COMMENSAL ISSUE 101


The Newsletter of the Philosophical Discussion Group
Of British Mensa

Number 101 : April 2000

ARTICLES
5th April 2000 : Neil McAllister

RESPONSE TO FRANK LUGER

NOTE : Neil posted this on PDGList, to which I had originally posted Frank’s article, by way of soliciting immediate feedback. Where Neil’s response appears conversational it will be on this account. This also explains the emoticons ;-).


I read through Frank Luger's contribution. I was impressed by the amount of effort he had put into it and how well researched it was. ... A few points I thought I might throw into the pot :-

The advances in modern medicine and psychiatry seem to reduce happiness to a question of chemical balance. In this context would pouring Prozac into the water supply be benevolent in terms of intuitionism or utilitarianism :))) In application psychology is still about happiness. People go to a psychologist because they are troubled or unhappy. I am sure Frank agrees with this self evident fact. What happiness is is another subject completely. In practice people seek counselling to free themselves from a traumatic past or an existential crises. I saw the movie ''American Beauty'' last night and feel it is very relevant to this subject. Well worth the 5 Oscars it garnered. Freeing oneself from the past in Hindu or Buddhist terms is releasing ones Karma which is done through a variety of techniques such as meditation. Ones aim is to experience pure untrammeled consciousness, an unfettered mind, simplistically speaking. "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." Albert Camus, Carnets.

Psychoanalyses or on the other side any number of pop-psychology techniques (Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), affirmations, subliminals etc) are in my mind simply reshuffling the cards as opposed to transcending the whole deck of cards. I probably sound silly but I fail to see the point of reliving an unpleasant experience, I mean it was bad enough the first time!! I feel that the minds natural state is one of happiness or joy. Defining that is hard, measuring seratonin levels relatively easy. However when ones aim is to map the mind from a physiological perspective one is not concerned with happiness except as a chemical state. This moves definitions of mind and consciousness back into the philosophical arena since (I know no-one agrees) psychology seems to be an applied technique as against a speculative endeavor. Psychology is being squeezed out except as an applied technique. In short I agree with Frank for the above reasons.

As regards happiness and ethics while I agree with Frank I must say that in the context in which he is speaking it is really about socially acceptable happiness, even hedonism cant be too bizarre, the agreement of the pleasure slaves doesn't seem to be socially a problem in ancient Greece. Utilitarianism still involves social contract. What of the happiness of the Viking berserker or Nero slitting the throats of Romans late at night in a gleeful rampage. One could argue that these were socially acceptable to Vikings. The link of happiness and ethics is a matter of social contract and civilized domestication of the ''noble bull''. Happiness is measurable in terms of brain states even for the clinically depressed and masochists. Happiness is as you define it and this definition comes down to ones karma, the sum total of what brings one to this moment in time, this is true even of the masochist. This karma can be good, bad and indifferent and includes physiological equipment such as the neurological functioning of ones brain, the karma one receives from ones parents as well as their mentality.

This brings me to logical positivism. I don't know a huge amount about it and only heard of it recently. However my impression is that in a multi-cultural global village a philosophy like this was bound to arise as a response to racism and bigotry. I may be wrong but my impression of it has been that it is a call for tolerance in the west of the other civilizations living amongst the peoples of the west. Nothing wrong with that, just a pity it doesn't seem to be applied in other civilizations. It can be a danger if it causes a civilization to become divided or lose identity or its essential unity and purpose. If it is simply tolerance and openness to cross-pollination then it seems fine to me as it encourages and promotes growth with new ideas etc. If societies purpose is consumerism and wealth creation and success in this is happiness then logical positivism is an appropriate philosophy as one can be happy in terms of ones new car and the whole world wants to drive a Benz. So all the drives are sublimated in this purpose. So one world one village is OK, no dangers or threats to a new world order.

Now I come to mass-culture. I agree with everything Frank says even though I must admit to being one of the 6 billion masses, a quite ordinary soul. What I don't agree with is that he implies that the culture of previous eras was generally available. It wasn't. A peasant in Italy did not experience the opera ( I hate opera, gimme da blues any day) any more than the majority of Victorian England read Dickens. What we have now is a filtering down. More people are literate in the West than at any time since the Big Bang, Garden of Eden, the Spaceship landed (insert own personal belief here). The fact that the majority watch The Simpsons is not the point. They all understand the satire involved, that's the point and they all know who Bart is. How many people resident in Athens or its environs understood the Greek plays mocking Pericles, how many had ever been to the theatre, a tiny percentage. Those were the Athenian equivalents of the Simpson's, light entertainment with a social comment. Would PG Wodehouse be to the 21st century what Dickens was to the 20th century?

In general I agree with everything Frank said. A well written essay from a very well educated man. I envy your grasp of the inter-relations of different schools of thought.

It also highlights something I read a while back- "the only transcendent experience open to modern man is sexual love". Not entirely true but thought provoking all the same, oh and they left out sixteen pints with the mates and a curry down the chipper and Man U winning the cup.

As a further comment in terms of a thought provoking essay, the Christian ideas of :-

  1. A personal relationship with an anthropomorphic God
  2. Freewill to attain salvation
  3. Personal salvation/redemption

probably played a large part in terms of the evolution of laws favoring private property and democratic rights. These were bound to lead on to the merchant class gaining political hegemony as they possessed the wealth to purchase land and power. With this new definition of the means to power and the need of a merchant class to increase supply thereby increasing wealth one was bound to have technological innovation and a need for greater demand. Empire also increases demand. Global consumerism is the logical need of post empire capitalism. In a world where purpose is defined as providing the material goods such as a car and a detached bungalow and school fees to be considered worthy of contributing to the gene pool, happiness is bound to be defined in material goods. I don't know if we are any happier now than our ancestors were, probably not, just a bit more comfortable. Happiness has always been a problem. If everyone were happy in bygone ages they wouldn't have discussed it so much. At least now we can measure it in brain chemistry and then go home and bang something out on the PC before phoning for a takeaway and popping on a video. Volte face? Maybe, but I do think we need to examine our values and behavior in terms of our part in the system called life. Chief Seattle is still a warning sign offering guidance for the 21st century. Frank seems to imply we have lost our way in terms of what makes for happiness, if that is so, I agree but with the caveat that shallow people have shallow pleasures.

"I'll tell you a great secret, my friend. Don't wait for the last judgement. It happens every day." Albert Camus, La Chute (1956) p. 129.

Neil McAllister



Response to this Article (Commensal 101)
Further Response to this Article (Commensal 102)
Previous Article in Current Issue (Commensal 101)
Next Article in Current Issue (Commensal 101)
Index to Current Issue (Commensal 101)