Don’t Marry Your Sister

If a young single man comes to me asking for advice on marriage…

Me: Any prospects?

Him: There are two girls. The first I’ve known for most of my life. She and I grew up together and get along great. We laugh together, we have the same interests, and we are always comfortable around each other.

Me: Is she pretty?

Him: Yeah… She is.

Me: And the other?

Him: The other I haven’t known as long, a few months. The times we spend together are great, but sometimes awkward, and that worries me.

Me: But you’re interested in her. Why?

Him: Because I think this girl is so smokin’ beautiful, and every time I see her I just want to be around her. I love the sound of her voice, her smile, her hair… everything! I just want her.

Me: But she’s a good person? She’s not selfish, or crazy?

Him: No! She’s great. That’s another thing I love about her — she’s totally a sweetheart. But I still worry because I don’t know if I’ll be as compatible with her as the other girl.

Me: Don’t worry about that. Go for the “smokin’ beautiful” girl.

“Today the incest problem is not, as we all know, a physical problem inside the family. No one really thinks of marrying his sister, but by marrying the girl with whom we went to school from our eighth to thirteenth year, we may already be making a mistake, because we have first called her as a fellow child and as a classmate and as a playmate, and such prior relationship is not the true origin of marriage…

In marriage, the sequence is: first you see the girl as somebody whom you desire, and then you add the horizon of her becoming a sister, and the mother of your children and the daughter of your parents. If we pervert this sequence, we stand things on their head, because passion is the founding element, and objectivity or realism, as we like to call it, or factualism, is always that which comes later…

(I)f we have already lived with (a girl) in (a brother/sister type of) affection, but without passion, (she) cannot become the object of passion…

If you have never spoken to the girl before, and you speak to her for the first time, there is the great experience of giving someone for the first time her name so totally that there is nothing you have to obliterate; it is really new to you. Later, she can become old and familiar to you, but at that great hour, she is somebody entering your horizon for the first time. This is called ‘introduction’ and is a mighty event.

Love needs a name given to this sweetheart or bride for the first time. Incest is every situation in which somebody has first been called by a dispassionate name like sister and is then approached with the new name of passionate love. Love must give a person a name as though we saw them for the first time; and since between mothers and sisters, brothers and fathers, there exists already one name of love, the second name would be impaired. Whenever we have already given a name of no-passion, like sister, we can never approach the situation in the way it should be approached.”

(Rosenstock-Huessy, Eugen, I Am an Impure Thinker: Tribalism, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR., 2013 [originally published by Argo Books, 2001], pg. 132-133)

I highly recommend this book: I Am an Impure Thinker by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy.

By the book here.

***

Men of Words

tb 001 “The men of words are of diverse types. They can be priests, scribes, prophets, writers, artists, professors, students and intellectuals in general… Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity.”

~Eric Hoffer

“Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance. Where the articulate are absent or without a grievance, the prevailing dispensation, though incompetent and corrupt, may continue in power until it falls and crumbles of itself.” (“The True Believer”, by Eric Hoffer, HarperCollins Publishing, New York, pg. 130)

Here Hoffer is describing the climate of a society before a mass movement begins, but I think we can also apply this statement to a mass movement that has passed its “dynamic stage” but the original fanatical leadership has not yet stepped down, and is in fact doing damage to the movement. The men of words can rise up again at this stage in the movement, inspiring the masses to change the leadership to a practical man of action.

“The preliminary work of undermining existing institutions, of familiarizing the masses with the idea of change, and of creating receptivity to a new faith, can be done only by men who are, first and foremost, talkers or writers and are recognized as such by all. As long as the existing order functions in a more or less orderly fashion, the masses remain basically conservative. They can think of reform but not of total innovation. The fanatical extremist, no matter how eloquent, strikes them as dangerous, traitorous, or even insane. They will not listen to him…

“Things are different in the case of the typical man of words. The masses listen to him because they know that his words, however urgent, cannot have immediate results. The authorities either ignore him or use mild methods to muzzle him. Thus imperceptibly the man of words undermines established institutions, discredits those in power, weakens prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and sets the stage for the rise of a mass movement.” (pp. 130-131)

Again, even after the movement has begun and has been running for several years, the men of words can do the same thing to the established authority of whomever started the movement. As shown in my last article about Hoffer’s book, the most important people to the leadership of a mass movement are the lieutenants. It is these lieutenants that can and should be swayed by the man of words if one wants to see a change in leadership.

What is a man of words like?

“There is apparently an irremediable insecurity at the core of every intellectual (man of words), be he noncreative or creative. Even the most gifted and prolific seem to live a life of eternal self-doubting and have to prove their worth anew each day.

“‘…he has much more vanity than ambition; and he prefers consideration to obedience, and the appearance of power to power itself. Consult him constantly, and then do just as you please. He will take more notice of your deference to him than of your actions.’ (Hoffer quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections [New York: Macmillan Company, 1896], pg. 331.)” (pp. 132-133)

The man of words is fickle, pledging loyalty to whomever will give him an ear.

“However much the protesting man of words sees himself as the champion of the downtrodden and injured, the grievance which animates him is, with very few exceptions, private and personal. His pity is usually hatched out of his hatred for the powers that be.” However, “When his superior status is suitably acknowledged by those in power, the man of words usually finds all kinds of lofty reasons for siding with the strong against the weak.” (pp. 133-134)

“It is easy to see how the faultfinding man of words, by persistent ridicule and denunciation, shakes prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and familiarizes the masses with the idea of change. What is not so obvious is the process by which the discrediting of existing beliefs and institutions makes possible the rise of a new fanatic faith.

“The genuine man of words himself can get along without faith in absolutes. He values the search for truth as much as truth itself. He delights in the clash of thought and in the give-and-take of controversy.” (pp. 139-140)

But, the future that the man of words hopes for, a society of free thinking people, is usually not what comes. Rather, what is created is a “corporate society that cherishes utmost unity and blind faith.” (pg. 139)

“The tragic figures in the history of a mass movement are often the intellectual precursors (the men of words) who live long enough to see the downfall of the old order by the action of the masses.” (pg. 141)

A Conflict of Visions (Book Overview)

“A Conflict of Visions” was written by economist/philosopher Thomas Sowell.

Here is the description from Amazon:

In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes the two competing visions that shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality, and power: the “constrained” vision, which sees human nature as unchanging and selfish, and the “unconstrained” vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. He describes how these two radically opposed views have manifested themselves in the political controversies of the past two centuries, including such contemporary issues as welfare reform, social justice, and crime.

Here are some of my notes on the book:

Part I ~ Patterns

Our visions shape our theories — visions can not be tested, they are presuppositional, and they tend to be simple.
Our theories can be tested by facts. Facts can not prove theories, but facts do cause us to disregard bad theories.

The Constrained Vision

There are realities about this world that can not be changed. Therefore, rather than wasting time and effort trying to change them, one needs to learn to work within them.
One needs to learn to make the most of the possibilities available within the constraints of reality.
The constrained vision deals in trade-offs — choosing the better option and accepting that there are no ideal options.
When there are people suffering in this world through poverty, war, etc., some would want you to continuously feel bad (or guilty) for those who are suffering — your guilt = their suffering. Thus you will be motivated to help them. The constrained vision says that it is useless for you to continuously “feel” their suffering (and it is unnatural as well) — better to embrace your natural inclination for self-improvement.
Facts = Reality
Virtue = the best possible trade-off/prudence
Your desire for self-improvement forces you to work with and for the benefit of others. Thus, as people work to improve their own lives, they end up working to improve the lives of others — the world becomes better for all people. This improvement is unintentional, but it does happen, and it happens without a human power to plan it.
The leaders need to be educated “down to” the level of the masses.
Self-interest is a better motivator than guilt and it has better results for the suffering too.
People’s selfish desire for self-improvement motivates them to get the job done — this is better than depending a person’s disposition for their motivation.
“Do right because it is in your best interest” rather than “Do right because you know it’s the right thing to do.”

The Unconstrained Vision

We can change the world for the better.
We can change human nature if only: The right people were in charge; The right institutions were created; People were educated properly; etc…
Whereas the Constrained Vision says that bad institutions are a result of flawed humanity, the Unconstrained Vision says that bad institutions are the cause of flawed humanity.
We can feel other people’s needs as well as our own (if not better).
Self-interest is the negative result of bad institutions.
There are individuals who are intelligent enough to know how to fix all our problems, and these individuals should be given the power to do so, even if it causes suffering and limited freedom for the masses.
The masses need to be educated “up to” the level of the leaders.
Idealism = Reality
Virtue = Final solutions to problems
An institution’s intentional benefits to society are the greatest virtue. Unintentional benefits to society are not acknowledged. We can always know what is good/bad for society and why that is so, and plan accordingly.

Note: The way in which Sowell uses the word vision, the word world-view could be used as well.

Note: Constrained Vision does not necessarily equal Conservative while Unconstrained Vision equals Liberal (although that seems to be the norm). One can be a Constrained Conservative or an Unconstrained. For example: a Constrained Conservative would not want to send troops into Iraq as the cost of human life and military resources would be too great for an unpredictable outcome, whereas an Unconstrained Conservative would want to send in troops believing that they could create a successful democracy in Iraq. Or, a Constrained Liberal, although wanting a large government, wants governmental power to be spread out through several government departments, whereas an Unconstrained Liberal wants an “all-knowing” leader to have sovereign control over the decisions affecting society.

Note: Nobody holds 100% to one vision and 0% to the other. There are various degrees between of course. Sowell himself clearly holds to the Constrained Vision.

Knowledge ~ The Constrained Vision

No one person, or small group of individuals, knows enough to make good decisions for society (or even for himself).
The collective knowledge of the culture and its history is best for making decisions.
Even if we don’t know why what is best is best, we can trust the experience of history and can still benefit.
We should be slow to criticize the cultural norms of our society as these norms are built on the experience of millions of people both in the past and in the present.
Defects in society are not in themselves reason for radical change — rational small adjustments over time will give us the best possible options for the future.

Knowledge ~ The Unconstrained Vision

Nothing is sacred just because its old.
Wisdom of the ages = ignorance of today
Old = untrustworthy
Reason and meditation is better than partially explained (or unexplained) historical collective wisdom.
People who hold to old traditional views need to be enlightened before any progress can be made in society.
If history’s collective wisdom is represented by a-x (x being today’s constrained generation; y being today’s unconstrained generation), x is ignorant because a-w is obsolete and irrelevant now.
Whereas with the Constrained Vision a-w is so ingrained into our minds we can’t always explain the wisdom or benefits of it, the Unconstrained Vision only considers y as having the proper knowledge to advance society.
y is the wisdom in the hands of a select few who must then lead society.

Knowledge ~ Reason and Rationality

There are two “kinds” of reason: A) cause and effect; scientific method — B) to justify one’s actions.
In the Constrained Vision A and B are far apart, whereas in the Unconstrained Vision, A and B are closer together.
Constrained Vision: We don’t always know why things are the way they are.
Unconstrained Vision: We know why things are the way they are and we should be able to specify those reasons.
Religion: God is unconstrained while humans are constrained.
Law: With the Constrained Vision laws are something passed down to us by previous generations, and with the Unconstrained Vision laws are seen as something to be invented afresh today.
Sowell quotes Hayek: “The most dangerous state in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these (old) beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the power of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them.” (F.A. Hayek, The Counter Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuses of Reason [Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1979], pp. 162-163.)

Knowledge ~ Social Policy

The Unconstrained Vision wishes to see more economic and social equality among the masses — even if the decision making process to produce that equality is itself unequal –> equality imposed by an unequal power structure.
The Constrained Vision is not so much concerned with societal inequality as it is with inequality in the power structure.
In regards to social planning, with the Constrained Vision, each individual sticks to what he is specialized in and allows the systemic process to determine social outcomes. When each person does his/her part (fulfills his/her role) the systemic process functions normally. If you’re a physicist, stick to physics. If you’re a carpenter, stick to carpentry. You will only corrupt the system if you get involved in areas in which you have no knowledge or experience.
In regards to social planning with the Unconstrained Vision, each person needs to act in ways which they feel will promote equality in all of society. If you’re a business owner, hire people who you feel are at a disadvantage. If you’re a teacher, bring up social issues in your class which you feel the students should be aware of, such as gender equality.
The Constrained Vision sees individuals, for example businessmen, as being unqualified to make decisions for the greater society. The businessman can best serve society by doing what he knows how to do for his own self-interest — the benefits to society will come through the systemic process. If he tries to “fix” society intentionally, he will only do damage.

Knowledge ~ Sincerity Vs. Fidelity

Sincerity is imperative in the Unconstrained Vision. Each individual must be sincere and sincerity = being right.
With the Constrained Vision, sincerity = believing what you’re doing is right. But you may not be right. (Hitler was very sincere.) With the Constrained Vision, fidelity is a virtue –> faithful commitment to one’s role in life within the sphere of one’s competence. Sincerity is not that important.
For example: A constrained judge is loyal to the existing law; an unconstrained judge sincerely wants to change the law for the “greater good”.
Because sincerity is held at such a high regard in the Unconstrained Vision, the sincerity of one who holds to the Constrained Vision is looked on suspiciously — “What are his real motives?” Whereas those who hold to the Constrained Vision are much less concerned with sincerity as the societal system is so complex that even the most sincere person can still be mistaken.
“The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” (Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis [New York: Oxford University Press, 1954], pg. 96).

Knowledge ~ Youth and Age

Constrained: Wisdom is of the older. Prudence is of the wise.
Unconstrained: Youth are unstained by the past prejudices and therefore are more capable of embracing new and better ideas.

Social Processes

Order and design –> some processes are more ordered than others –> Like a wild growing of vegetation versus a planned garden.

Social Processes ~ The Constrained Vision

There is no designer, but yet the processes work.
Like language — A language can be created, but a created language will be no where near the complexity of an evolved language.
Dictionaries of “true” languages are written after the language has developed. While dictionaries of made-up languages are written before.
Language does change over time, but this is not done quickly or under the design of a “master planner”.
Individuals plan for themselves, but no authority plans for the masses.
Social processes, then, evolve on their own over time as millions of individuals make decisions throughout their lives and throughout the generations.

Social Processes ~ The Unconstrained Vision

We can design, like an engineer, social processes which will work.
One starts engineering the social processes by figuring out society’s needs, then one assembles all the relative facts, and then solutions can be found and planned for.
We can predict the outcome of our plans like in science.
Properly educated people can/must make these plans.

Social Processes ~ Time

With the Unconstrained Vision, the social decisions (concerning liberty, government, law, etc.) of the past generations limit the benefits of the present and the future, therefore flexibility is most desired in the ability to change past commitments as new information becomes available. Each current social decision to be made must be approached as if for the first time. Past decisions/commitments for the same issue need not be considered as the information they had in the past was less than what exists today.
The Constrained Vision asks these questions: Just how much more information (knowledge, rationality) do we really have now than before? What is the cost to society when making “moment to moment” decisions?
Where the belief is held that knowledge increases greatly over time, people tend to want to change things more quickly. In contrast, where the belief is held that knowledge increases slowly over time (or not at all in regards to rationality or wisdom — a growth in scientific or technological knowledge does not mean a society is growing wiser) the people tend to resist change and stay committed to past decisions.
Elsewhere, Sowell give these three questions to ask when about to make a change: Compared to what? At what cost? What is your hard evidence? He says that most liberal arguments are dispelled by these three questions.
Constrained Vision: Society runs better when there are rules applied to everyone, which everyone knows, and were decided on over time.
Unconstrained Vision: Rules are decided upon as relative issues come up based on their merit right now.
Constrained Vision: Right or wrong/for better or for worse, I am a citizen of my country first.
Unconstrained Vision: I am a citizen of the world first, country second.
Constrained Vision: A nation evolves slowly over time — to take it apart destroys it — it can not be put back together again in a different way.
Unconstrained Vision: We can build a nation how we want — take apart the building blocks — and put them together another way.
From the book: With the Constrained Vision, “…the incremental gain in individual knowledge by avoiding commitments is trivial, compared to the accumulated experience of the society.” (pg. 82)

** I’m not going to finish overviewing this book. It’s too much. Just buy it and read it yourself.**

***

Leaders of Movements

tb 001

“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world”

~Eric Hoffer

What does it take to be a leader of a movement?

“It needs the iron will, daring and vision of an exceptional leader to concert and mobilize existing attitudes and impulses into the collective drive of a mass movement. The leader personifies the certitude of the creed and the defiance and grandeur of power. He articulates and justifies the resentment damned up in the souls of the frustrated. He kindles the vision of a breathtaking future so as to justify the sacrifice of a transitory present. He stages the world of make-believe so indispensable for the realization of self-sacrifice and united action. He evokes the enthusiasm of communion — the sense of liberation from a petty and meaningless individual existence.

“What are the talents requisite for such a performance? Exceptional intelligence, noble character and originality seem neither indispensable nor perhaps desirable. The main requirements seem to be: audacity and a joy in defiance; an iron will; a fanatical conviction that he is in possession of the one and only truth; faith in his destiny and luck; a capacity for passionate hatred; contempt for the present; a cunning estimate of human nature; a delight in symbols (spectacles and ceremonies); unbounded brazenness which finds expression in a disregard of consistency and fairness; a recognition that the innermost cravings of a following is for communion and that there can never be too much of it; a capacity for winning and holding the utmost loyalty of a group of able lieutenants. This last faculty is one of the most essential and elusive. The uncanny powers of a leader manifest themselves not so much in the hold he has on the masses as in his ability to dominate and almost bewitch a small group of able men. These men must be fearless, proud, intelligent and capable of organizing and running large-scale undertakings, and yet they must submit wholly to the will of the leader, draw their inspiration and driving force from him, and glory in this submission.

“Not all the qualities enumerated above are equally essential. The most decisive for the effectiveness of a mass movement leader seem to be audacity, fanatical faith in a holy cause, an awareness of the importance of a close-knit collectivity, and, above all, the ability to evoke fervent devotion in a group of able lieutenants.”
(The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer, HarperCollins Publishing, New York, pg. 114-115)

In the initial phase of a movement (Hoffer calls it the “dynamic phase”), there will be rapid growth, almost too fast to take an account of — like the seven years of plenty in the story of Joseph, they just stopped keeping count after awhile. With rapid growth like that it doesn’t matter if you steward the resources well, because the money, the people, and the assets keeping pouring in.

But, that rapid growth phase will not, can not, go on forever. Eventually growth will slow down and begin to plateau. What kind of leader is needed when the slow-down occurs? As Hoffer writes later on…

“The danger of the fanatic (the movement’s initial leadership) to the development of a movement is that he cannot settle down. Once victory has been won and the new order begins to crystallize, the fanatic becomes an element of strain and disruption… Thus on the morrow of victory most mass movement find themselves in the grip of dissension. The ardor which yesterday found an outlet in a life-and-death struggle with external enemies now vents itself in violent disputes and clash of factions.”
(pg. 146)

A Man of Action — who knows how to steward the resources generously, who knows how to maintain good relationships with individuals (mainly the lieutenants), who is honest about the reality of the state of the movement, who considers the mission of the movement to be more important than its survival, and who won’t sacrifice everything in his life for the movement — must come to power.

“If allowed to have their way, the fanatics may split a movement into schism and heresies which threaten its existence. Even when the fanatics do not breed dissension, they can still wreck the movement by driving it to attempt the impossible. Only the entrance of a practical man of action can save the achievements of the movement.”
(pg. 147)

“The man of action saves the movement from the suicidal dissensions and the recklessness of the fanatics. But his appearance usually marks the end of the dynamic phase of the movement. The war with the present is over. The genuine man of action is intent not on renovating the world but on possessing it. Whereas the life and breath of the dynamic phase was protest and a desire for drastic change, the final phase is chiefly preoccupied with the administering and perpetuating the power won.”
(pg. 149)

Related reading: Visionary Leaders Vs. Masters

Metropolitan Manifesto by Richard Bledsoe (Brief Book Review)

Sometimes when I finish a book I think: “If that book was a hundred pages shorter it would have been a lot better.” But the opposite is true with this one. I think it should have been at least a hundred pages longer.

There are lots of interesting ideas here, and I underlined a lot and stopped to think a lot. Some of the book is theological, some is philosophical, and some is political. It is really a bunch of different topics put together (while yet all pointing to the theology of the city), and I think many readers will not like that. Most of the ideas can greatly be expanded on, and that’s why I say the book could be longer, or be expanded into two or three more books. This is especially true for the chapter about how western history has progressed through the Bible in reverse. That idea comes from “Out of Revolution” by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy. Huessy’s book is nearly 800 pages long, so there is a lot there. (I have not read “Out of Revolution” yet, but recently received a copy.) I don’t think most readers of Bledsoe’s book will have read “Out of Revolution”, so it would have been helpful if he had expanded on that idea more. I have read many of Bledsoe’s articles online and have listened to some of his lectures too, so that helped me to follow his thinking in this book a lot more. Here is a link to some of his lectures which go along with the book:

http://tricitycovenant.com/?s=bledsoe

A good book to read along with this one is “Crisis, Opportunity, and the Christian Future” by James B. Jordan. That 63 page essay deals with the different stages of human history which Bledsoe refers to in his book.

I will come back to this book again and again, as it is filled with many interesting (and sometimes strange — but strange is good) ideas. Also, after reading this book I am looking forward to reading that copy of “Out of Revolution” I received.

Information about the book.

Other reviews.