Subordination to power: Follow the money

[coberst]

Subordination to power: Follow the money

“The capitulation of Western man to his technology, with its crescendo of specialized demands has always appeared to many observers of our world as a kind of enslavement.”

No more are intellectuals focused upon the nature of man in society. Intellectuals have become non intellectual specialists—hired guns of CA (Corporate America)—Vulcan

Vulcanization—the process of treating crude or synthetic material chemically to give it useful properties.

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”

Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society”.

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’

Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator”. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh

[schola]

I like the concept of the "socially detached" intellectual. Do we have many people like that these days? Doesn't seem like it. Everyone has an agenda, or some ideology they're pushing. Maybe that's why the general public now has such a high level of distrust for intellectuals.

I can confess that I myself sometimes get too attached to one way of thinking, and sometimes I'll start acting like it's the "right way."

What happened to the old school rebels like Socrates?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by schola

I like the concept of the "socially detached" intellectual. Do we have many people like that these days? Doesn't seem like it. Everyone has an agenda, or some ideology they're pushing. Maybe that's why the general public now has such a high level of distrust for intellectuals.

I can confess that I myself sometimes get too attached to one way of thinking, and sometimes I'll start acting like it's the "right way."

What happened to the old school rebels like Socrates?

The culture has a strong anti-intellectual bias. This bias is, I think, the result of religion and of capitalism in general.

[Brutha]

If intellectuals do something they will have an opinion and in endeffect having an opinion means that you follow an ideology.
An ideology is nothing more than a bunch of ideas thrown together.
Intelletuals produce those ideas.

To be trully detached from a topic you can't have ideas about it in your head.
An intellectual on the other hand is someone who has a lot of ideas.

Without ideas you can't step up to participate in a conversation. Obviously it is better when people aren't complety motivated by money, but I don't think that money is the primary motivator for most intellectual.
If we take maslows needs most intellectuals have satisfied their lower needs that can be satisfied through money.
Money has some effect but it is not strong enough to get someone to take a certain ideology.

If you take Socrates you have someone who also pushed his own ideals and was in no sense neutral.

At the moment I'm reading Naomi Klein's "No Logo". It's in no way neutral but it's not commercially motivated.

[schola]

Brutha, isn't one job of intellectuals to ask the questions that no one realizes exist? A devil's advocate?

Socrates claimed ignorance of a lot of the subjects he challenged. He believed that his awareness of his own ignorance was better those who claimed to understand but really didn't.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by schola

Brutha, isn't one job of intellectuals to ask the questions that no one realizes exist? A devil's advocate?

Socrates claimed ignorance of a lot of the subjects he challenged. He believed that his awareness of his own ignorance was better those who claimed to understand but really didn't.

Socrates was directed by very strong prejudices actually. The biggest was his assertion that logically deduced truth is what matters most in intellectual study.

[coberst]

Arnold Toynbee wrote a “Study of History’, which “is the longest written work ever composed in the English language…In it he traces the birth, growth and decay of some 21 to 23 major civilizations in the world.”

“He argues that for civilizations to be born, the challenge must be a golden mean; that excessive challenge will crush the civilization, and too little challenge will cause it to stagnate. He argues that growth is driven by "Creative Minorities," who lead the uncreative masses by example (called "mimesis").”

“He argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside, but from the deterioration of the "Creative Minority" (who leads the uncreative majority by example) into a "Dominant Minority" (who forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience). He argues that creative minorities deteriorate due to a worship of their "former self," by which they become prideful, and fail to adequately address the next challenge they face. He argues that a civilization has broken down is when it forms a "Universal State," which stifles political creativity.”

“He argues that as civilizations decay, they form an "Internal Proletariat" and an "External Proletariat." The Internal proletariat is held in subjugation by the dominant minority inside the civilization, and grows bitter; the external proletariat exists outside the civilization in poverty and chaos, and grows envious. He argues that as civilizations decay, there is a "schism in the body social," whereby abandon and self-control replace creativity, and truancy and martyrdom replace discipleship by the creative minority.”

In “Understanding Media” McLuhan notes Toynbee’s “explanation of how the lame and the crippled respond to their handicaps in a society of active warriors. They become specialists like Vulcan, the smith and armorer. And how do whole communities act when conquered and enslaved? The same strategy serves them as it does the lame individual in a society of warriors. They specialize and become indispensable to their masters. It is probably the long human history of enslavement, and the collapse into specialism as a counter-irritant, that have put the stigma of servitude and pusillanimity on the figure of the specialist, even in modern times. The capitulation of Western man to his technology, with its crescendo of specialized demands has always appeared to many observers of our world as a kind of enslavement.”

I argue that the ‘Creative Minority’ consists of the university professors and the techno-graduates of our universities who have become specialists for Corporate America. These intellectuals have become ‘hired guns’ for Corporate America.

These quotations regarding “The Study of History” are from:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...of_history.htm

[schola]

Originally Posted by Plato

Socrates was directed by very strong prejudices actually. The biggest was his assertion that logically deduced truth is what matters most in intellectual study.

But is that an ideology or a principle? There is a difference I believe.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by schola

But is that an ideology or a principle? There is a difference I believe.

Absolutely an ideology. To him it was a way of life.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by coberst

I argue that the ‘Creative Minority’ consists of the university professors and the techno-graduates of our universities who have become specialists for Corporate America. These intellectuals have become ‘hired guns’ for Corporate America.

These quotations regarding “The Study of History” are from:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...of_history.htm

I agree, the people with money dictate the direction research takes. Sorry to be blunt, but it isn't obvious to me what point you're making. Could you explain in your own words?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Plato

I agree, the people with money dictate the direction research takes. Sorry to be blunt, but it isn't obvious to me what point you're making. Could you explain in your own words?

Only if I repeat the OP.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by coberst

Only if I repeat the OP.

Most of the OP is full of quotes and not your own perspective.

But is that an ideology or a principle? There is a difference I believe.

Socrates decided to die for his ideas. Not many people have that level of commitment to an ideology these days.
The difference is mainly one of perspective, like the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

I think that most intellectuals are motivated by the higher needs in Maslows pyramid. Money is only interesting for them when it brings them the ability to further their agenda.

A good example would be Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth", which did a lot to make people aware of global warming.
Gore didn't made the film to make money but to communicate an idea. Neverless the effect that the film has to make money probably has affected it.

Intellectuals like Jared Diamond or Noam Chomsky still speak their mind on multiple areas.
By the way it ironic that you use the interpretation of a specialist as opposed to Jared Diamond who is active in multiple domains.

Especially American have a deep mistrust for authority based on expertise. The American dream is that everyone can reach everything when they put enough energy and hard work into it.

[coberst]

Brutha

Roughly there are one quote in every three sentences.

What would you judge to be a proper ratio and could you justify that judgment? Why do you think a person chooses to quote someone? When do you want a writer to quote someone? Do you ever quote someone?

[Brutha]

What would you judge to be a proper ratio and could you justify that judgment?

It's not about what is right.
It's just different. Presenting the ideas from book xy is something different then giving your own position.

When do you want a writer to quote someone?

Wrong frame. Maybe that leads to thinking that forums are somehow not effective (your other thread: Looking for knowledge in all the wrong places).

There are a few question in the area that you are talking about:

Should power in society be concentrated on a small elite?

Should people of specilased expertise be in power?

How does money effect the ideas that are floating around?

How can the thoughtleaders be not in power? Aren't they per definition in power?

What should be done about that?

From what you wrote I don't know how you stand on those questions.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's not about what is right.
It's just different. Presenting the ideas from book xy is something different then giving your own position.
Wrong frame. Maybe that leads to thinking that forums are somehow not effective (your other thread: Looking for knowledge in all the wrong places).

There are a few question in the area that you are talking about:

Should power in society be concentrated on a small elite?

Should people of specilased expertise be in power?

How does money effect the ideas that are floating around?

How can the thoughtleaders be not in power? Aren't they per definition in power?

What should be done about that?

From what you wrote I don't know how you stand on those questions.

If one half of one percent of the population acquires the hobby that I call the ‘intellectual life’ such a group could be the foundation for a new “Age of Enlightenment”.

The original Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe during the eighteenth century. “The men [in the 18th century the enlightened were still only half enlightened] of the Enlightenment united on a vastly ambitious program, a program of secularism, humanity, cosmopolitanism, and freedom, above all, freedom in its many forms—freedom from arbitrary power, freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to realize one’s talents, freedom of aesthetic response, freedom, in a word, of moral man to make his own way in the world.”

It appears to me that following the completion of our schooling the normal inclination is to pack up our yearbook and our intellect into a large trunk and store it in the attic. Occasionally one might go up to the attic and reminisce about the old days.

What I propose is that following the end of our school days we begin a gradual process of self-actualizing self-learning.

This period of our life is generally filled with our duties to family and career so that not a great deal of time is available for extraneous matters. However, time is always available for important things and the important thing is to ‘keep curiosity alive’.

I suspect that if one does not engage in non job related intellectual efforts for the twenty years between the end of schooling and mid-life that the curiosity with which we started life will have dried up and blown away.

What are non job related intellectual activities? Such activities are what I consider to be intellectualism. Intellectualism is active engagement with ‘disinterested knowledge’.

There is in industry the concept of ‘applied research’, which is research looking for a good way to build a new mouse trap; there is also a concept called ‘pure research’, which is a search for truth that may or may not lead to an enhancement of the ‘bottom line’.

Interested knowledge is knowledge we acquire because there is money in it. Disinterested knowledge is that knowledge we seek because we care about understanding something even though there is no money in it.


The goal of intellectual life is similar to the goal of the artist "the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music."

I think it is possible for a significant portion of the population of every nation to become intellectuals. What do you think?

Quotes from “The Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Paganism” by Peter Gay

[yossarian]

What happened to the old school rebels like Socrates?

You mean homeless people? They are still around.

The modern world listens to the homeless even less than the Greeks did, and the Greeks barely listened to Socrates and Diogenes and company.

Remember that Socrates never owned a home and Diogenes literally slept in a barrel on the street every night.

The modern world wouldn't crucify Jesus - they'd just let him rot in a padded room where he'd be forcibly medicated.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by coberst

What do you think?

You haven't really proposed anything beyond "there should be more disinterested intellectuals." Where is your evaluation? What do you propose to make it happen? What negatives could there be? Why would the people who fund research even consider letting researchers have a free reign when they could get researchers looking into something that might benefit them?

[Brutha]

The original Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe during the eighteenth century.

I also like to underline that it's an European movement . It's one of the reason why we don't have those people who think that Creationism should be taught in our schools. And we also doesn't have such a high distrust into intellectuals.

But back to the topic:
There is still a amount of people that read newspapers to get to know a truth about what happens in the world.

There is also a lot of pure research happening at universities. CERN has a billon for researching little particles and no one thinks that it has any practical use in the next thirty years.
NASA has also a very big budjet without much practical use.

CERN gets the money because people are interested how the final theory will look like. NASA gets its money because people are interested in outer space.
If you can interest other people that your idea is interesting you will often get a bit of funding for it.
A professor in an university can pratically do whatever he wants. While there are questions that need a lot of money to investigate and need external funding but when they just want to spend their own brainpower on a problem they can do it.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Plato

You haven't really proposed anything beyond "there should be more disinterested intellectuals." Where is your evaluation? What do you propose to make it happen? What negatives could there be? Why would the people who fund research even consider letting researchers have a free reign when they could get researchers looking into something that might benefit them?

I propose to "make it happen" by posting ideas on these Internet discussion forums that will convince people that for their own good and for the good of the community they must get an intellectual life when their school daze are over.

[coberst]

Brutha

The United States is the progeny of the Age of Enlightenment.

[Brutha]

The United States is the progeny of the Age of Enlightenment.

It really depends on your perspective but there are certain developments, that happened in Europe that didn't happened in the US. Especially in the topic of religion. As a result you can see the enlightment as a European movement as you did. Naturally you can see it also a bit more broadly.