Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes

Overview

Part	Date	KPA
I	February 25, 1956	45/02
II	May 5, 1956	45/03
III	July 14, 1956	45/04
IV	August 25/26, 1956	45/05
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX	April 6, 1957	45/06
X
XI	May 25, 1957	45/07

I

The Reality of Society

[5] The characteristic of Christianity was there in the beginning-compulsive and looking to the future, eschatological. Jesus thought that the end of the world was imminent, but it is not imminent.

The Dead Sea Scrolls change the position of Jesus. If Christianity was really the Essenes, he wasn't the founder, and Christian doctrines are undermined. It is of no great importance whether the founder was Jesus or another Jew, except it will make some Jews proud of their history if it is proved that they originated Christianity. The mystery of Jesus' mission is greater than before. Now he is not "one man" who created out…

P. doesn't believe in Jesus as the son of God. There is no clear meaning in this statement. The christological aspects: Christianity not based on the teachings of Jesus, but who he was.

By man resigning himself to society a new concreteness is born. Man's objective is to reform society and change it to its limits. Unless we do that we have the whole responsibility which recognition puts on us. The first two revelations of physical and eternal death are no less true, as they lead to the restriction of an illusion. The first two are not invalidated by the reality of society.

That man must die doesn't do away with his concern for his soul. Man's eternal soul doesn't permit him to be rid of all moral bonds, and if he denies these he loses it. Eternal doesn't refer to time, but timelessness - of infinite value. (Greek "ions" - timeless). This is not a speculative or metaphorical question. (Life after death is a theological speculation.)

Jesus pointed out that there things you are yourself responsible for and not the tribe. Existence is personal and is different from what happens with things. That which makes it so different can't be said about a lamp or a table. This personal existence is the only one man is interested in, and the only one man can mean when we say: the things that matter is his relationship to other persons. The very heart of life is the personal existence. This assumes persons and personal interest.

Mind and power are the same thing. Thinking is a creative power. When we say mind we mean the compulsive element in thought.

The modern consciousness of society is comparable to the revelation of the finiteness of life and the revelation of the individual's moral existence. There is not even a hint of this consciousness in Plato. The third revelation did not come through particular persons, e.g. Marx, Sorel, Hitler, etc.

This is an insight which the technological environment created through the new conditions of life in a complex society.

It is childish to think that a person follows his own conscience alone, since this is limited by the reality of society. It is like a child who doesn't know that life is finite - like a tribal member who has corporate and collective responsibility. Ultimately man is responsible.

It is the institutional bent that puts order into Polanyi's moral world.

Christians rest their case on an inner absolute freedom. It doesn't mean that man is released from responsibility. It doesn't mean that man is released from responsibility. (My question on the relation of Hobbes and Locke to the idea of the reality of society):

[…]

Robert Owen held that the individual was not responsible and therefore denied Christianity. Society was real and responsible.

Comte had a vision that Society was real.

Quetelet - 1837 - the founder of statistics, held that society was real.

Marx, through economic determination believed almost in the elimination of the individual.

Hegel had the elimination of the individual in another way.

Spencer had the organic concept of society, but at the same time it was ridiculous to argue for liberal competition.

[…]

Society should be thought of like Hamlet (ie the play).

You don't start with the individual but with internalized values and mutual role expectations. Their relationship creates …

[…] [12] An English philosopher said to Polanyi of the G.T. that P. was able to link up the economics and politics of the era with the actual facts.

• We must recognize the inherent limitation of anarchistic freedom.
• We must waive the efficiency principle (e.g. the Russian can offer foreign at low interest rates, good terms).

The Market and a Theory of Nationalism

[19] Jews: one hears of chosenness more and more. Their guilt is not in the death of Jesus but with rejecting the teachings of Jesus which are superior. There are their own teachings but [20] why don't they claim it? The idea of love is frontally directed against selfishness. It is not clear what it is, but if you get rid of selfishness, you are happy, and these are the laws of inner life. You are happier if you forgive your enemy. If in your own heart you reject the truth of this directive it means you exclude yourself and are in the wrong gratuitously. In this interpretation of life is the hope of mankind.

In Central Europe tje Jewish community claimed that at the heart of Christianity there was nothing but a lie - that their behaviour was full of hypocrisy. But the teachings can be accepted. History runs on subtle distinctions. In America the Jewish Community is internalizing the gentile attitude. Civic behaviour of Americans is based on the church meeting. This is called American without knowing that American means the Christian way of life. It is a question of higher standards.

Discussion oy My Letter of Dec. 17/55

[18] Barbara Ward's discussion of the gold gap is utter nonsense.

II

The Reality of Society [II]

This page contains question(s)
that we should discuss
in the Talk Page!

My Essay (April 30/56) has linked the concept of the Reality of Society with the new institutional theory. P. used the concept only metaphysically. I used it naturally in a sociology which is not atomistic.

[…]

[9] Owen said… […]

Bernard Shaw is the only thinker who thought of it in this way, that society was limited in the possibility of its ideals but he never drew the conclusion to leave things as they are - on the contrary.

[…]

[11] There are two rationalities, the survival of society, and that of the individual, and here you have the general problem of political theory.

[…]

In Paul: what does he mean when he brings…

IV

G[eorge] B[ernard] Shaw

[2] Every major thinker has two opposite ideas e.g. Marx, Hegel, Rousseau, and also Jesus and Paul state opposites in an indissoluble unity of temperament.

[6] P. once wrote on Shaw, just about fifty years ago in 1906, ”The Drama of the Economic Interpretation of History”. He read all that Shaw had then written.

Technology and Utopia

P[olanyi] doesn’t take Owen as Utopian. He was full of realism but in one of his sentences he said that there are limitations and these would have to be accepted. [23]

The Revelations

(From P.'s discussion of the dangers of science, my comment of Eve's apple to Adam).

[…] The one sentence of Owen’s says that we cannot appeal to the reality of society for disregarding the Christian commitment until the we try to see if the reality of society is a limitation for equality and justice. The reality of society is the third horror we are confronted with – being a number of society and not doing anything about it. [38-39]