admiring was particularly obese. I am normally repulsed by such a sight but, in this case, I was more than attracted, I was fascinated. She was sitting on the terrace, just a few tables away. She looked like a Rembrandt masterpiece or a character from a Fellini film. Her physical handicap was transformed by her ample, long flowing dress and exquisite make-up of excellent taste into a work of art far superior to any of the ordinary beauties on whom I no longer felt the slightest desire to even throw a glance.

Beauty, so they say, is in the eye of the observer.

.

Banjo P:

"Teleology may come and go, but, for the time being, I am not convinced".

Fair enough. I'm not convinced either.

You conjure up beautiful images. Would love to be a voyeur in Paris, and talk leftist politics with you and a few other OLOers over coffee while checking out the local talent! Perhaps Poirot could furnish a few letters of introduction.
My eye too tends to be eclectic in its tastes.

Another article soon I hope : )

.

Dear Squeers,

.

I would gladly offer you a cup of coffee if you manage to come to Paris some time. Try to avoid the winter, though. Only smokers sit out on the terraces in the freezing cold to drink their coffee. It is illegal to smoke indoors and they prefer to freeze rather stop smoking while they drink their coffee.

My (French) wife follows leftist politics in much more detail and with far greater enthusiasm than I do. As a foreigner in France I take no active role in politics. Even if I could, my natural inclination would be to adopt the role of arbiter rather than that of active advocate of any particular ideology or political party.

The panoply is quite large ranging from extreme left to extreme right and there are about 230 active parties officially registered at any one time. It is a living tissue, constantly renewing itself. The political party graveyard has nothing to envy a First World War military cemetery lined with white crosses as far as the eye can see.

You can imagine what that means in terms of disillusionment of ideological aspirations and collective faith numerous causes right throughout the political spectrum.

My sole contribution has been to write to Paul Lucas, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State, to propose that Queensland pass a reciprocal agreement with France to grant voting rights to our respective foreign residents in local municipal elections. My proposition has been acknowledged and I was informed that "a formal response will be sent out to you in due course".

As regards possible further articles on OLO, naturally, I intend to follow the DSK saga to the bitter end, or should I say "happy end" - according to one's perspective and particular conception of justice?

.