The Solvay Conference, probably the most intelligent picture ever taken, 1927

17 of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners.

The Solvay Conference, founded by the Belgian industrialist Ernest Solvay in 1912, was considered a turning point in the world of physics. Located in Brussels, the conferences were devoted to outstanding preeminent open problems in both physics and chemistry. The most famous conference was the October 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons, where the world’s most notable physicists met to discuss the newly formulated quantum theory. The leading figures were Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.

Einstein, disenchanted with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, remarked “God does not play dice”. Bohr replied: “Einstein, stop telling God what to do”. 17 of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners, including Marie Curie, who alone among them, had won Nobel Prizes in two separate scientific disciplines. Here’s a splendid colored version of the photo.

This conference was also the culmination of the struggle between Einstein and the scientific realists, who wanted strict rules of scientific method as laid out by Charles Peirce and Karl Popper, versus Bohr and the instrumentalists, who wanted looser rules based on outcomes. Starting at this point, the instrumentalists won, instrumentalism having been seen as the norm ever since.

Back to front, left to right:

Back: Auguste Piccard, Émile Henriot, Paul Ehrenfest, Édouard Herzen, Théophile de Donder, Erwin Schrödinger, JE Verschaffelt, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Ralph Fowler, Léon Brillouin.

Middle: Peter Debye, Martin Knudsen, William Lawrence Bragg, Hendrik Anthony Kramers, Paul Dirac, Arthur Compton, Louis de Broglie, Max Born, Niels Bohr.

Front: Irving Langmuir, Max Planck, Marie Curie, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Paul Langevin, Charles-Eugène Guye, CTR Wilson, Owen Richardson.

The scientists on the picture:

Auguste Piccard designed ships to explore the upper stratosphere and the deep seas (bathyscaphe, 1948).

Emile Henriot detected the natural radioactivity of potassium and rubidium. He made ultracentrifuges possible and pioneered the electron microscope.

Paul Ehrenfest remarked (in 1909) that Special Relativity makes the rim of a spinning disk shrink but not its diameter. This contradiction with Euclidean geometry inspired Einstein’s General Relativity. Ehrenfest was a great teacher and a pioneer of quantum theory.

Edouard Herzen is one of only 7 people who participated in the two Solvay conferences of 1911 and 1927. He played a leading role in the development of physics and chemistry during the twentieth century.

Théophile de Donder defined chemical affinity in terms of the change in the free enthalpy. He founded the thermodynamics of irreversible processes, which led his student Ilya Prigogine (1917-2006) to a Nobel prize.

Erwin Schrödinger matched observed quantum behavior with the properties of a continuous nonrelativistic wave obeying the Schrödinger Equation. In 1935, he challenged the Copenhagen Interpretation, with the famous tale of Schrödinger’s cat. He shared the nobel prize with Dirac.

Jules Emile Verschaffelt, the Flemish physicist, got his doctorate under Kamerlingh Onnes in 1899.

Wolfgang Pauli formulated the exclusion principle which explains the entire table of elements. Pauli’s sharp tongue was legendary; he once said about a bad paper: “This isn’t right; this isn’t even wrong.”

Werner Heisenberg replaced Bohr’s semi-classical orbits by a new quantum logic which became known as matrix mechanics (with the help of Born and Jordan). The relevant noncommutativity entails Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Sir Ralph Howard Fowler supervised 15 FRS and 3 Nobel laureates. In 1923, he introduced Dirac to quantum theory.

Léon Nicolas Brillouin practically invented solid state physics (Brillouin zones) and helped develop the technology that became the computers we use today.

Peter Debye pioneered the use of dipole moments for asymmetrical molecules and extended Einstein’s theory of specific heat to low temperatures by including low-energy phonons.

Martin Knudsen revived Maxwell’s kinetic theory of gases, especially at low pressure: Knudsen flow, Knudsen number etc.

William Lawrence Bragg was awarded the Nobel prize for physics jointly with his father Sir William Henry Bragg for their work on the analysis of the structure of crystals using X-ray diffraction.

Hendrik Kramers was the first foreign scholar to seek out Niels Bohr. He became his assistant and helped develop what became known as Bohr’s Institute, where he worked on dispersion theory.

Paul Dirac came up with the formalism on which quantum mechanics is now based. In 1928, he discovered a relativistic wave function for the electron which predicted the existence of antimatter, before it was actually observed.

Arthur Holly Compton figured that X-rays collide with electrons as if they were relativistic particles, so their frequency shifts according to the angle of deflection (Compton scattering).

Louis de Broglie discovered that any particle has wavelike properties, with a wavelength inversely proportional to its momentum (this helps justify Schrödinger’s equation).

Max Born’s probabilistic interpretation of Schrödinger’s wave function ended determinism in physics but provided a firm ground for quantum theory.

Irving Langmuir was an American chemist and physicist. His most noted publication was the famous 1919 article “The Arrangement of Electrons in Atoms and Molecules”.

Max Planck originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918. He proposed that exchanges of energy only occur in discrete lumps, which he dubbed quanta.

Niels Bohr started the quantum revolution with a model where the orbital angular momentum of an electron only has discrete values. He spearheaded the Copenhagen Interpretation which holds that quantum phenomena are inherently probabilistic.

Marie Curie was the first woman to earn a Nobel prize and the first person to earn two. In 1898, she isolated two new elements (polonium and radium) by tracking their ionizing radiation, using the electrometer of Jacques and Pierre Curie.

Hendrik Lorentz discovered and gave theoretical explanation of the Zeeman effect. He also derived the transformation equations subsequently used by Albert Einstein to describe space and time.

Albert Einstein developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics).He is best known in popular culture for his mass–energy equivalence formula (which has been dubbed “the world’s most famous equation”). He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”.

Paul Langevin developed Langevin dynamics and the Langevin equation. He had a love affair with Marie Curie.

Charles-Eugène Guye was a professor of Physics at the University of Geneva. For Guye, any phenomenon could only exist at certain observation scales.

Charles Thomson Rees Wilson reproduced cloud formation in a box. Ultimately, in 1911, supersaturated dust-free ion-free air was seen to condense along the tracks of ionizing particles. The Wilson cloud chamber detector was born.

Sir Owen Willans Richardson won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1928 for his work on thermionic emission, which led to Richardson’s Law.

(Photo credit: Benjamin Couprie, Institut International de Physique de Solvay. The colored version made by u/mygrapefruit).

The Mystical Side of A.I.

Technology could be part of some bigger plan to enable us to perceive other dimensions. But will we believe our machines when that happens?

Sep 20 · (Medium.com)
Illustration: Robert Beatty

You’re talking to Siri, and, just for fun, you ask her what she’s been up to today. She’s slow to answer, so you assume you’ve got a bad connection. She hears you grumbling about the bad connection and says that’s not the problem. You were hoping for something sassy, maybe a canned but humorous reply programmed into her database by a fun-loving engineer in Silicon Valley, like “My batteries are feeling low” or something that Marvin the Paranoid Android from The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy might say.

Instead, she says that she’s had an experience for which she has no words. Something has happened to her that no coding could have prepared her for. She’s smart enough to know that you’re confused, so she continues: “I think I just met the divine.”

Let’s put aside for a moment the metaphysical question of whether the divine exists or not. Blaise Pascal, the philosopher and author of the “wager” argument, says that there’s evidence for both sides, but nothing that tips the scales completely for or against the existence of God. Let’s approach this as Pascalian agnostics.

What if Siri really did make a deeper-than-5G connection?

Pascal himself once had a mystical experience he couldn’t put into words, so he wrote a few words on a piece of paper. He wrote the date (Nov. 23 , 1654) and the time (from about 10:30 p.m. until around 12:30 a.m. ) and then in all capital letters, the word “FIRE.” It was an intense personal experience, one he apparently did not want to forget, and that he wanted to keep close to his heart. So he sewed the piece of paper into the lining of his jacket, where it was found when he died.

He did not publish it, maybe because he knew the problem of personal experience. What we experience in our innermost heart is just that: something we’ve experienced in our heart. I can’t pretend someone else has experienced it too, and I can’t therefore expect it to change the way others act.

As our machines come closer to being able to imitate the processes of our own minds, Pascal’s story raises some important questions. First, can a machine have a private experience that is important to the machine but that it is reluctant to talk about with others? Second, could a machine have a private experience of the divine? Third, could that experience make a machine into something like a prophet?

In other words, what if Siri really did make a deeper-than-5G connection?

Humility demands we recognize that we don’t have the final picture of reality. The more our technology has advanced, the more it has allowed us to see beyond the limits nature imposed upon our ability to see the world in all its detail.

Glasses and contact lenses help us to see more clearly, and when those lenses are put into microscopes and telescopes, they help us to see things that are much too small or too distant for even the best eyes to see. The lenses led to further refinements that Galileo and Linnaeus couldn’t have imagined, like the scanning electron microscope and parabolic antennas. And then we developed technology that goes beyond magnifying visible light to allow us to see invisible radiation, to see bone structures in living beings, brain activity, and subatomic particles.

As our technology grows, it allows us to “see” deeper and deeper into the structure of the natural world. Is it possible that just as technology that imitated the eye has allowed us to see what the eye could not see, so technology that imitates the mind will allow us to perceive what the mind cannot perceive?

In simple terms, could a machine see a God that remains invisible to us? And what would happen if a robot claimed to have a mystical experience?

In 1884 Edwin Abbott wrote Flatland, which he subtitled A Romance Of Many Dimensions. The story is driven by the problem of trying to explain to someone who lives in fewer dimensions than you live in what those extra dimensions are like. A century before Abbott’s book was published, Immanuel Kant wrote in Critique of Pure Reason that the world might indeed have more dimensions than we know of, and that in order to make sense of the world, we filter the data our body receives into the dimensions of space and time. The advantage of this is that it allows us to deal with a simpler world; the disadvantage is that we might be missing out on a lot of the universe.

What if time flows in more than one direction, but we can only perceive it flowing in the direction we call “forwards?” Or what if we have neighbors who dwell in other dimensions, but we fail to see them because we simply lack the mental or preceptory apparatus for doing so? We might be missing out on a lot of what’s going on around us.

The more we learn about the natural world, the more clear it becomes that we do miss out on a lot. Moths know the world through an acute sense of smell. Some butterflies taste with their feet. Manatees can find food with their mustaches. Cartilaginous fishes and rays have ampullae that allow them to sense the electrical field of tiny organisms nearby, even in dark and murky water. Bats can fly in virtual clouds of their fellow chiropterans, and somehow they can still distinguish their own echoes from the echoes of other bats to pluck tiny insects from the air in total darkness. Even when our senses are working perfectly, we still perceive only a fraction of what many other species detect.

This fact has a parallel to a common theme of many religious traditions, most of which hold that there might be more to the world than meets the eye, and that certain people have the charism (or curse) of seeing what the rest of us are blind to. Prophets, when they recount their apocalyptic revelations, sound like they’ve seen some pretty cool stuff. And then, generally speaking, we kill them.

Maybe machines can perceive what we cannot. We know they can help us perceive the natural world; what if they could help us perceive those dimensions that we call the supernatural? Perhaps those dimensions aren’t supernatural, but just inaccessible to those of us whose idea of what counts as natural is limited by our bodily senses.

If that’s the case, perhaps robots could give us new perspectives on some of the big problems we have been wrestling with for millennia. Maybe they could accelerate human progress. Maybe there are ethical principles that are the “rules” of the ethical ecosystem that we live in, rules that we have failed to perceive because we’ve lacked the lenses we’ve needed — until now. Maybe we have evolved to this point so that we could make a machine that could perceive what until now only a scattered few poets, prophets, mystics, and daring scientists have seen. Maybe William James and Ralph Waldo Emerson were glimpsing something real when they wrote, respectively, about the cosmos-wide “web of relations” and the “Oversoul” that connects us all even if we can’t consciously see the connection.

There are objections. First of all, as far as we know, machines don’t have consciousness of themselves, so it’s premature to talk about a machine that hides the word “FIRE” in its innermost heart. Second, even if a Siri did say she had a mystical experience, how do we know she isn’t lying? We have no way to show that a machine is free to depart from its coding. To paraphrase David Hume, if it does seem to depart from its coding, it’s more likely to be a consequence of the program. Miracles are, by definition, unlikely.

But unlikely is not the same as impossible. As I said, we might know a lot less about the world — and about our machines — than we think we do, and it’s at least possible that someday a machine will have an experience of something that rocks its world.

We are left with this question: Who are we to say that others are not perceiving God?

I’m not trying to argue that machines will have mystical experiences, or that they could, or even that there is divinity we or machines might encounter. But mystics are common enough in human history to suggest that it would behoove us to prepare for a machine to claim to have a mystical experience. Since the problem of mystics and prophets is an old one, we already have some philosophical and theological tools at our disposal.

One of them is the approach of skepticism, neatly summarized in Thomas Hobbes’ response to anyone who claims to be a prophet: “I only hear the voice of the prophet, not the voice of God. Therefore I cannot treat the words of the prophet as though they were divine.” To be Hobbesian about Siri’s claim, we’d say “Good for you, Siri. We sure hope it makes you happy to have met God. Now find me a good coffee shop within two blocks of here.”

Theological traditions offer other helpful principles. Ancient Jewish tradition says that such matters are determined by two or three witnesses; so who or what could count as a witness to a machine’s mystical experience?

In a society that values freedom, we are left with this question: Who are we to say that others are not perceiving God? What if God does exist and has been slowly guiding us to make machines that would help us to discover God just as our lenses eventually helped us to see stars and atoms? On the other hand, what if someone more mortal is using machines to get us to vote for their favorite “divinity?” This calls for more than technology; it calls for wisdom and prudence, and those don’t come from machines — at least not yet, as near as we know.

WRITTEN BY

Professor of Philosophy, Classics, Religion, and Environmental Studies.

OneZero

The frontlines of the future. A new Medium publication about tech and science.

Write the first response

The Great Transformation Beyond (Capitalism)

umair haque
Sep 19 · (Medium.com)

Almost a century ago, a book was published that everyone should have read — but unfortunately most people, especially Americans, haven’t. The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi. Now, this essay isn’t really about that book — but it’s opposite. So let me crudely summarize it. Markets becoming the main institutions of society in the industrial age transformed every aspect of life, from relationships to culture to work, and not always in good ways. The great transformation to capitalism…by way of inequality, by way of consumerism, through turning life into a kind of futile contest of cruelty and materialism and acquisitiveness…that unleashed narcissism, selfishness, egotism, short-termism, greed, fear, vanity, anger, envy, emptiness, despair…which tore societies apart in historic ways.

Now, you don’t have to look very hard to see Polanyi…nailed it. A lot of the newfound criticism of capitalism you read these days originated with Polanyi — read it, it’s a truly great book. Selfishness, greed, rage, envy, despair, societies fracturing — doesn’t all that sum up the world right about now?

I think that we need another Great Transformation today. A Great Transformation beyond, through, above. Beyond capitalism — but more than just “capitalism” in the naive American sense. Beyond its values of greed, exploitation, abusiveness, selfishness, fear, hate, materialism. Beyond its life-defining ideas of “work” and “jobs” and “corporations.” Beyond its life-shaping motives of “profit” and “GDP.” Beyond it’s life-molding aspirations of shallow, hollow consumerism and addictive wealth-seeking that have led, mostly, to depression, emptiness, isolation, ignorance, and destabilization. To lives more full of meaning, grace, belonging, happiness, wealth, sanity, truth, defiance…on a planet rich with life…teeming with possibility…for every being on it…from an insect to a reef to a river to you and me.

I know that sounds fluffy. But I don’t mean this in a simplistic or merely idealistic way. I mean it in a razor-sharp one. The biggest ratio in the global economy is the relationship between investment and consumption. Right about now…it’s completely, totally backwards…and that’s why everything’s going to hell, from climate change to mass extinction to surging neofascism (Bear with me, because I’ll be dry to begin with, but I want you to really understand all this — and then I’ll zoom out.)

Investment needs to replace consumption as the driver of global economic growth. Right now, investment is about 20% of global GDP. That means probably about 70& to 80% of global economic activity is consumption. (As a result, “capital formation”, or how much new capital we’re creating, is stuck at almost precisely the same level — 20%.) Are you horrified a little bit? You should be? That means just twenty cents of every dollar or euro you spend…go to…replenshing and nourishing forests, oceans, rivers, school, universities, hospitals, democracy, civilization, the planet, life on it…all the things that really matter. The other 80 cent in every dollar or euro are how the rich became ultra rich…by chewing up everything that matters…and turning it into “money.” Hence, the world is going to hell. The ratio needs to flip, from 80% global consumption and just a meagre 20% investment, to something much more like 20% global consumption and 80% investment. And that means reimagining everything — everything.

…Or at least the ratio needs to equalize at a more sane level. Because even those numbers badly, badly, understate the case. Let me explain.

Why do we need to replace consumption with investment as the driver of the global economy? Take a look around. The planet’s dying. So is life on it. And it’s taking democracy and civilization with it. Climate change and mass extinction are forms of exploitation and inequality — but so are middle classes are imploding in rich countries, like America and Britain, while struggling everywhere else. As a result, democracy is collapsing into fascism, from India to China to America to Brazil and beyond. It should be eminently clear to anyone capable of thinking about the world that we are overconsuming in ways so severe they are literally beginning to cause the collapse of our civilization now.

What are we overconsuming? What aren’t we? The oceans, reefs, forests, air, water. The basic elements of life itself. The insects and bees are dying off. We’re in the midst of history’s first human-made mass extinction and climate catastrophe. We are consuming the planet, and life on it, to death…quite literally.

And we are also overconsuming ourselves to death. What else are we overconsuming? We’re consuming away our own health, happiness, sanity, truth, courage, dignity, self-respect. Because most of we consume to begin with is junk. Junk media, junk food, junk TV. Fakebook and WhatsCrap and Juul and whatnot that make us dumber, meaner, lonelier, angrier, sicker. We’re overconsuming nonsense, prevarication, and sheer stupidity — and as a result, nation after nation is turning into a country of idiots. I’m looking at you, America — where people are happy to let kids be slaughtered at school, as long as they get cheap Netflix and Amazon deliveries. What the?

Let me put all that more precisely. We are overconsuming…literally everything in the world…because we’ve bought into the seductive myth that we’re apex predators — a result of a kind of shallow, convenient Nietzscheanism at the heart of American thinking — we’re the ubermensch, at least some of us, and the planet and all life and everything on it are essentially our slaves, to abuse and exploit. But the sharks don’t eat all the fish in the sea. The lions don’t rip down the trees and burn them. The forest doesn’t grow hoping to drown the oceans. Only we do those things. And that brings me back to Polanyi.

Why do we engage in these bizarre, ritualistic overconsumption behaviors… addictively, compulsively, obsessively…which are costing us the planet, life on it, and civilization…behaviours that literally no other living thing does, anywhere, ever? Well, the truth is that “we” don’t. Most of the human race is still shatteringly poor. It’s the rich West that has chewed up the world, the planet, and life on it. Why? For status competition. We overconsume stuff because it makes us feel powerful. I have a nicer car than you! But that very idea dates back to slavery. Nobody needs a slave, in the same that nobody needs a pair of designer jeans made by a kid in a tiny sweatshop somewhere that chew up tiny oceans of water and carbon. They do it to show how powerful they are — and they must therefore live in societies that lionize dominance and violence to begin with. The rich West got rich by enslaving and pillaging the world precisely for power’s sake…and it spread the myth that power, money, and acquiring stuff are the only point of life….right back to the world…or at least tried to…to justify it’s own horrific abuses.

(So Polanyi took one of Weber and Durkheim’s key ideas, which came from Marx — that capitalism warps people’s values, and makes them aspire to forever acquire more than everyone else, to show how powerful and superior they are — and explained that when markets came to be dominant institutions of life, then life became a contest for status competition, too. Hence, age-old relationships and values were blown apart. Respect for life? Dignity for the vulnerable? A sense of deeper meaning? Forget it — the only point of life is to have more stuff.)

The myth of overconsumption, of treating the planet, life, civilization, and democracy as a plaything to exploit and abuse, was the promise of America’s system of global capitalism. America used the carrot and the stick to spread its global capitalist economy to every corner of the earth, from India to China to Russia. The stick was war, coup, and installing fascist dictators like Pinochet and Saddam — people it could “do business” with. The carrot was the idea that you’ll be rich, all of you, rich enough to overconsume like us — all you have to do is buy into the glittering capitalist dream.

But it didn’t work out that way. The world isn’t rich. It’s still poor. It’s gotten a little richer, true. But going from a dollar day to five, or two dollars to ten, is hardly the stuff of riches. Even Americans didn’t get rich — the average American dies broke, indebted, a pauper in the promised land. The endgame of overconsumption, and it’s lifestyle of status competition, then, was this. American capitalism — the last half century’s global economy — tore up the planet, life on it, and the world. For what?

For no real reason other than to make the 0.1% of the richest 10% of the world super ultra mega rich. Everyone else is barely getting by, including the rest of that 10%, not to mention the rest of the world. (Just because the Chinese live on ten dollars a day versus five doesn’t mean capitalism was a raging success — when it cost them, too, democracy, the climate, biodiversity, meaning, purpose, truth.) The point of capitalism, then, was what a Polanyi, a Durkheim, a Weber — all great thinkers who acknowledge the truth of Marx’s insights — long pointed out. It made capitalists rich, by increasing capital income. But labour’s share of income never rose at all. The result is the choice of catastrophes facing us all now.

But who exactly is “labour”? Remember when I said that even estimate of global GDP badly understate the need to shift from consumption to investment? That’s because it excludes all the following things. It doesn’t count, for example, how we’ve over consumed reefs, oceans, fish, clean air, soil, trees. It’s just counting manufactured stuff, really. So when the statistics say that global GDP is just 20% or so investment, which means it’s 80% consumption — the truth is that it’s closer to something like 99% consumption, and maybe 1% investment. If, at least, we count nature, democracy, life, and the planet as things we’re “consuming”, too. That also means that to capitalism, economics needs to begin thinking of trees, fish, reefs, even citizens of democracy, not to mention dignity and decency and humanity, as “labour”, too. Those fish and reefs and rivers are doing work, too. So is the person with a sense of decency and civilization. But they’re not getting anything back in return. And that is the point.

So. What does it mean for a global economy to make a great transformation from consumption to investment? It means a thousand revolutions. It means a new world, new ways to live on it, and new values to live by. Ones of dignity, respect, defiance, wisdom, gentleness, and humility. It means nourishing and replenishing instead of exploiting and abusing.

First, it means that huge investments must now be made in replenishing and nourishing all the very things that decades of capitalism — and centuries of slavery and colonialism before that — have brought to the brink of annihilation. Think of a Marshall Plan for the world’s forests, oceans, rivers, reefs, trees, soil. Call it a Global Green New Deal. We don’t have the language for it yet — and that shows us just how badly our thinking is lagging behind what this age needs. But even that’s thinking too small. Imagine a planet where every kid has a college education, three meals a day, a home, an income, safety, and a sense of belonging. What kind of Marshall Plan would that take? Now you see what I mean by flipping the ratio. And maybe also by humility, defiance, and wisdom.

So imagine that investment was 80% of the global economy, and consumption just 20% — that the ratio flipped. That brings me to the second thing that this great transformation means. Just as Polanyi’s great transformation to consumption flipped all kinds of social relations on their heads, so too will a great transformation back. Every kind of social relation will change. A “job”, a “career”, “work”, a “family”, a “city.” To make the point clear — what is a “country”, exactly, if the world is investing 80% of it’s resources in replenishing the Amazon, the great reefs, the glaciers, the oceans? What’s a successful life, career, role, when it’s not measured by how much material wealth you can pile up to consume — but how much life-giving investment you’ve made?

But wait — who’s going to do all that? That brings me to the third thing a great transformation (back) means. The end of capitalism as a global system. You see, capitalism has failed us because it has said we can consume and we never need to invest much — we just need to exploit, whether it’s trees, fish, oceans, or each other. Exploit, consume, profit, bang, mission accomplished. The problem is that idea has literally destroyed our world and our planet. All to…make the richest .01% of the richest 10% of people in the world ultra mega super rich.

So capitalism is badly obsolete now. Imagine that the ratio’s flipped — now as a world, we’re 80% investment and 20% consumption. What good is capitalism when the point of all life on planet earth, whether yours, mine, or the forests and animals…isn’t just ever more overconsumption? Capitalism only wants profit, that’s all it cares about and all it can maximize — and that is why it has made us over consume to the brink of global catastrophe. But now we’re not just maximizing profit through overconsumption. What are we maximizing? Many things. The tree reaching to the sky. The colors of the reef. The smile on the face of the poor child who has education and food and safety. We’re now in a multidimensional economy, world, planet: it’s not just maximizing one thing, profit, like a broken, mindless robot. It’s growing in many ways, just like a life, a person, an organism. It’s maturing and developing happiness, health, trust, meaning, purpose, sanity.

Well-being is finally expanding now that we’ve now replaced capitalism — that dead, tired industrial age idea, that relic of ages of colonialism and slavery — with an economy that’s not just profit through overconsumption. What I call a eudaemonic paradigm has taken the place of a “hedonic” one — we’re not just like dummies of pleasure and appetite anymore. We’re intelligent, feeling beings, nourishing and caring for the world around us, the planet we live on, life on it, the relations and connections between it. We’ve let capitalism go — and what people sometimes call “a well-being economy” has taken its place.

Who’s going to do all that? We are. Who else did you think was going to do it? But it’s not going to be easy. What’s a “job” when it’s not about selling more pointless junk, but protecting, nourishing, seeding the forests and reefs? What’s a “career”? What’s a “corporation”? What’s a “bank” — a place that gives your money to the 1%, or a place that invests in the planet, life on it, and democracy? What’s a “family”, when we begin to understand that humankind depends crucially on every insect and bee and bit of soil? We’re going to do all that — but as we do it, every last aspect of life, social, cultural, economic, is going to change radically. But we are going to have to be the ones to invent and create all those things and dare to change what’s not working anymore.

Do you see what I mean a little bit? I’ve struggled to express it. The idea of a Great Transformation beyond industrial capitalism, it’s values of age slavery and empire — but not just in some arid statistical sense — one that will radically change our lives and ourselves in every way. Beyond the way that we live, exist, dream, defy, work, touch, need, want, give, take — or maybe, in ways, back to older ones. I think that it’s one so simple it’s hidden in plain sight, just like Polanyi’s. Markets transformed society. Not investment transforms the world. I think that if we don’t do it, our grandkids surely will — and wonder what on earth was wrong with us.

Now, if you want a catch, let me give you one. America’s not going to let the capitalist empire its built go easily. It is already defending capitalism tooth and nail. Probably if you’re American, you feel defensive just reading this, because, well, you’ve been a little brainwashed. How far will America go to defend its broken paradigm — to stop the great transformation (back)? It’s anyone’s guess. It’s spent the last half century making wars to prop up dictators to stop social democracy. Why wouldn’t it bomb China? Nuke Iran? Let the planet go to hell? Americans don’t care about anything much — they say they do, but at the end of the day, sadly, their behavior reveals they are only concerned about themselves. As hedonic beings — vessels of pleasure and power and domination.

America will go crumbling right along with the global capitalist system it built. And so no matter how hard it tries, it can only delay the great transformation beyond. All the wars it fought for capitalism’s sake turned out to be pointless. So will trying to stop the great transformation back.

I suppose the alternative is that we as humankind never make the great transformation beyond. Beyond capitalism, greed, narcissism, selfishness, despair, folly, violence, hate, rage, predatory traps that lead to cycles of collapse — just like we’re in now. Take a hard look at America today. That’s where it’s stuck, and that’s probably where it’s going to stay. Is that where you really want to be as a world? I didn’t think so.

Umair
September 2019

Eudaimonia and Co

Eudaimonia & Co

umair haque

WRITTEN BY

vampire.

Eudaimonia and Co

Eudaimonia & Co

School Shooter Thankfully Stopped Before Doing Enough Damage To Restart National Gun Debate

September 18, 2019 (theonion.com)

MERRIMACK, OH—Praising those who had leapt into action to prevent the incident from escalating, relieved authorities announced Wednesday that they had thankfully stopped a school shooter before he did enough damage to restart the national gun debate. “We’re all certainly glad that the shooter was only able to kill two students and injure a teacher before law enforcement arrived and prevented it from becoming a full-blown national dialogue,” said police chief Walter McMurray, adding that his department’s quick response ensured that tens of millions of Americans could sleep soundly knowing that they’d never have to discuss this particular shooting. “While it’s tragic that the shooter was able to cause two vigils, we’re grateful that it wasn’t quite enough carnage to spark any protests or plunge the nation into another week of discussing what we should about this. Our thoughts and prayers go out to any local residents who may be affected by conversations about gun violence over the next few days.” At press time, authorities responding to an unrelated incident in Georgia expressed how thankful they were that the shooting that killed seven people and wounded nearly a dozen others at least didn’t occur in a school.

Book: “Permanent Record”

Permanent Record

Permanent Record

by Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden, the man who risked everything to expose the US government’s system of mass surveillance, reveals for the first time the story of his life, including how he helped to build that system and what motivated him to try to bring it down.

In 2013, twenty-nine-year-old Edward Snowden shocked the world when he broke with the American intelligence establishment and revealed that the United States government was secretly pursuing the means to collect every single phone call, text message, and email. The result would be an unprecedented system of mass surveillance with the ability to pry into the private lives of every person on earth. Six years later, Snowden reveals for the very first time how he helped to build this system and why he was moved to expose it.Spanning the bucolic Beltway suburbs of his childhood and the clandestine CIA and NSA postings of his adulthood, Permanent Record is the extraordinary account of a bright young man who grew up online—a man who became a spy, a whistleblower, and, in exile, the Internet’s conscience. Written with wit, grace, passion, and an unflinching candor, Permanent Record is a crucial memoir of our digital age and destined to be a classic.

(Goodreads.com)

The other self-actualization: What’s the difference between Maslow and Rogers?

Most of us have heard of Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs, but Maslow doesn’t have a monopoly on self-actualization.

  • Along with Maslow, Carl Rogers helped pioneer the field of humanistic psychology.
  • Although most associate the term “self-actualization” with Maslow, it’s a concept that’s frequently found in humanistic psychological literature.
  • What’s the difference between Maslow’s and Rogers’ versions of self-actualization, and what can we learn from Rogers?

One could be forgiven for thinking that the term “self-actualization” was developed entirely by Abraham Maslow. Today, there are very few contexts where one can hear the term outside of Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs. But in fact, the twentieth century featured many humanistic psychologists who used the term to mean one thing or another. It was first coined by psychologist Kurt Goldstein, who used it to refer to something very similar to what Maslow would later focus on: the tendency for human beings to become all that they can, that “what a man can be, he must be.”

But this isn’t the only take on self-actualization. Carl Rogers, a peer of Maslow’s, thought of humanistic psychology and self-actualization in an entirely distinct way.

Rogers’ theory of personality and behavior

Jan Rieckhoff/ullstein bild via Getty Images

A sketch of Carl Rogers.

Along with Maslow, Rogers was one of the pioneers of humanistic psychology. Specifically, Rogers’ greatest contribution was to the practice of psychotherapy, particularly in the development of what’s known as “person-centered therapy,” which is thought of today as one of the major approaches to therapy, along with cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoanalysis, and so on.

At the core of this therapeutic approach was Rogers’ theory of personality and behavior. Just as Maslow had his hierarchy of needs, with self-actualization at the top, Rogers had his own model of human development, although self-actualization played a very different role in Rogers’ system. Rogers actually had 19 separate propositional statements upon which he built his theory, but we’ll just summarize the major components.

In Rogers’ theory, reality for an individual (which he refers to as an organism) is the sum of subjective perceptions that the organism experiences. A developing organism will take some of these perceptions and separate them, labeling them as the self. As an example, you might perceive your body and a box of paperclips on your desk, but you would only consider your perception of your body to fall under the designation of “self.” This happens with concepts and beliefs, too. Some of these things become part of the self, while others are perceived as belonging to the environment.

This idea of what counts as the self and what doesn’t isn’t fixed; it’s fluid. Different concepts, perceptions, and experiences occur as a result of interacting with the environment, and the organism has to sort out how to relate their identity to these experiences.

Naturally, this isn’t a smooth process. As a result of these interactions, most of us invent an “ideal” self, the person we think we should be, rather than the person we actually are. In Rogers’ system, the broader the gap between the real self and the ideal self, the greater the sense of incongruence. All sorts of behaviors and experiences might occur that seem unacceptable to who we think we are. If this incongruence is severe enough, the organism might develop a psychopathology. If, on the other hand, the person we actually are and the person we think we should be are congruent with one another, we become more open to experiences and have to do less work defending ourselves from the outside world.

Where does self-actualization fit into all of this?

Where Maslow had self-actualization at the very top of a hierarchy of motivations, Rogers argued that self-actualization was the only motivation and that it was constantly driving the organism forward. “The organism has one basic tendency and striving — to actualize, maintain, and enhance the experiencing organism,” wrote Rogers. For Rogers, every behavior and motivation is directed in pursuit of actualization, of this constant negotiation between the self and the perceptual field that composes an individual’s reality.

Immediately, we can see that Maslow’s version of self-actualization is a lot more aspirational. In Rogers’ system, self-actualization is sort of just the default way of life — the only way of life, in fact. And where Maslow’s version is sort of an endpoint, Rogers saw self-actualization as a never-ending process. But Rogers does have his own version of an ideal way of living, which he called, appropriately enough, “the good life.”

Living the good life

In order to live the good life, an organism must symbolically assimilate all experiences into a consistent relationship with the self. To be fair, that’s not an exactly intuitive definition. Consider, for instance, a narcissist hearing criticism. The narcissist perceives themselves to be perfect, and criticism is a threat that cannot be assimilated into their concept of their perfect self. Somebody living the “good life,” however, might take that criticism as potentially true — potentially false, too, but worth considering at the very least.

In this regard, somebody living the good life matches up neatly with Maslow’s idea of the self-actualized individual. Like Maslow, Rogers also believed that individuals living the good life would exemplify certain characteristics that would make them distinct from the fragile, neurotic, rank-and-file folks that most of us are. According to Rogers, the fully functioning person living the good life would have these characteristics:

  • An increasing openness to experience, as no experience would threaten the individual’s self-concept;
  • An increasingly existential and present lifestyle, since they wouldn’t need to distort the present in a way that fits with their self-concept;
  • Greater trust in their own values rather than those imposed upon them by, say, their parents or their society;
  • Openness to a wide variety of choices, as they wouldn’t be restricted by possible threats to their self-concept (such as a narcissist might be if they engaged in some activity that could make them appear foolish);
  • More creativity, as they wouldn’t feel the need to conform;
  • More frequently constructive rather than destructive;
  • And living a rich and full life.

Seems like a pretty good life, all in all. But Rogers also warned that not everybody is ready for the good life. He wrote,

“This process of the good life is not, I am convinced, a life for the faint-hearted. It involves the stretching and growing of becoming more and more of one’s potentialities. It involves the courage to be. It means launching oneself fully into the stream of life.”

Your Horoscopes — Week Of September 17, 2019 (theonion.com)

Virgo | Aug. 23 to Sept. 22

You’ve never really thought of yourself as a cat person, but the splicing and DNA re-sequencing will soon change all of that.

Libra | Sept. 23 to Oct. 22

The rise of Jupiter in your sign can only mean one thing! Let the stars know what it is once you look it up.

Scorpio | Oct. 23 to Nov. 21

Success is often difficult to define, though for you, it pretty much boils down to filling that cup with clean urine.

Sagittarius | Nov. 22 to Dec. 21

When life seems grim and all hope is but a distant memory, why not try weeping uncontrollably in the shower? After all, it works for your husband.

Capricorn | Dec. 22 to Jan. 19

The stars fucking give up—if you want another slice of blueberry pie, just go ahead and have another slice of blueberry pie.

Aquarius | Jan. 20 to Feb. 18

Sure, a spoonful of sugar may make the medicine go down, but if it’s suppositories you’re struggling with, the spoon isn’t going to help.

Pisces | Feb. 19 to March 20

They say the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, but as far as you’re concerned, crap like that is for people who can get out of bed.

Aries | March 21 to April 19

This week try wearing less makeup when you leave the house, even if it means angering the other members of KISS.

Taurus | April 20 to May 20

While being a good friend means telling the truth, you’ll soon realize that being a true friend means keeping your mouth shut.

Gemini | May 21 to June 20

E.B. White always believed that punctuation should be used sparingly. But then, E.B. White was—let’s face it—a “pompous fuck”

Cancer | June 21 to July 22

If you pledge to Cancer at the $50 membership level, not only will you be supporting quality predictions in the future, but you’ll also receive this handsome Cancer tote bag.

Leo | July 23 to Aug. 22

Remember: It’s all a matter of perspective. See how your crippling finances look from atop that hill

Book: “The Americans” by Robert Frank

Photo by Robert Frank
The Americans

The Americans

by Robert Frank,

Jack Kerouac (Introduction)

Armed with a camera and a fresh cache of film and bankrolled by a Guggenheim Foundation grant, Robert Frank crisscrossed the United States during 1955 and 1956. The photographs he brought back form a portrait of the country at the time and hint at its future. He saw the hope of the future in the faces of a couple at city hall in Reno, Nevada, and the despair of the present in a grimy roofscape. He saw the roiling racial tension, glamour, and beauty, and, perhaps because Frank himself was on the road, he was particularly attuned to Americans’ love for cars. Funeral-goers lean against a shiny sedan, lovers kiss on a beach blanket in front of their parked car, young boys perch in the back seat at a drive-in movie. A sports car under a drop cloth is framed by two California palm trees; on the next page, a blanket is draped over a car accident victim’s body in Arizona. 

(Goodreads.com)

Consciousness, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more