Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes XXIV - Revision history

Santiago Pinault: /* Freedom and Technology (8) */

2019-12-14T03:17:32Z

Freedom and Technology (8)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:17, 14 December 2019
Line 345:		Line 345:
	A community is basically ethical, and morality is the understanding of life in its essence. Jesus promised fullness of life – the abundance of life. That is why Shaw had never any quarrel with Christianity, just {{Page \|n°=35}} the empty fashions pandering to evil which is what conventional Christianity is. There was no criticism in Shaw. Why should he imagine that what Christian church produces is Christianity? [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		A community is basically ethical, and morality is the understanding of life in its essence. Jesus promised fullness of life – the abundance of life. That is why Shaw had never any quarrel with Christianity, just {{Page \|n°=35}} the empty fashions pandering to evil which is what conventional Christianity is. There was no criticism in Shaw. Why should he imagine that what Christian church produces is Christianity? [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Freedom and Technology (8) ==		== Freedom and Technology (16) ==
	{{Page \|n°=36}} The whole book would be on socialist lines, but post-Russian socialism. There would be however, a complete avoidance of the first-line illusions – that’s gone. This comes near to the New West which would be post-Russian.		{{Page \|n°=36}} The whole book would be on socialist lines, but post-Russian socialism. There would be however, a complete avoidance of the first-line illusions – that’s gone. This comes near to the New West which would be post-Russian.

Santiago Pinault: /* Politics (3) */

2019-11-27T15:29:51Z

Politics (3)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 27 November 2019
Line 401:		Line 401:

	== Politics (3) ==		== Politics (3) ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		P. feels that every element of self-respect has gone in the way the State Department carries on foreign policy. […]

			How deep-seated the suicidal tendencies of mankind are, become obvious from the embarassment all-round at the Arab-recovery (the Arab unanimous decision of Aug. 21st at the U.N.). The misgivings, and ambiguous response which followed and the general unwillingness are like the person who doesn't want to relinquish his disease.

			Thursday night, August 21st, was a great event. The Arab empire, small power though it is, will have very great neutralizing effects. The new Arab empire will have great influence and prove important neutralism is. Russian diplomacy is clever and kept in the back-ground. At a certain point there was a threat of war. This prevented the Americans from expanding to attack Iraq. That's when the warning came out. They had a summit conference and Eisenhower was there and K. was not.

			The Russians try to do everything to prevent a world war from developing. That is why K. went to Peking. The situation became dangerous. One wouldn't be sure what is going to happen. Russia mobilized 24 divisions in Turkestan. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Economic Motives (2) ==		== Economic Motives (2) ==

Santiago Pinault: /* Fighting Words (2) */

2019-11-27T15:22:37Z

Fighting Words (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 27 November 2019
Line 435:		Line 435:

	=== Fighting Words (2) ===		=== Fighting Words (2) ===
	P. has participated in a taped program with Russel Kirk, Robert McKenzie, and Needles. McKenzie is a very effective disputant. They debated disengagement, and the Kennan problem. ~~[…]~~		P. has participated in a taped program with Russel Kirk, Robert McKenzie, and Needles. McKenzie is a very effective disputant. They debated disengagement, and the Kennan problem. Also whether the emancipation of enslaved societies is a reasonable aim of a foreign policy, also liberty from totalitarian regimes and private and public morality (the Adams case).

	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		P. did not think it was very interesting program. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==
	'''Date''': August 23, [[1958]] (Interview)<br />		'''Date''': August 23, [[1958]] (Interview)<br />
	'''KPA''': [[45/20]]		'''KPA''': [[45/20]]

Santiago Pinault: /* Rousseau (3) */

2019-11-27T15:21:01Z

Rousseau (3)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 27 November 2019
Line 427:		Line 427:

	=== Rousseau (3) ===		=== Rousseau (3) ===
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		My comment: There is a new book out on Rousseau attempting to show the democratic character of his writing and disprove the totalitarian aspects.

			Rousseau was the founder of both the individual and the totalitarian schools. Also the intellectual and anti-intellectual lines. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	=== George Woodard ===		=== George Woodard ===

Santiago Pinault: /* Reciprocity */

2019-11-27T15:18:52Z

Reciprocity

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 27 November 2019
Line 416:		Line 416:
	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
	=== Reciprocity ===		=== Reciprocity ===
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		My question on reciprocity and ethics.

			Reciprocity in the economy is only the principle of community, Aristotle's philia. It is not Christian love and has nothing to do with it. It is the good will that holds between members of any group.

			We would say that there are groups with no good will to one another e.g. blacks and whites in a town but Aristotle said that they aren't a group, a community. By good will he didn't mean anything emotional or ethical. There is no ethics in a community where the community is a fact. What I call ethics is the way they live. My idea of ethics is for an atomistic society.

			I should see the Nichomachean ethics. Our modern ethics is a historical concept which exists only in a definite type of society. Jesus' idea of love is not ethics but an understanding of life. It is a different category.

			Ethics is a theory of something. It is a theory of right action and right value and it is not necessarily so that there need be a theory of it at all. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	=== Rousseau (3) ===		=== Rousseau (3) ===

Santiago Pinault: /* Economic Motives (2) */

2019-11-27T15:09:30Z

Economic Motives (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 27 November 2019
Line 404:		Line 404:

	== Economic Motives (2) ==		== Economic Motives (2) ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		{{Page \|n°=44}} There are no economic motives. This has been taken up by e.g. Parsons also. What makes a motive economic? There is no motive which would directly make you work and according to the situation you might do different things. You might steal or rob. Hunger is a physiological state.

			It is the same idea as there are no political motives. You may be jealous or furious but you can't be political.

			What we mean by economic motives or political motives is that you relate yourself to a definite institutional sphere, namely to some motivation or other and act in that sphere.

			Even sex may be culturally determined, not in the physiological range and not even whether the motive sex exists as a motive. It depends on society as to whether the situation is one whether the behaviour in one society would be repeated in another.

			But for economic or political motives there is no society where some of the motives that are regarded by us as economic would have a direct relevance to the economic process like ours. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

Santiago Pinault: /* University of Chicago Paper */

2019-11-27T14:41:14Z

University of Chicago Paper

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 27 November 2019
Line 363:		Line 363:

	== University of Chicago Paper ==		== University of Chicago Paper ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		{{Page \|n°=38}} P. went back to history and used historical examples as an illustration of his method. The method is utterly meaningless and is a kind of a puzzle unless it can be understood in its background and possible use.

			It seems that the paper does get through and there are excellent reactions from the top man. If this paper can be understood it would be a model for a completely new line of work in which these conceptual advances could be used for an endless array of history.

			These problems of history are in terrible condition. There are only two kinds of approaches, orthodox Marxism which is restricted to half a dozen cliches, each of them out of date. It might possibly be employed if Marxism got moving again. The others are pure libertinistic. These are mostly psychological and are called cultural, picking up a pattern here and there without any hope of dealing with it on other than a conversational level. For example, there is Spengler, the Decline of the West, a work on a monumental scale which appears only once every thirty of fifty years. It can't be imitated without genius. There is however no element of a method and the chances are that it is utterly wrong. The first method, the Marxian, is poverty all over.

			Otherwise there is nothing else, except perhaps Marc Bloch for the medieval period and perhaps mercantilism, but here Heckscher didn't get beyond Schmoller and in some ways was several steps behind. In antiquity nothing has happened and since ancient antiquity decides on modern antiquity this forms the foundations of our outlook. The last great work was that of Rostovtseff but he wasn't able to sum up {{Page \|n°=39}} his work. He was caught up in one thing: the market. He wasn't a modernizer but thought of the market in the old way and this prevented him from harvesting, summing up. He was a genius but he went the historian's way, not the conceptual way. This is the opposite method to K.P.'s who wasn't on the primary sources or the immediate evidence or on finding new facts but on secondary sources.

			If P. has the time he might write another such study for the Thrupp Paper. He wants the thing to go on record i.e. the applications to actual history of the conceptual innovations. Otherwise the others remain on the other side and the scholars do not understand. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== My Thesis ==		== My Thesis ==

Santiago Pinault: /* Freedom and Technology (8) */

2019-11-27T13:44:41Z

Freedom and Technology (8)

@@ Line 348: / Line 348: @@
 {{Page |n°=36}} The whole book would be on socialist lines, but post-Russian socialism. There would be however, a complete avoidance of the first-line illusions – that’s gone. This comes near to the New West which would be post-Russian.
-[[#mw-page-base|↑]]
+This book on Freedom and Technology which hinges on the condition of man today is the same as the development of the idea of the reality of society. Is there from Robert Owen to the present, and the existentialists and those breaks are the history of the modern mind. This P. puts as a disquisition on freedom. It is not easy to deny that freedom is a much used phrase. For example, there are the freedom-loving countries. What do they love? Something they don't have.
 == University of Chicago Paper ==

Santiago Pinault at 11:33, 27 November 2019

2019-11-27T11:33:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 27 November 2019
Line 116:		Line 116:

	== The New West (3) ==		== The New West (3) ==
	{{~~English to type~~}} The New West would be post-Russian. If one restricts the old West to 150 years (nothing essential of it having been there before 1800, only antecedents) then Soviet Russia makes up for 40 of these years. That’s quite a bit. 40 years of European history cannot be considered without Russia and the reaction of the Old West to Russia is something which formed the West and changed it to what it is now. The New West I already post-Russian.		{{page \|n°=12}} The New West would be post-Russian. If one restricts the old West to 150 years (nothing essential of it having been there before 1800, only antecedents) then Soviet Russia makes up for 40 of these years. That’s quite a bit. 40 years of European history cannot be considered without Russia and the reaction of the Old West to Russia is something which formed the West and changed it to what it is now. The New West I already post-Russian.

	P. is more clarity on having to use several terms, otherwise there is no equipment. There should be a structure for presentations.		P. is more clarity on having to use several terms, otherwise there is no equipment. There should be a structure for presentations.
Line 128:		Line 128:
	Now two problem groups come up. How has the identification with the power group affected the culture? It has diminished it. Also there is now the challenge of the industrialization of Asia. It is the new challenge.		Now two problem groups come up. How has the identification with the power group affected the culture? It has diminished it. Also there is now the challenge of the industrialization of Asia. It is the new challenge.

	Western culture was affected negatively by the identification {{Page \|n°=13}} with the power group. The world lost confidence in it and that is the prestige loss. As to Asia, ~~[…]~~		Western culture was affected negatively by the identification {{Page \|n°=13}} with the power group. The world lost confidence in it and that is the prestige loss. As to Asia, the danger is the parochialism of Western culture. It is not a danger which we should get over but we should accept it as a parochial one in a world not limited by the West.

			The question is then what do we do and what are our tasks with reference to the power groups and to Asian industrial civilization.

			It is clear that the subject matter of what P. would call the crisis of the West stems from its enormous growth and spread. In particular in science and technology and economic organizations which is a result of the industrial revolution and its success.

			What does it mean to rebel against alignement with the West? Western culture transcends the momentary strategic and diplomatic position of the West. The point of the third category is to make our experiences available. It is not to universalize Western culture (which is a contradiction in terms). We accept the parochialism i.e. that we are not the East.

			It is quite clear that in such an outline one can present the vast scope of the problems for a Western culture which believes in itself.

			P. only now started putting it down. P. hadn't decided where is the main emphasis.

			The problem of the old West include a reform of the relations of power in the West and to the East but culture is the bigger subject. It can't be done the other way, as Paul wishes to do it. You are lost in politics and it can't be done at all.

	{{Page \|n°=14}} Now the question is where does Russia come in? It started just 40 years ago. Is it a matter of the past? It is a whole epoch.		{{Page \|n°=14}} Now the question is where does Russia come in? It started just 40 years ago. Is it a matter of the past? It is a whole epoch.

	The move of the Arab nations at the U.N. (Aug. 21) to settle their own affairs makes it easier to write. ~~[…]~~		The move of the Arab nations at the U.N. (Aug. 21) to settle their own affairs makes it easier to write. China and the arab would and India keep Russia out. These are three very important concentrating points in the East.

	P. has started to write a suggestion of an outline to a publisher in order to have someone to address. It is easier to address a publisher than a non-existent group of thinkers.		P. has started to write a suggestion of an outline to a publisher in order to have someone to address. It is easier to address a publisher than a non-existent group of thinkers.

	Once you accept efficiency as an arbitror ~~… […]~~		Once you accept efficiency as an arbitror then everything else is out and you are down to a monolithic system of a deadly character. In capitalism profit allows an accounting of efficiency. Profit is made on efficiency and efficiency measures profit.

	P. tried to present this as a birdseye view in two and a half pages. ~~[…]~~		P. tried to present this as a birdseye view in two and a half pages. It has much more life and air and is not just as a conceptual dictionary. With this organon one can do a great deal: 1) take socialism into the West. 2) Make Western culture the progenitor and therefore responsible for it.

	There is no … […]		There is no question … […] {{English to type}}

	If the project is a success it should be published for example, in both Calcutta and Boston and both in English.		If the project is a success it should be published for example, in both Calcutta and Boston and both in English.
Line 235:		Line 247:
	P. wouldn't make this an idea because others wouldn't accept it. P. agrees that the problem could be formulated in terms of the Western state or religion and community. We are not committed not to think beyond the constitution of the U.S.A.		P. wouldn't make this an idea because others wouldn't accept it. P. agrees that the problem could be formulated in terms of the Western state or religion and community. We are not committed not to think beyond the constitution of the U.S.A.

	What themes and subjects remain? What about Max Weber? He broadened the problem. We cannot be absorbed by this or that power grouping. Some however say that always so – every center of thought was identified with a church, guild etc. But Spinoza didn’t define his position with the Dutch state nor Kant with a Prussian state {{Page \|n°=25}} nor Rousseau with the ancient regime or the French nation. We can’t cut Western culture off at 1776 at the time of the ~~industri-al~~ civilization. For the “modus vivendi” we go back to Grotius. (some say to go back to the Old Testament and the New Testament).		What themes and subjects remain? What about Max Weber? He broadened the problem. We cannot be absorbed by this or that power grouping. Some however say that always so – every center of thought was identified with a church, guild etc. But Spinoza didn’t define his position with the Dutch state nor Kant with a Prussian state {{Page \|n°=25}} nor Rousseau with the ancient regime or the French nation. We can’t cut Western culture off at 1776 at the time of the industrial civilization. For the “modus vivendi” we go back to Grotius. (some say to go back to the Old Testament and the New Testament).
	When the market began, to move under its own steam the West thought up socialism. […]		When the market began, to move under its own steam the West thought up socialism. […]

Santiago Pinault: /* The New West (3) */

2019-09-02T09:59:48Z

The New West (3)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 2 September 2019
Line 189:		Line 189:
	{{Page \|n°=20}} P. doesn't … […]		{{Page \|n°=20}} P. doesn't … […]

	{{Page \|n°=21}}		{{Page \|n°=21}} Russia in the defence of science and technology […]
	~~William Morris~~ […]
			A civilization is in the economic, social and technical field. If the Americans made peace tomorrow perhaps the hole problem would become intensified.

			Some say that the justification of what … […]

			There are tinkers … […]

			In World history for example, in the time of the Crusade, you would not accept the Crusades as part of a justified responsibility. P. knows of no Christian thinker who was opposed to the Crusades on lines of principle. There was also for example the French Revolution and all the thoughts accepted commitment to politics and commitment to the state as part of their own philosophy. Thus you couldn't be a man of the enlightenment and the French Revolution who contracts out of the French army and liberation from feudalism.

	There is no word for Western thought either. There is Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas. Are they Western thought? […]		There is no word for Western thought either. There is Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas. Are they Western thought? […]

	{{Page \|n°=22}} ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=22}} Ilona: You had no choice to be neutral.

	Dulles says that if you are a man who loves freedom you should subordinate your strategy, diplomacy, and tactical interests to the group of countries led by the U.S.		Dulles says that if you are a man who loves freedom you should subordinate your strategy, diplomacy, and tactical interests to the group of countries led by the U.S.

	If one really wants to do anything one must have the concepts that grip the situation unmistakeably. Isn’t this a responsibility to Western culture?		If one really wants to do anything one must have the concepts that grip the situation unmistakeably. Isn’t this a responsibility to Western culture?

	We must be careful what we are talking about. Some say: we don’t fancy the industrial civilization and the East has a lot to teach us. Other say: we don’t accept American leadership. Others say: I don’t stand by the church and Western Enlightenment and Nazzini, so what is in and what is out?		We must be careful what we are talking about. Some say: we don’t fancy the industrial civilization and the East has a lot to teach us. Other say: we don’t accept American leadership. Others say: I don’t stand by the church and Western Enlightenment and Nazzini, so what is in and what is out?

	The really important thing is how one counts in Russia and remains realistic. […]		The really important thing is how one counts in Russia and remains realistic. […]

	The following should be accepted:		The following should be accepted:
	# It is either the Jewish-Christian background or else you decide it is of no consequence where it comes from but exists for a long time.		# It is either the Jewish-Christian background or else you decide it is of no consequence where it comes from but exists for a long time.
	# Unless you say it’s the mother or the creator of industrial civilization you can’t distinguish it from any other civilization. If it is not the parent but identical with it then what are we talking about, something one hundred and fifty years old? What kind of legacy is it and how do we disentangle it from industrial civilization? Unless it is Kant, Rousseau and Spinoza then what are you talking about? No one will identify with industrial civilization and the market economy. All regard this critically.		# Unless you say it’s the mother or the creator of industrial civilization you can’t distinguish it from any other civilization. {{Page \|n°=23}} If it is not the parent but identical with it then what are we talking about, something one hundred and fifty years old? What kind of legacy is it and how do we disentangle it from industrial civilization? Unless it is Kant, Rousseau and Spinoza then what are you talking about? No one will identify with industrial civilization and the market economy. All regard this critically.

	Jaspers assumes that there are assumptions of Western civilization that everyone shares. He turns out some 40 to 50 points, one more subtle than the other which raise dozens and dozens of problems.		Jaspers assumes that there are assumptions of Western civilization that everyone shares. He turns out some 40 to 50 points, one more subtle than the other which raise dozens and dozens of problems.

	P. put this idea to Bledsoe, to find 5 or 6 writers and it two years perhaps another 5 or 6 and then the thing would be out in two years. P. is keen […]		P. put this idea to Bledsoe, to find 5 or 6 writers and it two years perhaps another 5 or 6 and then the thing would be out in two years. P. is keen […]
	{{Page \|n°=24}} What themes and subjects remain? What about Max Weber? He broadened the problem. We cannot be absorbed by this or that power grouping. Some however say that always so – every center of thought was identified with a church, guild etc. But Spinoza didn’t define his position with the Dutch state nor Kant with a Prussian state {{Page \|n°=25}} nor Rousseau with the ancient regime or the French nation. We can’t cut Western culture off at 1776 at the time of the industri-al civilization. For the “modus vivendi” we go back to Grotius. (some say to go back to the Old Testament and the New Testament).
			P. must … […]

			Asian industrialization … […]

			P. hasn't yet a single person take up the problem. P. will clarify his thoughts but not while he is raving will clear ideas slip into his pen. Otherwise it becomes cheap essaying. The G.T. sorted {{Page \|n°=24}} out its problems and it was never accused of lack of clarity. P. is bound to burrow the problem down to its elements. It doesn't matter that you use words if you keep to them.

			The Americans talk … […]

			Asia is waiting for answers … […]

			P. doesn't think …

			My question: Could we draw an analogy similar to the spread of the influence of Hellenism?

			P. wouldn't make this an idea because others wouldn't accept it. P. agrees that the problem could be formulated in terms of the Western state or religion and community. We are not committed not to think beyond the constitution of the U.S.A.

			What themes and subjects remain? What about Max Weber? He broadened the problem. We cannot be absorbed by this or that power grouping. Some however say that always so – every center of thought was identified with a church, guild etc. But Spinoza didn’t define his position with the Dutch state nor Kant with a Prussian state {{Page \|n°=25}} nor Rousseau with the ancient regime or the French nation. We can’t cut Western culture off at 1776 at the time of the industri-al civilization. For the “modus vivendi” we go back to Grotius. (some say to go back to the Old Testament and the New Testament).
	When the market began, to move under its own steam the West thought up socialism. […]		When the market began, to move under its own steam the West thought up socialism. […]