In the comments to a post below AVI suggests "...the intellectual task of reading for six months people who disagree with you.... Grim, who is younger, probably has at least two [such exercises to perform], the poor bastard."
As I suggested in the comments, it might be more difficult for me to find people to read with whom I don't broadly disagree. My 'tribe' is attenuated and small, at this point, and though it exists it isn't much published. Even in the local papers you'll read few examples of the traditional Southern Democrat worldview of a Zell Miller or a Jim Webb. The local papers, like papers everywhere, trend left.
Even outlets where I've personally published -- to include National Review, Human Events, The Federalist and American Greatness -- are very much not bubbles of like-minded sentiment. We have points of agreement, and broad disagreements. Still, it's better than the New York Times, where even points of agreement are hard to find; but I read their daily newsletter every morning.
I've also had two turns in grad school, which means 9 full years of reading nothing but things and people with whom I disagree to a greater or lesser degree. This is why I have friends I can talk with who are Marxists and socialists. I also have many feminist friends, especially but not only from philosophy circles, which is why I have the ability to reach out and talk with a SCOTUS protest organizer on terms of trust and friendship. (By contrast, I don't know anyone who attended the January 6th protest/riot as a participant, though you might think they were more aligned with my political views.)
Even here, some of you (especially Mr. Hines) frequently tell me that I'm wide of the mark on issues we commonly discuss. That's fine; you're welcome.
More too, I find that my views are changing in recent years, and may have even fewer in alignment. The intense patriotism I felt as a younger man has been replaced by a horror at how corrupt and indecent our government has become. I once thought of America as a force for good in the world; I don't think I still believe it is a force for good even at home. I think it is past time to dissolve the bonds that unite our nation, and replace them -- as the Declaration of Independence says we have both the right and the duty to do under such circumstances -- with better bonds to guarantee our natural rights and liberties. Increasingly my idea about what 'better bonds' look like is perhaps Tolkien-style anarchist, certainly voluntaryist, in its rejection of concentration of power and its embrace of diffusion of power among the people.
I'm still working on formalizing the latter into something workable, but it's a project I take to be my own and not one where I have a large following. Certainly I know of no journal devoted to it; the journals of the day are all about retaining or recapturing the Powers that Be, to use them to drive the tribal will and suppress the other tribes. I want no part of that, and raise the black flag -- see sidebar -- as an alternative to that entire project.
But direct me, if you can.
11 comments:
"it might be more difficult for me to find people to read with whom I don't broadly disagree. My 'tribe' is attenuated and small, at this point, and though it exists it isn't much published."
Paul Graham says:
"The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk. You don't get to pick and choose. Your opinions about taxation can be predicted from your opinions about sex."
So, by Paul's definition, the harder it is to identify one's tribe, the less likely it is that one is an ideologue.
http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
I'm amazed sometimes by assumptions people make about what I read.
Lewis Grizzard used to say that when he lived in Chicago, and voiced something in his Southern accent, the natives would ask him, "Do you people read?"
What do you read, Tex? Besides the stuff you link here, obviously.
When AVI made that suggestion, I actually thought this would be true of you, Grim, that it would be harder for you to find people to read who agree with you.
What about branching out to areas where you just don't know much? I often find that sort of exercise enlightening. It often makes me re-evaluate what I think.
But, all things considered, while AVI's suggestion is good for the vast majority of people, I'm not sure you need to. I think you're always reading stuff you disagree with.
I, on the other hand, could probably use this.
But direct me, if you can.
Here's my suggestion (not direction), but first another item. my idea about what 'better bonds' look like is perhaps Tolkien-style anarchist, certainly voluntaryist, in its rejection of concentration of power and its embrace of diffusion of power among the people.
That's always been the tension. Our Articles of Confederation were a dismal failure because there wasn't enough ability to direct from the center, and so we have the Constitution We the People ratified (with a then-artificially expanded franchise for the purpose), as amended from time to time in bursts.
The problem, though, and it's a problem at the core of any system of governance, is that governments don't really do anything; its the men and women who populate them who do the things, who have and exercise the power. And those men and women, like all of us men and women, are susceptible of ego, of well-intentioned but serious error, of ill-intentioned misbehaviors, of.... But the men and women in government, by their power, are the more dangerous in their ordinary foibles. Too much reliance on voluntarism runs the risk of too much reliance on more virtue than exists in man, as Madison and Franklin, among others, both warned.
Thus my own pet Constitutional Amendment, which I've mentioned from time to time, regarding term limits, modeled on the concept laid out in those otherwise failed Articles: a congressman can serve only two terms out of any four and must serve the other two terms in the private sector (the latter assumed, not explicit in the Articles), with no association with government or government official at all--not even voluntary. Of course the Articles' limit was based on a unicameral Congress; this one would need to accommodate a House and a Senate and a Congressmen--and his constituents--switching from one to the other.
And a related Amendment that would limit the size of Congressmen's and Congressional staffs to a small--tiny--number, with volunteers again counting against that limit.
Finally to my suggestion. I'm still working on formalizing the latter into something workable, but it's a project I take to be my own and not one where I have a large following. Certainly I know of no journal devoted to it....
Write your own journal, beginning perhaps with a companion to your Hall. You'd not lack for participants.
Eric Hines
Not counting my favorite fiction, which I tend to re-read, this week I'm reading "The Golden Bough," which I've always read about but never read in the original. Also a book about paleobiology, the rise of mammals, called "Beasts Before Us." I'm nuts for evolutionary biology. I'm trying to get started on a 2010 book called "Money, Markets, and Sovereignty." I've been listening to an audiobook called "To Engineer Is Human" that I'm quite enjoying.
There are always the Gutenberg books, which tend to be from about 1910. Lately that's often a Biblical exegesis; this week there are three, about the books of Judges, Luke, and Acts. My Greek study is really coming along. Sentences are starting to make a little sense.
Not much about politics or sociology lately, I guess. I recently completed "Humankind: A Hopeful Human History," which is in that vein. It went off in a woke direction towards the end but often was interested and surprisingly open-minded.
My daily net-surfing usually includes some pieces all along the political spectrum. I rely on RealClearPolitics to link me to pieces on both the left and the right. They can usually be counted on to link to NYT, WaPo, Vox, and so on.
“Write your own journal, beginning perhaps with a companion to your Hall.”
I’ve been considering something like that.
"I've been listening to an audiobook called "To Engineer Is Human" that I'm quite enjoying."
Henry Petroski is a treasure. "The Pencil" should almost be required reading in High School so that everyone has some baseline knowledge on how the world around them came to be and actually works and logistics.
Lately I'm reading less for recreation or general knowledge or improvement, and more for learning things that might come in handy in the future if things get bad.
Before that I finally read Gulag Archipelago (First volume) which I'd been meaning to, well, forever.
The best book I read for recreation anytime recent was "A Canticle for Leibowitz" which was highly recommended to me, and I'd certainly heard of before, but really moved me, because it touched on so many big things and human struggle most of all. I think my being Catholic helped it do so.
Otherwise I'm far too preoccupied with current issues and such- my Tsundoku reflects this, sadly- no fiction at all.
I'll sometimes dive back into Dennis Prager's "The Rational Bible - Exodus" a little bit before bedtime. It's very good for having a better understanding of the passages from the point of view of the Hebrew translation, as well as historical context.
Then I spend entirely too much time on Twitter... At least I find plenty of disagreement there!
I've read "A Canticle for Leibowitz" several times. It's one of my standard round of re-readers.
After reading it I wondered why I hadn't read it when I was younger, as I read a lot of Science Fiction, but maybe it's best I didn't. It may no have had the impact on me then that it had now.
Post a Comment