Utopian Capitalism

Neo-liberalism is, essentially, a scheme for a utopian capitalism whose ideal is best summarised as: “Everybody an entrepreneur!” The entrepreneur is considered the ideal and preferred type, and anything “less” than that is deemed to be simply a failed entrepreneur. So, that means you either lacked the requisite talents, killer instincts, or merit of the entrepreneur (and so, unworthy and undeserving) or that, somehow, the game was “rigged” against you — at least, the latter is how many of Trump’s supporters interpret things.

The promise of utopian capitalism was, give up your working-class organisations, start your own business and, with open borders and free trade deals, the “world is your oyster”.  A “rising tide lifts all boats”; but, first, of course, you’ve got to lift yourself up by the bootstraps and build your own boat in order to sail the stormy seas of a global free market, coming soon to a location near you.

Utopian capitalism is as much a scheme for a classless society as Marxism was a scheme for a classless society. The “New Capitalist Man” (or Entrepreneur) was as much an ideal of classless society as the “New Socialist Man”. Both, in their extremity, however end up making cartoon caricatures out of a human being, either as “rugged individualist” (or “rootless capitalism”) on the one hand, or eternal proletarian on the other.

A good many people have bought into this fable of the entrepreneur, and of an economics of winners and losers in the great game of utopian capitalism. If it’s not working out as the fairy tale described, if Santa hasn’t delivered up the promised land, it must be because “the game is rigged” and because “there’s no level playing field” and not because there is something askew with the ideals of utopian capitalism.

Not only are you expected to build your own boat in order to sail the stormy seas of the global free market, but it’s also a case of “get big, or get eaten!”, so you’re little boat must be yacht-sized, and ideally bigger than anybody else’s yacht — a Noah’s Ark of a yacht. So, it all adds up to a formula for frustration and resentment, particularly if you bought tickets to the game and it was cancelled without an explanation or a refund.

(The global market as your oyster and a paradise for the self-employed is probably true if you are a used-book seller, and can avail yourself of online marketing and distribution hubs like ABEBooks).

Of course many people are disillusioned with the promise of an entrepreneurial utopia, especially if they bought into it in the first place, and most of those people form the demographic behind Donald Trump in the US or “Ford Nation” (or the conservative “Base”) in Canada, and elsewhere.  I’ve questioned whether that demographic supporting Trumpism can be at all accurately described as “white working class” because that is rather atypical of authoritarian movements of the Right, and it is not characteristic of “Ford Nation” or the conservative “Base” in Canada. Authoritarian movements of the Right typically draw their support from the demographic called “the petty bourgeois” (or actually, “petite bourgeois” or small property owners) who feel themselves squeezed between a ruling class or a Middle Class that they aspire to join, and the fear of falling into the “Lower Class” or working class status. They are, in that sense, in a kind of “no man’s land”, and in that state often characterised as “anomie“. In Canada, at least, it’s often associated with suburbia or “the suburban mindset”.

In the US, a number of writers have challenged the media profile of the average Trump supporter as being predominantly “white working class male”, and the latest was Kansan Susan Smarsh writing in today’s Guardian: “Dangerous Idiots: How the liberal media elite failed working class Americans” in which she challenges the notion that the authoritarian impulse, or the attractions of authoritarianism, are coming from the “working class”. I think she’s substantially correct, because her profile of the demographic that backs Trump is very similar to the demographic that backed Stephen Harper in Canada or “Ford Nation” around the Toronto area. Traditionally, this has been called “petite bourgeois” and it was, indeed, the backbone of the fascist movements in Europe between the World Wars, and who felt themselves to be vulnerable, without status, and without the economic and political protections, too, of the working class organisations.

It’s the sense of being caught in a no man’s land betwixt and between, rootless, that characterises the mentality that is called “petite bourgeois” that breeds frustration, bitterness, and resentment and quite reactionary attitudes. Therefore, it is this demographic that is most susceptible to believing strange conspiracy theories, that the game is rigged against them, and there is “no level playing field”. It’s for this reason, too, that Hochschild’s “Deep Story” (as discussed earlier) appeals to them, because it does place them “betwixt and between”. They have neither the more liberal, tolerant values usually associated with the name “Middle Class”, nor the more socialistic values of solidarity of the “Working Class”, and for this reason it was earlier called “Third Way”, which today now goes by the name “Alt-Right”.

Given this, the scene is set for a “stab in the back” theory for when Mr. Trump loses the election (which he evidently will, barring something really bizarre). In fact, Mr. Trump is already preparing the way for a “stab in the back” theory with his insinuation that, should he lose the election, it was because it was rigged. So, this is not going to go away just because Mr Trump loses the election.

I don’t think much will change, at all, until the narrative of utopian capitalism is put to rest, and the entrepreneur ceases to be the political and social ideal.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

19 responses to “Utopian Capitalism”

  1. T.Collins Logan says :

    I think you have succinctly encapsulated the neoliberal (and anarcho-capitalist) sales pitch and illusion here. Well done. Regarding the Trump demographic, I have been ruminating over exactly what is going on as well, and have come to the conclusion that this is – at least in part – about forces and factors much more fundamental to the human species. In short, I think our current polarity sets a longstanding masculine power paradigm against emergent feminine power. The gender of the candidates has little to do with this (Bernie Sanders, for example, falls into the “feminine power” trajectory IMO), but the behavioral characteristics induced by testosterone have everything to do with it. I write more about this here: http://www.tcollinslogan.com/tclblog/index.php?/archives/277-The-Problem-of-Feminine-Power-Testosterone,-Cultural-Evolution-the-2016-U.S.-Elections.html. I would be very interested to hear what you think.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Thanks. I’ll look into it and see if I can say anything intelligent in response.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Your article doesn’t allow comments, so I guess I’ll post my thoughts here.

      Can’t really speak to the biochemistry of it all, although it’s all a matter of energy, in this case chemical energy, and it is the function of cultural institutions, forms, rites, ceremonies to “sublimate” these energies in certain ways and to give intelligible pattern and meaning to them. And so here we come to a problem, that not only were the past cultural norms, institutions, forms “deficient” in this regard, but now are disintegrating completely, and which brings us to the brink of what we call “barbarism”, which is, in some respects, absence of the sublime.

      So, this is one aspect of “chaotic transition” insofar as these chemical energies have no outlet that isn’t now dismissed as “political correctness” or which we call “common decency” or “civility” or “politesse” or whatever. James’ “moral equivalent of war” was also an attempt to come up with a sublime way for these energies to be organised and expressed. But a lot of common social rituals perform the same function — the patterning and organisation of our energies. So, there is great confusion, as old norms of “romance”, courtship, gender relations, and so on become also chaotic.

      The return of the repressed also involves the return of the “Eternal Feminine” (as Goethe called it) who is also “Liberty Leading the People” in Delacroix’s depiction of the French Revolution. And the return of the feminine is also implied in the Gaia Hypothesis and Elgin’s “Awakening Earth”. So, the return of the feminine power is certainly one of the major aspects of the chaotic transition. But it needs sublimation as much as the masculine power needs sublimation, or organisation into new cultural patterns or gestalts. This is where Hermeticism can be of great benefit. particularly in the idea of the hieros gamos or “sacred marriage”.

      It’s all about energy, really, even when we talk about energy in terms of biochemical energy. It’s all a matter of learning how to handle energy.

      • T.Collins Logan says :

        We can reframe the discussion in terms of types of energy and even spiritual archetypes, and for me that opens up the issue of a “chaotic transition” or tension that has potentially been in play long before the word became manifest – speaking both metaphorically and literally. And I do think this is an important avenue of discussion. However, if we render such tension in psychological and biological terms, as I did in the essay about testosterone, are they one-and-the-same? Or can we tease out an important differentiation by isolating a prominent biochemical agent? Perhaps these perspectives do fit together in complimentary ways…but perhaps not. In evolutionary terms, for example, this could be more about group selection via prosocial traits that testosterone frustrates or disrupts…so that the energy you allude to simply must attenuate (as in fact I suggest it already has), rather than sublimate. In other words, the Neanderthal is extinct…not sublimated. Perhaps we too must evolve biologically in order to evolve culturally…and spiritually. In this sense homo sapiens may be a bridge rather than a destination. I intuit currents that transcend and obliterate, as opposed to transcend and include.

        • Scott Preston says :

          I think it is quite evident that mutations in consciousness structure are reflected in changes in biochemical function and physiological form, even simply in terms of “neuroplasticity”. And I assume that the contemporary social stresses and anxieties are also bound up with changes in the human form and configuration, in whatever terms you prefer to use, since whether we speak of body or of consciousness, it’s one field of energy, in various states of manifestation or “concretion” to use Jean Gebser’s terms. Or William Blake’s for that matter.

          As such, I don’t see this as an “attenuation”, which could easily become repression, which is already what we have now. I see it more as a transmutation rather than an attenuation, in which the energies are rebalanced. This might look like “attentuation”, but it’s more in the nature of an augmentation, which brings about a new sense of ratio or proportionality, which is otherwise what we call “gracefulness” or “graciousness”, which is certainly noticeably absent these days — a certain equilibrium, a certain equanimity of soul.

          The body, quite naturally, aspires to a state of poise or dynamic equilibrium we call “homeostasis”. (In fact, death is now defined as homeostatic failure). What often prevents it from achieving that poise is “monkey mind”, and imbalances in biochemical functioning are often associated with a constant sense of “fight or flight”. syndrome, which can have detrimental biochemical effects, as we know. Silencing the monkey mind also brings peace to the body, and a sense of great ease.

          • T.Collins Logan says :

            I appreciate what you are saying, and I think it echoes my own thoughts in the essay about “The Wolf You Feed” symbiosis. But to invoke dynamic equilibrium (in an ecological or thermodynamic sense) is to accept that human beings may not be part of the final equation – our position in the energy exchange is not sacrosanct. I suppose my point is that if we don’t achieve the very equanimity you allude to, and quickly, homo sapiens won’t be around to appreciate how these energies find their balance. In this sense the 2016 U.S. election is a sort of diagnostic test. Testosterone-dependent dominance systems will, I think, go the way of the dinosaurs (one way or another); the question here is whether human beings can adapt – and part of that adaptation will mean certain aspects of our past humanity will inevitably become “vestigial.” Not suppressed or repressed, but non-functionally inert. The evolutionary assumption too often has been (from de Chardin to Aurobindo to Gebser to Wilber et al) that humans will always be part of a projected process. And I think that’s a pretty anthropocentric, egoic assumption. We humans simply may not have what it takes – consciously or biologically – to achieve the requisite transition.

            • Scott Preston says :

              It is, of course, true, as Walter Benjamin put it, that man’s self-alienation has reached such a pitch of intensity that he can now experience his own self-annihilation with aesthetic pleasure. That’s the double-edged sword that Gebser calls our “double-movement”, because self-alienation can also be a stage in self-overcoming; the stage called “losing the human form”, in Castaneda’s writings or transcending “the mold of man”.

              Self-alienation is also part of chaotic transition, in that sense. And it’s quite risky. Gebser’s three existential questions: “who am I? Where do I come from? Where am I going?” are questions only the alienated ask.

              Losing the human form isn’t something to dread, although it seems like it should be. It’s the Buddha’s begging bowl. It’s the Holy Grail of the Christ. Unless the cup becomes empty, it cannot be filled. This is the process that is happening now, which we call “nihilism”. And it’s better to understand it than not to understand it, because it is, in some ways, out of our hands. Nothing much to do with anthropocentrism or the ego-nature at all, which is pretty much a bystander to the whole thing.

              “Chaos”, after all, in its true sense, is the Big Empty, not randomness of things. So, it’s part of Shiva’s Dance. It’s our responses to this that are the decisive issue, which is why Gebser notes that the key to surviving the chaotic transition is to know when to let happen, and when to make happen, which is a question of timing, of tempo, of rhythm, of not losing one’s marbles in the face of it all.

              These kinds of changes or “mutations” always involve the whole human form and frame — body, mind, soul, and spirit and with such intensity in that respect that one feels torn to pieces, like the manaeds of Dionysos (the Bacchae) tearing apart Pentheus. I’m not surprised that people feel like it’s the end of the world, in that respect.

            • T.Collins Logan says :

              I smiled at reading this last bit – I think you may still be operating within a self-referential (i.e. species-referential/human-consciousness-referential) frame rather than stepping outside of it – as both the human form and the energy of our consciousness may be completely irrelevant to the Cosmos. But I appreciate your perspective regarding alienation and I think it resonates with the current pandemic of identity confusion. My hope for humanity also includes transfiguration…we shall see. Thanks for the thoughtful exchange!

            • Scott Preston says :

              On the theme of the manaeds, or the feeling of “torn-to-pieceshood” of “trying to keep mind, body, soul, and spirit together”, as is sometimes said, myths of dismemberment and reintegration (or “rememberance” if you will) are fairly common not only in antiquity, also in contemporary aboriginal lore. Always about losing the human form but then returning to the totality of oneself, transfigured.

            • Scott Preston says :

              Cosmos and consciousness are not separate issues. They are reciprocal co-evolutionary polarities. This is what Blake means when he says “Where man is not, Nature is barren”.

              Consciousness completes the being-potentiality of the cosmos, without which it could not be in any intelligible sense. There is far more to the so-called “measurement problem” than has yet dawned on most physicists (although it has dawned on some physicists, that the cosmos needs consciousness to fulfill its potentialities). The unmanifested aspects of the cosmos, which remain only potentialities, that still require “concretion” (in the sense Gebser uses it) are what Elgin calls “meta-universe”, but which is pretty much the same as Gebser’s “ever-present origin”. These potentialities will only become manifest through consciousness.

            • T.Collins Logan says :

              I don’t entirely disagree. I have had beliefs akin to those you describe for many years – and still maintain most of them. However, another datapoint or perspective that enters into the spectrum of multidialectical synthesis is that what we humans understand to be consciousness (in its myriad forms) may just be another sensory organ and nothing more. We might be ascribing consciousness to phenomena the same way we ascribe other sense-perceptions to them – the music of the stars, red-hot anger, the smell of victory, etc. It may indeed be the next order of sensing in its organizing capacities – a meta-sense – but still confined to a sensory function in and of itself, despite the allure of a grander contextualization. Then, when we extend beyond the “usual” sense, into ineffable or non-conceptual territory, we return to routine consciousness with a burning desire to encapsulate our experience in familiar forms and grander contexts. We even have words for them – ground of being, suchness, emptiness, void of plenitude, ein sof, unmanifest, etc. – which are really quite distant from the actual event or apprehension. So, with respect to reification of unmanifest potentialities, perhaps “consciousness” has become a convenient semantic container for an equally non-conceptual, ineffable intuition about something else entirely. So is it really appropriate? I think this is an interesting question.

            • Scott Preston says :

              Some time ago, in the early days of The Chrysalis, I wrote that it was my experience that consciousness and awareness were distinct issues, not to be confused with one another. Others may make the distinction in terms of “mind” and “consciousness” but that is much the same. In Buddhism, “mind” is another sense, and so this corresponds with consciousness pretty well. Awareness is “beyond” mind or consciousness in the sense that the consciousness is simply a focus of the awareness, which is far, far vaster than consciousness itself.

              Since then, we’ve seen books like Iain McGilchrist’s The Master and his Emissary on neurodynamics and also neuroanatomist Jill Bolte-Taylor’s My Stroke of Insight which should corroborates the validity of this distinction between the Awareness and the Consciousness. The Awareness is, I believe, what Heraclitus tried to describe as “the Logos”. I also see that Duane Elgin in “Awakening Earth” also makes a distinction between consciousness and awareness.

              I also believe that, eventually, non-locality (or transluminal effect or synchronous effect) and the “measurement problem” (or collapse of the wave function) will be seen as connected in this way also, as the awareness and the consciousness are related, as attentional and intentional modalities of awareness. There are no constraints on the awareness such as we seem to experience with consciousness. That’s my experience.

            • T.Collins Logan says :

              Yes I think awareness is a helpful distinction. In my writing I have called this “spiritual cognition-perception,” a process that consistently invites knowing (gnosis) of things like the unitive cohesion of all-being, the primacy of compassionate affection, otherwise inaccessible perspective shifts (constructlessness, emptiness, no-self), and other related experiences (non-local coherence, etc.). So in the context of this thread I would posit: if all Trump supporters could rapidly cultivate this type of “awareness,” would they not likely encounter an aha of discernment that he is not a wise choice…? 😉

            • Scott Preston says :

              I would think they would (although with some caveats on that, because there is also a false enlightenment called “Luciferic” as well as a “Christic”, if we choose to use those terms. Some refer, for example, to “the sick gurus” in the Yoga context, and “satori” didn’t prevent Zen Masters in Japan from becoming enthusiastic fascists and proponents of “Imperial Way Buddhism” or “National Buddhism”).

              There is something we might call “Mephistophelian” about the Alt-Right, to be sure — “part of that power that would ever evil do, but always does the good”, as Goethe has his Mephisto say in “Faust”. They are part of the disintegrative process that always must precede a new integration. It’s Shiva’s Dance of “creative destruction”. Without this nihilistic and disintegrative process, our task of effecting a new integration would be much more difficult. We probably wouldn’t even undertake it — the problem of Nietzsche’s “miserable ease”. So, as I noted earlier, even Thatcher’s and Fukuyama’s Mephistophelianism in either declaring the end of society or the end of history not only frees us from outmoded understandings of society and history, but forces us to rethink the meaning of society and history, and so establish a new basis and foundation for truth in the struggle with “post-truth society”.

              I’ve often recommended Rumi’s poem “Green Ears” as a guide to understanding and enduring “chaotic transition”, which is pretty much what it is about, much as Blake’s “Vision of the Last Judgment” is also about chaotic transition.

              http://devotionlovers.blogspot.ca/2010/05/green-ears-there-was-long-drought.html

              The tension, stresses, and struggle with these symptoms of nihilism and decay is a necessary counterpoint to the re-integration of consciousness.

            • T.Collins Logan says :

              Really great poem. 🙂

  2. Scott Preston says :

    There’s also a long article on populism that appears in today’s Guardian, but which might not explain very much

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/birth-of-populism-donald-trump

    • Steve Lavendusky says :

      As with Franz Rosenzweig (who goes to great length in The Star of Redemption and Understanding the Sick and the Healthy to demonstrate that God, man and world underpin three fundamentally different and irreducible foundations of explanation which have shaped our history), Rosenstock-Huessy was convinced that humanism’s attempt to free itself from all gods (making humanity and/or nature the ground of reality) was based upon a failure to grasp more ancient insights into the nature of the real and the relationship between reality, language and history. To this important extent, again like Rosenzweig, he argued that language was more fundamental than either philosophy or religion and philosophy’s attempt to free itself from and reduce religion to a deficient kind of philosophy was based upon its failure to take language, and hence reality, sufficiently seriously. As he would say in a letter to Cynthia Harris: ‘Not religion but language forces man to distinguish between this world and the real world, the world as we know it and the genuine, or better known world. The crux of theology is a crux of language, and all our rationalists are not protesting against religion but against speech’ (1943, 162).

      But unlike Karl Barth or Paul Tillich, for example, who saw themselves as fusing philosophy and theology, Rosenstock-Huessy refused to see himself primarily as a philosopher or theologian—though when the term philosopher was qualified by the preceding ‘social’, he was more willing to accept that designation.[2] His criticisms of theology and philosophy were numerous, varied in content and highly nuanced—and hence unable to receive full treatment here. Generally, though, he thought both were, what he called, ‘second order activities’, or products of the reflective mind at ‘play’. Philosophical and theological speech trailed behind and were dependent upon the more urgent and creative acts of ‘founding’, that is, those acts which emerge out of life’s exigencies, which are epoch making ‘events’ and which are at the source of human institutions and new forms of life, and which cannot be separated from the vocabulary, or, more specifically, the shared names and foci of orientation which connect us across space and over time.[3] In the most philosophical of all his works, the first volume of his Soziologie, when contrasting the respective limits of theology with philosophy, he says that theology is guilty of reducing us to sinners and angels and thus not adequately accounting for our being flesh and blood, while philosophers tend to reduce us to objects and things in the dead space of the universe and ‘to mirror the objective world in their subjective world’ (1956, 286). ‘Religion,’ he says in that same section, ‘is unjust against nature and the human spirit (Geist)’; while philosophy is blind to ‘the time-endowing forces’ (‘die zeitstiftenden Gewalten’).[4]

      Against philosophers and theologians, he saw his task as restoring our attunement to the potencies embedded in our speech and institutions so that we could draw upon the power of past times in order to strengthen our openness to the promise of the future in the present. To this end, while his corpus cuts across numerous disciplines, his major systematic work, one rewritten throughout the course of his life, was his two part Sociology Im Kreuz der Wirchlichkeit (In the Cross of Reality) – the first volume of which is to appear with Transaction in 2017: volume one originally appeared (to use the English title) in 1925 as The Forces of Community, and then reworked as The Hegemony of Spaces; volume two being The Full Count of the Times. His social philosophy is concerned with how, when a world implodes on or devours them—through what he terms the four social diseases of anarchy, decadence, revolution and war (1970a, 11–16)—people can escape the tyranny of forces that have come to rule the space in which they dwell by founding a new time which will then open up other spatial possibilities. For him, then, the key to human freedom is the capacity both to found the new and draw upon the powers encapsulated in bodies of time past which enable us to live in a present in which we feel blessed by the future. Rosenstock-Huessy repeatedly argues that philosophy generally is particularly weak in assisting us with this task and it is ultimately to sociology that Rosenstock-Huessy turned as ‘the way to win again our freedom over spaces and through times’ (2009,1, 22). Hence against the Cartesian cogito, which he saw as providing the underpinning formulation of the philosophy of modernity, Rosenstock-Huessy retorts with the much more archaic Respondeo etsi mutabor—‘I respond although I will be changed’ (1938, 817–830; 1970b, 17–33). In other words, we are fundamentally responsive creatures—and our creations are shaped by our responses either to the weight and push of the past, the burdens or joys of the present or the pull and call of the future. Like Vico, whom Rosenstock-Huessy greatly admired, he believes we are inescapably rooted in history, even though our great revolutions attempt to rip us out of it, in order to begin anew and build a much better world, thereby opening up new paths of self-hood.[5]

      Philosophy’s major deficiency, for Rosenstock-Huessy, is that it is not sufficiently sensitive to time, speech or history. To a large extent this is because logic itself is timeless. As he says in ‘The Terms of the Creed’, ‘logic is that mode of spiritual life in which the divinity of timing is omitted’. Logic transports us out of time and offers the mind a stable, but unreal space. For Rosenstock-Huessy, this search for a stable space is reflected in recurrent philosophical elements which privilege the implacability of space (or a particular space) over the ceaselessness of time. Modern philosophy’s division of things into subject and object (a spatial configuration) is a case in point, but it goes back to the ancients whose building blocks such as topics (from topos place), ‘categories’ (from kata = ‘down to’ and agora = ‘the public assembly’ i.e. declaiming in the assembly), reason’s sphericality, and ideas (the very term idea, eidein = ‘to see’, referring to something visible to the mind’s eye) all suggest a commitment to (the mental) space’s primacy. The same point is made somewhat more elaborately in the first volume of the In the Cross of Reality (2009, 1,307 –311) where he argues that dialectical thought is triadic, but anything that really happens and makes itself manifest, i.e. appears (erscheint), is at least quadrilateral.[6] It must be something in space and time, and hence conform to the inner/outerness or subjective/objective matrix of space, as well as the trajective and prejective-ness of time. He called this four-fold matrix the cross of reality and it is applied repeatedly throughout his works.

      While Rosenstock-Huessy provided a range of arguments against philosophers wanting to make more of reason and less of language, time and history than their due, and while he preferred to classify himself as a sociologist, he can also be seen as a social philosopher who argued for the philosophical necessity of the fusion of history, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and religion. Franz Rosenzweig certainly saw Rosenstock-Huessy in this light, and he once said to him: ‘You have never…been to me anything other than a “philosopher”’(1969, 82).[7] In this respect he belongs to that long line of critics of philosophy that range from ancients to moderns and comic poets to religious thinkers—from Aristophanes to Lucian, to Rabelais, from Tatian, to Tertullian to Luther, and Pascal to Marx and Nietzsche. All these critics have provided criticisms of philosophy that have ended up, in different ways, and at different times, transforming the direction and content of philosophy.

      Off some web-site.

      • Scott Preston says :

        I had not come across that before. Nor have I looked into the exchange between Rosenstock-Huessy and Rosenzweig, which was (in Europe anyway) quite famous before things turned ugly in the interwar years.

        I’m sure much of this will appear baffling, even to those familiar with Gebser or even Rosenstock-Huessy’s grammatical method. Still, they are related in their concerns with “time-thinking” and “metanoia”, and as such I consider them two pillars of the New Age in their respective interests. Rosenstock-Huessy complements Gebser very nicely for Gebser always sensed that grammar held the key and secret to the mutations in consciousness, and this key is provided by Rosenstock-Huessy’s grammatical method, which he also called the “Open Sesame” to the secrets of the life of mind and society.

        The article does highlight that emphasis on speech and grammar as a “matrix form of thinking” of which we must become conscious, in terms of the quadrilateral rather than the dialectical. That’s one thing to take away from it.

  3. abdulmonem says :

    As Rumi puts it ,our intellect is in fragments, like bits of gold, scattered over many matters.
    we must scrap them together, so the divine stamp can be pressed into us. That is why there is all this emphasis on oneness .the source of our language( and We taught Adam all the names) the main tool of our communication with the one and the many. Rumi also said , manyness is having sixty emotions, unity is peace and silence. Discursiveness dies and contemplative joy dies not. I like the way Scott approaches the matter through energy in all its expressions, after all what is language( its letters and words) but effective energy through which our communications are accomplished and the divine knowledge is drawn to the human sphere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: