#enlightened thinkers organising society

[unwelcome-ozian]

are the 13 bloodlines true? is it true that bloodliners dont have scars/missing digits/tattoos?

The Bloodlines are through people’s research. There is some validity to them. A vast majority of the writings about them are steeped in anti-semitic, and racist beliefs. (Illuminati programming)

I have not met anyone from the Illuminati so I can’t answer the second part of your question.

Below the cut off is a lot of information regarding the Illuminati. Sources are at the end.

The term Illuminati belongs to two different groups: the original Illuminati, formed more than two centuries ago as a secret society aimed at undermining corrupt governments and the religious intolerance that dominated society at the time.

The other is the belief in the New World Order, an alleged underground totalitarian global government that some believe is controlling the world.

The Illuminati started out as a reading group in 1776, where Weishaupt’s best students would meet in secret so as not to attract the attention of the authorities. Weishaupt (a former Jesuit) had a hard time finding acceptance for his secular and liberal thinking. He wanted to connect with like-minded free-thinkers. Originally, Weishaupt called his group the “Perfectibilists.” However, the founder quickly realised how silly that sounded and tried out a few other names, including The Bee Order (yes, really), before eventually landing on The Order of the Illuminati.

The Illuminati were an exclusive group of rich, successful men; recruitment focused on candidates who were rich, had an interest to advance through education, and those who had influence or positions in society and other Masonic lodges. Christians of good character were actively sought, but Jews, pagans, monks, and women were excluded from membership.

Weishaupt started recruiting from his current and former students in Bavaria, who in turn suggested other potential new members. After this he set about trying to change society by infiltrating senior positions of power.

Members were given code names like Spartacus (Weishaupt), Ajax, and Tiberius, and older members were required to help younger ones into positions of power, where they could go on to exert influence on society.

Weishaupt hit gold, however, when he recruited the well-connected Adolph Freiherr Knigge, a nobleman from Lower Saxony, who was code-named “Philo”, after the Alexandrian philosopher.

Already a member of the Freemasons, Knigge swelled the group’s membership to 2,000, even bringing in arguably Germany’s most loved writer: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, code-named “Abaris”.

Many powerful princes, high-ranking officials, and professors were recruited. But many of them were also already enlightened or members of a much larger secret organisation, the Freemasons, who had similar aims to the Illuminati.

The Illuminati came up against fierce opposition when the plot was discovered. The Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross – a group which was based around alchemy, spirituality, and mysticism, and which had connections to Bavarian authorities – led a campaign against the Illuminati and managed to persuade the King of Bavaria to outlaw the organisation.

The Illuminati grew quickly, gaining some 2,000 members from countries throughout Europe, including France, Poland, Hungary and Italy. This rapid expansion was largely due to the prominent German diplomat Baron Adolf Franz Friederich Knigge, who restructured the order in 1780 and helped spread Illuminism by recruiting from Freemason lodges.

Members were initially recruited from within Masonic lodges but later expanded to include anyone whose ideals were aligned with the Illuminati’s goals of equality and social justice. At their peak, they controlled Masonic lodges and many other groups across Europe, Asia, and America.

After the suppression of Weishaupt’s order, the title illuminati was given to the French Martinists, founded in 1754 by Martinez Pasqualis and propagated by Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin. By 1790 Martinism had been spread to Russia by Johann Georg Schwarz and Nikolay Novikov. Both strains of “illuminated” Martinism included elements of Kabbalism and Christian mysticism, imbibing ideas from Jakob Böhme and Emanuel Swedenborg.

When faced with inevitable persecution, the original Illuminati abandoned their name to take refuge within a myriad of other societies, so as to continue their work from the shadows.

In Spain and Italy in the 15th and 16th cents. the term Illuminati, or Alumbrado, referred to persons claiming direct communion with the Holy Spirit, so asserting that outward forms of religious life are unnecessary. Their claims led to persecution by the Inquisition. Other groups using the name have included the Rosicrucians.

The new world order/deep state illuminati blood lines are believed to be:

The 13 Bloodlines

The Rothschild Bloodline.

The Rockefeller Bloodline

The Bundy Bloodline

The Collins Bloodline

The DuPont Bloodline

The Freeman Bloodline

The Kennedy Bloodline

The Astor Bloodline

The Li Bloodline

The Onassis Bloodline

The Reynolds Bloodline

The Russell Bloodline

The Van Duyn Bloodline

This is due to quotes such as:

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practised in past centuries." David Rockefeller, ( founder of the Trilateral Commission), in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterising my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

-- David Rockefeller

“Enormous effort has gone into developing automated systems to support filing collected information into one of these types such that it can be queried, retrieved, and disseminated using existing (circa 1980) indexing and database technology. The "New World Order" and the emergence of new database types such as analog and digital video, voice, and new National collection capabilities are generating a need for tools and techniques for dealing with extremely large data vaults.” Information Warfare - Defense

Deep State quotes

“One observer who is in strong agreement with such an interpretation of Russian foreign policy is Michel Gurfinkiel, who argues that the Soviet “deep state” survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and that Russia’s “primary strategic goal [today] is to bring together all the Russian-speaking peoples into a single nation-state” (2018). Additionally, Gurfinkiel

Sees the reestablishment of a single geopolitical unity, if not a single state, for the “Eurasian community, with Russia as first among equals.” This is perhaps more pernicious of an interpretation than Starr and Cornell foresee, but it has strong parallels.” Russian Strategic Intentions A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) White Paper May 2019

“Turkey is a country with a strong so-called “deep state” controlled by a nonaccountable or minimally accountable military, and Turkey is a member of NATO, a neighbor of Iraq, a site for important American air bases, and a regional strategic ally of the United States.

“Further, the deep state controlled by the Turkish military supported the effort to join the EU, as does the United States. Beyond this, the AKP leadership was Human Rights After 9/11 sensitive about its own legitimacy. The AKP wanted to demonstrate the compatibility between its presumed soft Islamic identity and its commitment to pluralistic democracy and the rights of individuals to pursue their own beliefs.” Achieving Human Rights-Richard Falk

Furthermore, politicians have been accused of being in the Illuminati since Thomas Jefferson.

“Rumors spread that Jefferson was part of a world-wide conspiracy to destroy governments, private property, and Christianity. According to those believing in this conspiracy, Jefferson was in league with an elitist group of Europeans known as the Illuminati”

10 Things You Might Not Know About the Illuminati

Overview Illuminati

Illuminati

The history of the Illuminati

A Bavarian Illuminati primer

BRIA 11 4 c Conspiracy Theories: Attacks on Jefferson Set the Pattern

20 US presidents who belonged to secret societies

From Thomas Jefferson to Bishop James Madison, 31 January 1800

Conspiracy Theories and the Jews

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous said: I didn’t know too much about the late British philosopher Sir Roger Scruton until I followed your superbly cultured blog. As an ivy league educated American reading your posts, I feel he is a breath of fresh air as a sane and cultured conservative intellectual. We don’t really have his kind over here where things are heavily polarized between left and right, and sadly, we are often uncivil in our discourse. Sir Roger Scruton talks a lot about beauty especially in art (as indeed you do too), so for Scruton why does beauty as an aesthetic matter in art? Why should we care?

I thank you for your very kind words about my blog which I fear is not worthy of such fulsome praise.

However one who is worthy of praise (or at least gratitude and appreciation at least) is the late Sir Roger Scruton. I have had the pleasure to have met him on a few informal occasions.

Most memorably, I once got invited to High Table dinner at Peterhouse, Cambridge, by a friend who was a junior Don there. This was just after I had finished my studies at Cambridge and rather than pursue my PhD I opted instead to join the British army as a combat pilot officer. And so I found out that Scruton was dining too. We had very pleasant drinks in the SCR before and after dinner. He was exceptionally generous and kind in his consideration of others; we all basked in the gentle warmth of his wit and wisdom.

I remember talking to him about Xanthippe, Socrate’s wife, because I had read his wickedly funny fictional satire. In the book he credits the much maligned Xanthippe with being the brains behind all of Socrates’ famous philosophical ideas (as espoused by Plato).

On other occasions I had seen Roger Scruton give the odd lecture in London or at some cultural forum.

Other than that, I’ve always admire both the man and many of his ideas from afar. I do take issue with some of his intellectual ideas which seem to be taken a tad too far (he think pre-Raphaelites were kitsch) but it’s impossible to dislike the man in person.

Indeed the Marxist philosopher G.A. Cohen reportedly once refused to teach a seminar with Scruton, although they later became very good friends. This is the gap between the personal and the public persona. In public he was reviled as hate figure by some of the more intolerant of the leftists who were trying to shut him down from speaking. But in private his academic peers, writers, and philosophers, regardless of their political beliefs, hugely respected him and took his ideas seriously - because only in private will they ever admit that much of what Scruton talks about has come to pass.

In many ways he was like C.S. Lewis - a pariah to the Oxbridge establishment. At Oxford many dons poo-pooed his children stories, and especially his Christian ideas of faith, culture, and morality, and felt he should have laid off the lay theology and stuck to his academic speciality of English Literature. But an Oxford friend, now a don, tells me that many dons read his theological works in private because much of what he wrote has become hugely relevant today.

Scruton was a man of parts, some of which seemed irreconcilable: barrister, aesthetician, distinguished professor of aesthetics. Outside of brief pit stops at Cambridge, Oxford, and St Andrews, he was mostly based out of Birkbeck College, London University, which had a tradition of a working-class intake and to whom Scruton was something of a popular figure. He was also an editor of the ultra-Conservative Salisbury Review, organist, and an enthusiastic fox hunter. In addition he wrote over 50 books on philosophy, art, music, politics, literature, culture, sexuality, and religion, as well as finding time to write novels and two operas. He was widely recognised for his services to philosophy, teaching and public education, receiving a knighthood in 2016.

He was exactly the type of polymath England didn’t know what to do with because we British do discourage such continental affectations and we prefer people to know their lane and stick to it. Above all we’re suspicious of polymaths because no one likes a show off. Scruton could be accused of a few things but he never perceived as a show off. He was a gentle, reserved, and shy man of kindly manners.

He was never politically ‘Conservative’, or tried not to be. Indeed he encouraged many to think about defining “a philosophy of conservatism” and not “a philosophy for the Conservative Party.” In defining his own thoughts, he positioned conservatism to relation to its historical rivals, liberalism and socialism. He wrote that liberalism was the product of the enlightenment, which viewed society as a contract and the state as a system for guaranteeing individual rights. While he saw socialism as the product of the industrial revolution, and an ideology which views society as an economic system and the state as a means of distributing social wealth.

Like another great English thinkers, Michael Oakeshott, he felt that conservatives leaned more towards liberalism then socialism, but argued that for conservatives, freedom should also entail responsibility, which in turn depends on public spirit and virtue. Many classical liberals would agree.

In fact, he criticised Thatcherism for “its inadequate emphasis on the civic virtues, such as self-sacrifice, duty, solidarity and service of others.” Scruton agreed with classical liberals in believing that markets are not necessarily expressions of selfishness and greed, but heavily scolded his fellow Conservatives for allowing themselves to be caricatured as leaving social problems to the market. Classical liberals could be criticised for the same neglect.

Perhaps his conservative philosophy was best summed up when he wrote “Liberals seek freedom, socialists equality, and conservatives responsibility. And, without responsibility, neither freedom nor equality have any lasting value.”

Scruton’s politics were undoubtedly linked to his philosophy, which was broadly Hegelian. He took the view that all of the most important aspects of life – truth (the perception of the world as it is), beauty (the creation and appreciation of things valued for their own sake), and self-realisation (the establishment by a person of a coherent, autonomous identity) – can be achieved only as part of a cultural community within which meaning, standards and values are validated. But he had a wide and deep understanding of the history of western philosophy as a whole, and some of his best philosophical work consisted of explaining much more clearly than is often the case how different schools of western philosophy relate to one another.

People today still forget how he was a beacon for many East European intellectuals living under Communist rule in the 1980s.  Scruton was deeply attached in belonging to a network of renowned Western scholars who were helping the political opposition in Eastern Europe. Their activity began in Czechoslovakia with the Jan Hus Foundation in 1980, supported by a broad spectrum of scholars from Jacques Derrida and Juergen Habermas to Roger Scruton and David Regan. Then came Poland, Hungary and later Romania. In Poland, Scruton co-founded the Jagiellonian Trust, a small but significant organisation. The other founders and active participants were Baroness Caroline Cox, Jessica Douglas-Home, Kathy Wilkes, Agnieszka Kołakowska, Dennis O’Keeffe, Timothy Garton Ash, and others.

Scruton had a particular sympathy for Prague and the Czech society, which bore fruit in the novel, Notes from Underground, which he wrote many years later. But his involvement in East European affairs was more than an emotional attachment.  He believed that Eastern Europe - despite the communist terror and aggressive social engineering - managed to preserve a sense of historical continuity and strong ties to European and national traditions, more unconscious than openly articulated, which made it even more valuable. For this reason, decades later, he warned his East European friends against joining the European Union, arguing that whatever was left of those ties will be demolished by the political and ideological bulldozer of European bureaucracy.

Anyway, digressions aside, onto to the heart of your question.

Art matters.

Let’s start from there. Regardless of your personal tastes or aesthetics as you stand before a painting, slip inside a photograph, run your hand along the length of a sculpture, or move your body to the arrangements spiraling out of the concert speakers…something very primary - and primal - is happening. And much of it sub-conscious. There’s an element of trust.

Political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, defined artworks as “thought things,” ideas given material form to inspire reflection and rumination. Dialogue. Sometimes even discomfort. Art has the ability to move us, both positively and negatively. So we know that art matters. But the question posed by modern philosophers such as Roger Scruton has been: how do we want it to affect us?

Are we happy with the direction art is taking? Namely, says, Scruton, away from seeking “higher virtues” such as beauty and craftmanship, and instead, towards novelty for novelty’s sake, provoking emotional response under the guise of socio-political discourse.

Why does beauty in art matter?  

Scruton asks us to wake up and start demanding something more from art other than disposable entertainment. “Through the pursuit of beauty,” suggests Scruton, “we shape the world as our own and come to understand our nature as spiritual beings. But art has turned its back on beauty and now we are surrounded by ugliness.” The great artists of the past, says Scruton, “were painfully aware that human life was full of care and suffering, but their remedy was beauty. The beautiful work of art brings consolation in sorrow and affirmation…It shows human life to be worthwhile.” But many modern artists, argues the philosopher, have become weary of this “sacred task” and replaced it with the “randomness” of art produced merely to gain notoriety and the result has been anywhere between kitsch to ugliness that ultimately leads to inward alienation and nihilistic despair.

The best way to understand Scruton’s idea of beauty in art and why it matters is to let him speak for himself. Click below on the video and watch a BBC documentary broadcast way back in 2009 that he did precisely on this subject, why beauty matters. It will not be a wasted hour but perhaps enrich and even enlighten your perspective on the importance of beauty in art.

So I’ll do my best to summarise the point Scruton is making in this documentary above.

Here goes.....

In his 2009 documentary “Why Beauty Matters”, Scruton argues that beauty is a universal human need that elevates us and gives meaning to life. He sees beauty as a value, as important as truth or goodness, that can offer “consolation in sorrow and affirmation in joy”, therefore showing human life to be worthwhile.

According to Scruton, beauty is being lost in our modern world, particularly in the fields of art and architecture.

I was raised in many different cultures from India, Pakistan, to China, Japan, Southern Africa, and the Middle East as well schooling in rural Britain and Switzerland. So coming home to London on frequent visits was often a confusing experience because of the mismatch of modern art and new architecture. In life and in art I have chosen to see the beauty in things, locating myself in Paris, where I am surrounded by beauty, and understand the impact it can have on the everyday.

Scruton’s disdain for modern art begins with Marcel Duchamp’s urinal. Originally a satirical piece designed to mock the world of art and the snobberies that go with it, it has come to mean that anything can be art and anyone can be an artist. A “cult of ugliness” was created where originality is placed above beauty and the idea became more important than the artwork itself. He argues that art became a joke, endorsed by critics, doing away with a need for skill, taste or creativity.

Duchamp’s argument was that the value of any object lies solely in what each individual assigns it, and thus, anything can be declared “art,” and anyone an artist.

But is there something wrong with the idea that everything is art and everyone an artist? If we celebrate the democratic ideals of all citizens being equal and therefore their input having equal value, doesn’t Duchamp’s assertion make sense?

Who’s to say, after all, what constitutes beauty?

This resonated with me in particular and brought to mind when Scruton meets the artist Michael Craig-Martin and asks him about how Duchamp’s urinal first made him feel. Martin is best known for his work “An Oak Tree” which is a glass of water on a shelf, with text beside it explaining why it is an oak tree. Martin argues that Duchamp captures the imagination and that art is an art because we think of it as such.

When I first saw “An Oak Tree” I was confused and felt perhaps I didn’t have the intellect to understand it. When I would later question it with friends who worked in the art auction and gallery world, the response was always “You just don’t get it,” which became a common defence. To me, it was reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen’s short tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid or incompetent. In reality, they make no clothes at all.

Scruton argues that the consumerist culture has been the catalyst for this change in modern art. We are always being sold something, through advertisements that feed our appetite for stuff, adverts try to be brash and outrageous to catch our attention. Art mimics advertising as artists attempt to create brands, the product that they sell is themselves. The more shocking and outrageous the artwork, the more attention it receives. Scruton is particularly disturbed by Piero Manzoni’s artwork “Artist’s Shit” which consists of 90 tin cans filled with the artist’s excrement.

Moreover the true aesthetic value, the beauty, has vanished in modern works that are selling for millions of dollars. In such works, by artists like Rothko, Franz Kline, Damien Hirst, and Tracey Emin, the beauty has been replaced by discourse. The lofty ideals of beauty are replaced by a social essay, however well intentioned.

A common argument for modern art is that it is reflecting modern life in all of its disorder and ugliness. Scruton suggests that great art has always shown the real in the light of the ideal and that in doing so it is transfigured.

A great painting does not necessarily have a beautiful subject matter, but it is made beautiful through the artist’s interpretation of it. Rembrandt shows this with his portraits of crinkly old women and men or the compassion and kindness of which Velazquez paints the dwarfs in the Spanish court. Modern art often takes the literal subject matter and misses the creative act. Scruton expresses this point using the comparison of Tracey Emin’s artwork ‘My Bed’ and a painting by Delacroix of the artist’s bed.

The subject matters are the same. The unmade beds in all of their sordid disdain. Delacroix brings beauty to a thing that lacks it through the considered artistry of his interpretation and by doing so, places a blessing on his own emotional chaos. Emin shares the ugliness that the bed shows by using the literal bed. According to Emin, it is art because she says that it is so.

Philosophers argued that through the pursuit of beauty, we shape the world as our home. Traditional architecture places beauty before utility, with ornate decorative details and proportions that satisfy our need for harmony. It reminds us that we have more than just practical needs but moral and spiritual needs too. Oscar Wilde said “All art is absolutely useless,” intended as praise by placing art above utility and on a level with love, friendship, and worship. These are not necessarily useful but are needed.

We have all experienced the feeling when we see something beautiful. To be transported by beauty, from the ordinary world to, as Scruton calls it, “the illuminated sphere of contemplation.” It is as if we feel the presence of a higher world. Since the beginning of western civilisation, poets and philosophers have seen the experience of beauty as a calling to the divine.

According to Scruton, Plato described beauty as a cosmic force flowing through us in the form of sexual desire. He separated the divine from sexuality through the distinction between love and lust. To lust is to take for oneself, whereas to love is to give. Platonic love removes lust and invites us to engage with it spiritually and not physically. As Plato says, “Beauty is a visitor from another world. We can do nothing with it save contemplate its pure radiance.”

Scruton makes the prescient point that art and beauty were traditionally aligned in religious works of art. Science impacted religion and created a spiritual vacuum. People began to look to nature for beauty, and there was a shift from religious works of art to paintings of landscapes and human life.

In today’s world of art and architecture, beauty is looked upon as a thing of the past with disdain. Scruton believes his vision of beauty gives meaning to the world and saves us from meaningless routines to take us to a place of higher contemplation. In this I think Scruton encourages us not to take revenge on reality by expressing its ugliness, but to return to where the real and the ideal may still exist in harmony “consoling our sorrows and amplifying our joys.”

Scruton believes when you train any of your senses you are privy to a heightened world. The artist sees beauty everywhere and they are able to draw that beauty out to show to others. One finds the most beauty in nature, and nature the best catalyst for creativity. The Tonalist painter George Inness advised artists to paint their emotional response to their subject, so that the viewer may hope to feel it too.

It must be said that Scruton’s views regarding art and beauty are not popular with the modern art crowd and their postmodern advocates. Having written several books on aesthetics, Scruton has developed a largely metaphysical aspect to understanding standards of art and beauty.

Throughout this documentary (and indeed his many books and articles), Scruton display a bias towards ‘high’ art, evidenced by a majority of his examples as well as his dismissal of much modern art. However on everyday beauty, there is much space for Scruton to challenge his own categories and extend his discussion to include examples from popular culture, such as in music, graphic design, and film. Omitting ‘low art’ in the discussion of beauty could lead one to conclude that beauty is not there.

It is here I would part ways with Scruton. I think there is beauty to be found in so called low art of car design, popular music or cinema for example - here I’m thinking of a Ferrari 250 GTO,  jazz, or the films of Bergman, Bresson, or Kurosawa (among others) come to mind. Scruton gives short thrift to such 20th century art forms which should not be discounted when we talk of beauty. It’s hard to argue with Jean-Luc Godard for instance when he once said of French film pioneering director, Robert Bresson, “He is the French cinema, as Dostoevsky is the Russian novel and Mozart is German music.”

Overall though I believe Scruton does enough to leave us to ponder ourselves on the importance of beauty in the arts and our lives, including fine arts, music, and architecture. I think he succeeds in illuminating the poverty, dehumanisation and fraud of modernist and post-modernist cynicism, reductionism and nihilism. Scruton is rightly prescient in pointing the centrality of human aspiration and the longing for truth in both life and art.

In this he is correct in showing that goodness and beauty are universal and fundamentally important; and that the value of anything is not utilitarian and without meaning (e.g., Oscar Wilde’s claim that “All art is absolutely useless.”). Human beings are not purposeless material objects for mechanistic manipulation by others, and civil society itself depends upon a cultural consensus that beauty is real and every person should be respected with compassion as having dignity and nobility with very real spiritual needs to encounter and be transformed and uplifted by beauty.

Thanks for your question.

[dwellordream]

“…There is a real belief on behalf of a not insignificant subset of society that the medieval Church was a shadowy organisation dedicated solely to suppressing knowledge and scientific advancement. This is not true.

The Church was in all actuality the medieval period’s largest benefactor of scholars of all stripes. Initially, in the early medieval period much learning was focused in monastaries in particular. Because monks took a vow to eschew idleness, they were always looking for new ways to work for the greater glory of God, or whatever. Sometimes this took the form of doing manual labour to feed themselves, but as monasteries such as Cluny rose to prominence they did more and more work in libraries as well.

Monks copied and embellished manuscripts and kept impressive libraries. Sometimes this work took place inside what we call “scriptoria” where more than one scribe is working at a time. They saw themselves as charged with transmitting knowledge. A lot of that knowledge was, of course, pagan, because they were extremely into classical thinkers. They were also reading this work of course, and writing their own commentaries on it. Many of them took the medical texts and used them to set up hospitals within their monasteries, as we have talked about before.

Lest you think this is all one big sausage fest, women were also very much about that book life within nunneries. They also had their own scriptoria and were busy scribbling away, reading, writing, and thinking. If you wanted a life where you strove for new scholarly heights, odds were that in the early medieval period you did that inside a monastery on nunnery.

As the medieval period moved on, scholarship eventually moved out of the cloister and into cities when the medieval university was established. The first degree awarding institution to call itself a university was the University of Bologna established around 1088, though teaching had been going on there previously and students had been going to Bologna from at least the late tenth century. Second was the University of Paris, which was established in 1150. Again teaching had been happening there from much earlier, and at least 1045.

Medieval universities weren’t like universities now, in that they didn’t have established campuses or anything like that. They were, more or less, a loose affiliation of scholars who would provide lessons to interested students. The University of Paris, for example, described itself as “a guild of teachers and scholars” (universitas magistrorum et scholarium).

In Paris there were four faculties: Arts, Medicine, Law, and Theology. Everyone had to attend the Arts school first where they would be asked to learn the trivium, which was comprised of rhetoric, logic, and grammar. Basically that meant all undergrads spent their time learning to argue, which is how the whole Abelard thing comes about. Then if they wanted more they could go do medicine, law, or theology. Theology was considered the really crazy good stuff, as medieval theologians were sorta held up in the way we worship astrophysicists like Neil de Grasse Tyson (ugh) or Stephen Hawking now. But if you wanna be a dick and super modern about it and think that nothing is more important than science, you will note that medicine is there and actively pursued.

So what, what does all of this have to do with the Church not being suppressive? Well literally everyone, both scholars and students in a medieval university was a member of the clergy. That’s right. Are you a Christian and you wanna learn about medicine? Well you need to take holy orders first. So every single scientific advancement that came out of a medieval university (and there were plenty) was made by a man of the cloth.

The quick among you might have spotted that the thing about unis is that they were just for dudes though, and that is lamentably true. Women weren’t able to take the same orders as men, which means they were excluded from university training. Plenty of them got tutored if they were rich. (See poor Heloise who just had Abelard, like, do himself at her.) Otherwise there was plenty of sweet stuff going on in nunneries still and always, as the visionary natural biologist Hildegard of Bingen can attest. Monasteries were also still producing good stuff as Thomas Aquinas would be happy to let you know from the comfort of his Dominican order.

Given that all of this is the case, it’s hard to square that circle of “the Church is intentionally suppressing knowledge!” with the fact that everyone actively working on acquiring and furthering knowledge was a member of it and all. The Church was a welcoming home to scholars because it was a place where you got the time needed to contemplate subjects for a long time. If you have your corporeal needs taken care of, then you can go on to think about stuff. The Church offered that.

Having said all of this, there were, of course, plenty of Jewish and Muslim scholars at work in medieval Europe as well. The thriving Jewish communities of the medieval period had their own complex theological discussions about the Talmud, and produced their own truly delightful sexual and scientific theory that I will never tire of reading.

I’ve also talked at length about how Islamic medical advances were very much taken on board by medieval Christians in Europe. The fact that the Christians in holy orders beavering away at the medical faculties of universities across Europe were very much looking to a Muslim guy called Ibn Sinna for medical knowledge makes it hard to see the Church as an oppressive hater of all things non-Catholic. I’m just saying.

What else is at play here? Meh, society writ large. A lot of us in the English as a first language speaking world, and in northern Europe more generally have been raised in a Protestant context even if we ourselves are not Protestant. The thing about that is Protestants, famously, is that they are not huge fans of the Church. Big news, I know. In the Early Modern period this could get kinda wild, with things like the Great Fire of London being blamed on a nefarious “Papish plot”, for example, becoming a nice early example of a conspiracy theory. (That conspiracy theory was still written in Latin at the based of The Monument built to commemorate the fire until 1830 when the Catholics were officially emancipated in Britain. LOL.)

When the whole Enlightenment thing went down, generalised distrust of Catholics was then later compounded by the fact that “serious” thinkers aka Voltaire’s ridiculously basic self began to categorise the accumulation of knowledge specifically in opposition to religious thought. This is the old “Age of Reason” which we currently allegedly reside in, versus the “Age of Faith” idea. The Church as an overarching institution from the age of faith was therefore thought of as necessarily regressive, and it became assumed that it has always been actively attempting to thwart advantage for vaguely sinister reasons that are never fully articulated.

…Now, plenty of people were killed for witchcraft because they were doing medicine. The witch trials were a very real thing, and you know when and where they happened? In the modern period, and usually with a greater regularity in Protestant places. Witchcraft trials peak in general from about 1560-1630 which is the modern period. The most famous trials with the biggest kill count took place in Trier, Fulda, Basque, Wurtzburg, Bamberg, North Berwick, Torsåker and Salem. You know what was going on in most of the places? The Reformation. Witch trials sort of reflected various confessions of Christianity’s ability to effectively protect their flocks from evil. Did Catholics kill “witches” oh you bet your sweet ass they did. So did Protestants, and it was all fucking ugly.

What is important to note is that in countries where Catholicism was static witch trials were largely unheard of. Ireland, the Iberian Peninsula, and Italy, for example, just didn’t go in for them even though they were theoretically in the clutches of a nefarious Church bent on destroying all medical knowledge or something.

Now, none of this is to excuse the multifarious sins of the institutional Church over the years. In many ways my entire career as a medieval historian is a product of the fact that I was frustrated with the Church after 16 years of Catholic school. If you had to go to a High School named after the prosecutor in the Galileo trial, you might also end up devoting yourself to picking intricate theological fights with the Church, OK? (Yes, this is my origin story.)

And that brings us to the crux of the matter: if you make up a bunch of stuff that the Church did not do it makes it harder to critique them of the manifold things they actually did do and are doing right fucking now. We need to be critiquing the Magdalene Laundries; the international cover up of pedophile priests; signing an actual concordant with Nazi Germany; the regressive attitudes towards abortion and contraception that happen still, now, and endanger the lives of countless women. All of this is real, and calls for the strongest possible condemnation.”

- Eleanor Janega, “JFC, calm down about the medieval Church.”

[scotianostra]

September 10th 1771 saw the birth of Mungo Park at Foulshiels, near Selkirk.

He grew up on a tenant farm in Selkirkshire, the seventh child of a well-to-do farmer, at 17 years old, he abandoned the family farm to pursue his education and attend the renowned University of Edinburgh. It is undoubtedly not a coincidence that the soon-to-be-famous Park was studying at the University of Edinburgh during the Age of Enlightenment in Scotland. Some of Park’s earlier contemporaries at the university included, whether as students or faculty, such famous Scottish thinkers and philosophers as David Hume, Adam Ferguson, Gershom Carmichael and Dugald Stewart.

With a medical diploma and a desire for fame and fortune, Park set off for London, and through his brother-in-law, William Dickson, a Covent Garden seedsman, he got his opportunity. An introduction to Sir Joseph Banks, a famed English botanist, and explorer who had circumnavigated the world with Captain James Cook.

In 1795, Park, with the support of England’s Africa Society, set off in search of the Niger and the fabled city of Tellem. Park and his team of 30 men sailed down the east coast of Africa to the mouth of the River Gambia, where the English had established a fort. After a trip down the Gambia and an overland trek through dense jungle, the team reached the Niger. By then, however, Park had run out of money and was forced to return home without finding Tellem.

Park spent the next decade raising funds and organising a team for a second expedition to Tellem. Finally, in 1805, the party embarked, fully confident in his mission’s success. Park and his team returned to the Niger, where they piled into canoes and paddled south in search of Tellem. None of them were ever heard from again.

The third pic is of his memorial in his home town. 

[davisobi]

MODERNIST PHOTOGRAPHY

The birth of Modern Photography heralded a significant aesthetic change in photographic output as well as a shift in the way in which photography was produced, utilized and appreciated. Modern Photography encompassed trends in the medium from the early 1900s through to the 1960s. Photographers started using the camera as a direct tool rather than manipulating images to conform to traditional notions of artistic beauty ( a custom particularly associated with Pictorialism )

The move from early photography to Modern Photography is distinguished by a departure from the language and constraints of traditional art, such as painting, and this change in attitude was mirrored by changes in practice.

Modern Photography does not start until the beginning of the 20th century, earlier photographic innovations provide a technological and contextual framework for later developments and are important in understanding the stylistic changes of the period. In contrast to earlier relationships between photography and artistic groups, which tended to be imitative, Modern Photography became fully embedded in these movements and provided a new and powerful medium for experimentation and expression.

Some commentators define modernism as a mode of thinking—one or more philosophically defined characteristics, like self-consciousness or self-reference, that run across all the novelties in the arts and the disciplines.More common, especially in the West, are those who see it as a socially progressive trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve and reshape their environment with the aid of practical experimentation, scientific knowledge, or technology. From this perspective, modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new ways of reaching the same end. Others focus on modernism as an aesthetic introspection. This facilitates consideration of specific reactions to the use of technology in the First World War, and anti-technological and nihilistic aspects of the works of diverse thinkers and artists spanning the period from Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) to Samuel Beckett (1906–1989).

Modernism is both a philosophical movement and an art movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among the factors that shaped modernism were the development of modern industrial societies and the rapid growth of cities, followed then by reactions to the horrors of World War I. Modernism also rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking, although many modernists also rejected religious belief.

Modernism, in general, includes the activities and creations of those who felt the traditional forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, philosophy, social organisation, activities of daily life, and sciences were becoming ill-fitted to their tasks and outdated in the new economic, social, and political environment of an emerging fully industrialised world.

An art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time, (usually a few months, years or decades) or, at least, with the heyday of the movement defined within a number of years. Art movements were especially important in modern art, when each consecutive movement was considered as a new avant-garde.

[suzylwade]

Radically Happy 'Radical Happiness' is an engaging, enlightening read for anyone who wants to ponder the links between personal dissatisfaction and political disengagement — and possible remedies. The idea of collective happiness as the root of much satisfaction is simple, but deceptively hard to write about, let alone achieve. Segal succeeds in inspiring on many levels, and while she is writing from the political left, and from a feminist point of view, her sources range far beyond her personal history and feminist and Marxist theorists to include citations and references to many writers and thinkers on utopias and on the nature of democracy. Segal, a professor of psychology and gender studies at ‘Birkbeck College’ London, recounts her own experience as a leftwing feminist and activist to back up her wider point about the power of mass movements - which in this book means gatherings of real people. This collectivist mindset was once far more prevalent than it is now. Segal reminds us how things have changed by examining the focus on individualism in western societies which leave many feeling isolated and left behind among all the consumerism and commodification. We can all benefit from thinking about, and achieving, collective joy through joining with like-minded fellow humans, whether we are organising a charity jumble sale or marching for women’s rights. 'Radical Happiness: Moments of Collective Joy’ by Lynne Segal. #neonurchin #neonurchinblog #dedicatedtothethingswelove #suzyurchin #ollyurchin #art #music #photography #fashion #film #words #pictures #neon #urchin #radicalhappiness #eudaemonia #professorofpsychologyandgenderstudies #birkbeckcollege #radicalhappinessmomentsofcolletivejoy #feminist #lynnesegal https://www.instagram.com/p/CKLulcnFId1/?igshid=v8s3xspergfi

[dailynewswebsite]

Why so many Syrian women get divorced when they move to western countries

Syrian refugees in Passau, Germany: a lot of these in search of refuge are from extra conservative rural areas the place divorce is stigmatised. Jazzmany by way of Shutterstock

A few years in the past, I noticed a dialogue on Fb of the affect of migration on Arab households. The primarily male writers had been arguing that leaving the safety of the homeland has destroyed the material of Syrian households and society within the diaspora. They believed it had led Syrian girls in direction of inhiraf or “deviation from the true path” as extra of them had been in search of divorce.

Whereas this phenomenon has been disparaged amongst Syrians, it has been celebrated by some western commentators. They noticed it as a part of the western mission to “save Arab (and Muslim) girls” from the Muslim males who oppressed them. This can be a clearly reductionist and Orientalist (western-centric) account of the state of affairs.

In her guide Do Muslim Ladies Want Saving?, the Palestinian-American scholar Lila Abu Lughod condemns this western mindset. She maintains it has justified all types of western interference within the Arab and Muslim world – together with invasion – within the identify of rescuing girls from Islam.

However most of the refugee girls in query have taken benefit of their new lives in western, secular societies to ask for divorce – usually from abusive husbands they needed to marry as younger women. They’d not been compelled to marry the boys for non secular causes however actually because they got here from rural backgrounds the place patriarchy (and patriarchal interpretations of Islam) had been predominant. The non-public standing legal guidelines in most Arab nations additionally usually deprive girls of fundamental rights akin to alimony or custody of their kids after divorce.

However patriarchal legal guidelines should not the principle motive for Syrian girls’s silence and acceptance of the established order when of their homeland. The idea of ‛ayb (disgrace) fairly than the idea of haram (religiously forbidden), has usually ruled these girls’s behaviour. For instance, whereas ‛isma (a further clause within the marriage contract permitting girls to provoke divorce) is permissible in Islam, it’s socially frowned upon in most Muslim communities. Ladies who’ve such a clause of their marriage contract are sometimes seen as morally and sexually suspect.

Fashionable mores

A feminine Arabic-speaking lawyer who helps these Syrian girls with their divorces in Germany is reported as saying: “I’ve by no means seen so many individuals from one nationality need to get divorced,” including, “I’ve by no means seen a social construction break down prefer it has amongst Syrians.”

That is most likely on account of the truth that most of the households escaping Syria got here from rural areas and from provincial cities . As soon as they escaped the oppressive eyes of their family members and neighbours, and will provoke a no-fault divorce, they didn’t hesitate to request such a divorce. They knew their rights would now be protected and their kids left of their care.

This phenomenon isn’t distinctive to Syrian refugees in Germany. It may also be noticed in Sweden, the place Syrian girls have been more and more empowered by the feminist insurance policies of the Swedish authorities. Additionally they began demanding separation from abusive husbands they needed to marry as younger women.

This isn’t an indictment of refugee girls as a lot as it’s an indictment of Syrian society and legal guidelines that pressure girls to just accept mistreatment. They accomplish that in an effort to hold a roof over their heads and custody of their kids.

The Syrian authorities itself has seemingly not too long ago realised its legal guidelines are problematic and amended the Syrian Private Standing legal guidelines in February 2019. The amendments included greater than 60 authorized articles. They not solely raised the age of marriage, and granted girls custody of their kids after divorce, but additionally gave all Syrian girls ‛isma – the proper to petition for divorce with out anybody’s permission.

As anticipated, Syrians had been break up of their reactions to those amendments, with some welcoming these adjustments whereas others seeing them as not going far sufficient. A 3rd group learn these amendments as a pathetic try by a regime that had misplaced legitimacy amongst giant swaths of the inhabitants to instrumentalise girls’s rights in an effort to rehabilitate itself within the eyes of the west.

By amending these legal guidelines, the Assad authorities is making an attempt to painting itself as a contemporary and “civilized” regime that protects girls’s rights towards the “backwardness” of what it depicts as Islamically impressed legal guidelines. The Assad regime is positioning itself as an enlightened authorities, one the west doesn’t want to save lots of girls from.

Alternative and dignity

Within the meantime, in Europe the place giant numbers of Syrians have taken refuge – and away from the opprobrium of patriarchal society – girls are making the most of legal guidelines that grant them equal rights and social norms that don’t put the blame on them within the case of divorce, or take into account them fallen girls in the event that they depart their husbands.

By way of recourse to a extra sympathetic regime for girls, Syrian refugees are demonstrating an company that’s usually denied to them by western politicians and lots of Arab mental elites. These legal guidelines should not inimical to Islam – feminist interpretations of Islam holds that the non secular doctrine grants girls rights – however that these rights are all to usually denied by patriarchal interpretations of faith and by Syrian societal norms.

The rules of social justice are fairness, entry to sources, human rights and participation. And in Sweden and different European nations refugee girls more and more have entry to sources and are made conscious of their human rights. In her guide Intercourse and Social Justice, the American thinker and authorized scholar Martha Nussbaum sees alternative because the centrepiece of her theoretical understanding of justice, and hyperlinks it to dignity.

Alternative and dignity are rules of justice missing for each ladies and men within the Arab world, however particularly for girls. Hillary Clinton famously mentioned “girls’s rights are human rights,” and the situation of ladies at giant is just one manifestation of the dearth of respect for human rights (for all) within the Arab world.

Rola El-Husseini doesn’t work for, seek the advice of, personal shares in or obtain funding from any firm or organisation that may profit from this text, and has disclosed no related affiliations past their tutorial appointment.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/why-so-many-syrian-women-get-divorced-when-they-move-to-western-countries/ via https://growthnews.in

[yawpinglitgcu]

Modernism

Broadly speaking, ‘modernism’ might be said to have been characterised by a deliberate and often radical shift away from tradition, and consequently by the use of new and innovative forms of expression Thus, many styles in art and literature from the late 19th and early 20th centuries are markedly different from those that preceded them. The term ‘modernism’ generally covers the creative output of artists and thinkers who saw ‘traditional’ approaches to the arts, architecture, literature, religion, social organisation (and even life itself) had become outdated in light of the new economic, social and political circumstances of a by now fully industrialised society. Amid rapid social change and significant developments in science (including the social sciences), modernists found themselves alienated from what might be termed Victorian morality and convention. They duly set about searching for radical responses to the radical changes occurring around them, affirming mankind’s power to shape and influence his environment through experimentation, technology and scientific advancement, while identifying potential obstacles to ‘progress’ in all aspects of existence in order to replace them with updated new alternatives. All the enduring certainties of Enlightenment thinking, and the heretofore unquestioned existence of an all-seeing, all-powerful ‘Creator’ figure, were high on the modernists’ list of dogmas that were now to be challenged, or subverted, perhaps rejected altogether, or, at the very least, reflected upon from a fresh new ‘modernist’ perspective. Not that modernism categorically defied religion or eschewed all the beliefs and ideas associated with the Enlightenment; it would be more accurate to view modernism as a tendency to question, and strive for alternatives to, the convictions of the preceding age. The past was now to be seen and treated as different from the modern era, and its axioms and undisputed authorities held up for revision and enquiry. The extent to which modernism is open to diverse interpretations, and even rife with apparent paradoxes and contradictions, is perhaps illustrated by the uneasy juxtaposition of the viewpoints declared by two of modernist poetry’s most celebrated and emblematic poets: while Ezra Pound (1885-1972) was making his famous call to “make it new”, his contemporary T. S. Eliot (1888- 1965) was stressing the indispensable nature of tradition in art, insisting upon the artist’s responsibility to engage with tradition. Indeed, the overtly complex, contradictory character of modernism is summed up by Peter Childs, who identifies “paradoxical if not opposed trends towards revolutionary and reactionary positions, fear of the new and delight at the disappearance of the old, nihilism and fanatical enthusiasm, creativity and despair” (Modernism, 2000)

[mahavan]

Being Human - Bang For Your Buck

Could there be anything worse than not getting enough “bang for your buck”? Hell no! As we devotedly surf the net for sacred reviews, trusted comparisons, and precious price beating info we are therefore sure that meaning, peace and fulfilment will follow, as we speed toward the goal of life one purchase at a time. But could it be that today, in the wonderful information age, we know everything except what we really need to know? A quick look at the news headlines on any day of the week certainly gives some food for thought, and reaffirms for the yogi the message of the ancient yoga culture to humanity across the board: “Ignore the essential questions and your inner and outer world will be chaotic, despite so much scientific and technological advancement. Indeed, you could not make a greater mistake than to think something more important than your own enlightenment.”

Who or what are we, beyond the superficial layers of body and mind? Why are we here, beyond reproducing our genes? What should we be doing, beyond the activities we share with the beasts in the field and forest? And what is real pleasure, beyond temporary sensual titillation? Out of box of contemporary social conditioning, the bhakti yoga texts explain that human intelligence is meant for asking and answering these questions as the number one priority. Why? Not simply to avoid inner and outer chaos, but for an even higher purpose. The preliminary bhakti text Bhagavad Gita informs us, “The human form of life is specifically and exclusively designed to attain pleasure beyond matter, time and space. Such pleasure, in which one understands that there is none higher, is attained only by proper use of human intelligence.”

But hang on, what about the well worn “ignorance is bliss” mantra? It was the great Western thinker Socrates who said “the unexamined life is not worth living,” but are we not determined to prove him wrong? For the vast majority today making what is considered by the genuine yogi to be the greatest of mistakes, the well drilled response may be “Who am I? Not sure, but I could sure use some more money!” Another great Western thinker, Oscar Wilde, opined that “a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing,” but perhaps many would consider Wilde the actual cynic for coming up with this definition. Illuminating the situation, bhakti texts like Srimad Bhagavatam strive to provide the best “bang for the buck” in terms of human worldview and lifestyle options by urging us to seriously consider what human Intelligence is actually meant for.

The following question begins the journey: If humanity was to try distinguish itself as a species from other fauna, then what would be the criteria? All species eat, sleep, reproduce and defend themselves, and also equate the satisfaction of such needs as “happiness,” but is there a specific trait or characteristic which unmistakably distinguishes humans from other species? Instinctively we may reply “we are more intelligent.” But how? Sure, our furry, feathered and scaly brothers and sisters lack IT, Facebook, smart phones, free market democracies and high paced consumerism, but they also lack psycho therapists, chronic health conditions, drug and alcohol dependency, economic recessions, car accidents, suicide bombers and responsibility for climate destabilisation and impending ecological disaster, which are just a few of the vast array of stunning medals pinned exclusively on the chest of humanity.

Intelligence, as it is commonly defined, is ”the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" and is generally thought to set us apart from other species. But what type of knowledge and skills create the actual divide? True, the power of human intelligence is greater than that of other species, but the yogi would ask “is that power being used for anything higher than the achievement of basic animal goals? Is human intelligence actually being used intelligently?” looking at the activities we share with other life forms, we also see that they are often far more organised, cooperative and less destructive than we two legged heads of the food chain. While “advanced” contemporary humanity has become the only species in history to destroy its own habitat (and that of many other innocent species in the process), tiny creatures like ants and bees have social organisation and economic cohesion that human societies can only dream of.

Cutting to the chase, bhakti texts point out that there is actually no notable difference between humans and animals unless the human being make a serious attempt at higher consciousness. Again, it was Oscar Wilde who observed that “man is the rational animal.” Expanding on this observation, graduate bhakti text Srimad Bhagavatam gives it practical application, explaining “A truly intelligent human being, while properly taking care of the needs of the body and mind, only endeavours for pleasure beyond temporariness, knowing that whatever happiness one is predestined to experience by karma can not be avoided or increased, and that such a budget standard of pleasure is also freely and automatically available in all species of life.”

In other words, human beings have the in-built potential, due to the facility of developed intelligence, to attain pleasure which is free from the limitations of beginnings and ends, and such an endeavour is the only real criteria for human status. Failing to use this potential for the purpose that it was intended, it is misused in the pursuit of transitory gratification which is freely available in any body type. And consequently, because human intelligence is far more powerful than that of other species, when misused the reactions are also epic, hence the current deluge of ever-increasing individual, social, economic, political, and ecological woes that bombard the nightly TV News enthusiast.

The precise sanskrit world aryan is used in yoga literature to define human beings and distinguish them from other species. The term means “those who are advancing.” Today, of course, we are generally pretty chuffed with the rampage of apparent human progress that has spurted up in the 200 years since the industrial revolution, usually equating it with the advancement of science, technology and a more convenient way of life. In this way, certainly, human beings are progressing. But does such progress practically equate to a higher quality of life? Has it lead to an increase in the depth of personal understanding and relationships? Of unity and harmony between human beings, other species and our environment? To genuine human happiness and fulfilment? Statistics say no.

For example, in the USA, those experiencing a regular and frequent feeling of loneliness have risen from 11-20 % in the 1970s and 80s to between 40 and 45% of the population in 2010. While in New Zealand, although those under 30 are the most connected via text messaging and social media, they are also the most lonely of any age group. The consumption of antidepressants has nearly doubled in EU countries since 2000. Acknowledging the crisis, the World Health Organisation released a report in 2014 entitled “Preventing suicide: a global imperative,” the first report of its kind. WHO also estimated 804 000 suicide deaths occurred worldwide in 2012, although they believe that the actual number is much higher due to under reporting. For every person who commits suicide, there are 20 or more who make an attempt, and globally suicide is the second leading cause of death in 15−29-year-olds. The twentieth century has also been the most war ravaged and violent century in recent human history. More than 140 wars have been fought since the formation of the United Nations in 1945 and three times more people have died in wars of the twentieth century than in the entire history of warfare between A.D. 1 and 1899. Our present version of “advancement,” it seems, comes at quite a price.

Bhakti texts affirm that when a person makes serious inquiries into happiness beyond animal propensities and actually takes up authentic yoga technologies which connect him or her to pleasure which has no beginning or end, he can then be classified as aryan, or “human.” Such an individual knows and feels the practical benefits of real human advancement. Deeply concerned with real “bang for the buck” while in the human body, the fortunate soul, even in this time of mass forgetfulness of the purpose of human intelligence, seeks the company of the like minded and dynamically strives for and achieves higher consciousness. Free from the tendency to exploit other living beings, fortified and inspired by inner peace, genuine meaning, compassion for all species and pure happiness, he or she, not simply satisfied with personal success, is also dedicated to assisting others on the path of maximum human potential. In this way the empathic activist-yogi urges one and all, “please don’t make that greatest of mistakes - you have the potential for and right to the best pleasure.”

[shirlleycoyle]

The Coddling of the American Pundit

In an absurd reaction to the New York Times nonfiction bestsellers list earlier this week, New York writer Andrew Sullivan tweeted "We. All. Live. On Campus. Now." The problem, Sullivan said, was that the list had numerous "radical critical theory books, written by people deeply opposed to the foundations of liberal democracy” that “were now required reading for employees.”

The following day, a thread of tweets arguing that doxxing racist students helped to “stop them from attending a university that will allow them to become a racist healthcare worker, teacher, lawyer, real estate developer, politicians, etc.” received a similar reaction from Sullivan. “This is beyond chilling,” he tweeted. “It’s the logic of purges and cultural revolution and mob ‘justice’. It has over 400K likes. Liberal democracy is extinct.”

Sullivan and other “contrarian” thinkers with large salaries and gigantic platforms have spent an inordinate amount of time over the last decade obsessing over what teenagers at colleges—Berkeley and Harvard are favorites—are doing on campus, whether that’s getting racists disinvited from cushy speaking gigs or caring about intersectionality and social justice more generally speaking. The broad strokes of their argument are that one day the people pushing for their universities to be more inclusive and to not give platforms to racists will graduate from those universities and will become leaders in America and bring their ideologies with them. Sullivan and others say that this will be bad—bad for free speech, bad for liberal democracy, bad for America, and, most of all, bad for well-paid pundits. America as we know it will be consumed by “campus.” And that moment, where We. All. Live. On. Campus., is now, when hundreds of thousands of people are protesting Black people being killed by the police (or perhaps it was 2018).

Alone, this sort of hysteria is insignificant and also expected of Sullivan, who has spent years promoting and trying to legitimize racial science and declaring war on those who aren’t interested. It's part, though, of a larger wave of right-wing liberal and conservative writers warning that the American public is undergoing an authoritarian turn. State forces violently suppressing protests sparked by state violence isn't the concern here, nor is the president attempting to designate antifascists as terrorists. No, it's the specter of “the campus”—an imagined site of oppression in the reactionary mind where free speech goes to die.

Never mind that it’s students who are bravely in the streets fighting against actual state authoritarianism—marching in the hundreds of thousands nationwide, storming and burning down Minneapolis’ 3rd Precinct (which one survey shows the majority of Americans think was justified), and creating an “autonomous zone” in Seattle spanning six city blocks that features an occupied Seattle police precinct along with vehicle barricades and armed protesters standing guard. Never mind, for that matter, that what's happening isn't the result of people avoiding uncomfortable ideas but of engaging with them and taking them seriously enough to take action in the name of a better and more just society—precisely what liberal education and liberal democracy hold as an ideal. What matters is that the "campus" has taken over, and that this is bad.

If this “campus” is now everywhere, it’s worth taking stock of who seems terrified of it, and why. So far, it appears to be no one facing any type of oppression.

Take the staff revolt sparked by Tom Cotton’s New York Times op-ed "Send in the Troops" among staff over whether the fascist screed should’ve been published. Times op-ed editor and columnist Baris Weiss warned of a "civil war" between "the (mostly young) wokes [and] the (mostly 40+) liberals” that resembled the "campus culture wars." Many have mocked her, Sullivan and other conservative thinkers for obsessively writing about campus, but this uprising at the Times, she said, proved her right all along. "This was always why it mattered: The people who graduated from those campuses would rise to power inside key institutions and transform them." Weiss casts radical students—or former ones—as the real authoritarians for engaging in the marketplace of ideas by debating the merits of an article written by a sitting United States senator advocating for the actual deployment of the military against Americans exercising Enlightenment-era rights. (The original position that led to the Times soliciting this op-ed was that the troops should kill them.)

In Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff's book The Coddling of the American Mind, the fear that grips the reactionary mind is described as safetyism—"a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns." For some, safetyism is an ever pervasive threat; for others, coronavirus ended this Age of Coddling, for some reason.

Clearly the young people in the streets facing down violent cops are not overly concerned with their safety. Nor are journalists risking their jobs to protest against their employers publishing government propaganda.The people who seem most obsessively concerned with being protected from ideas that challenge their worldview, in fact, seem to be coddled writers and thinkers who are worried about the safety of their social status as protests and calls for systemic upheaval and justice echo across the land.

As Moira Weigel wrote in her review of Haidt and Lukianoff’s book, their arguments are obsessed with balancing acts that do little other than "signal the distance between the authors and the partisans of identity who are too emotional to think clearly." They profess to be concerned with an ideological climate that stifles free expression, but in practice express concern over little other than the rules of the discourse. They want an atmosphere in which ideas can be freely debated; if anyone takes an idea seriously, though, it is held as evidence that no such atmosphere exists. The argument is an endlessly recursive argument about what it means to argue, the cri de coeur of a message-board user endlessly crying out for moderators to enforce the First Amendment written across the pages of America's best-paying and most influential publications.

Take Sullivan’s comparison of doxxing to the Cultural Revolution; the same comparison is made by Lukianoff and Haidt, who compared "witch-hunts" on college campuses to the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but are more honest about their argument. "As historical events, the two movements are radically different,” they wrote, “most notably in that the Red Guards were responding to the call of a totalitarian dictator, who encouraged them to use violence, while the American college students have been self-organised and almost entirely nonviolent." And yet they shared some similarities, the author maintain, in that "both were movements initiated by idealistic young college students." What does this mean, ultimately? Nothing!

This whiny preening—ironically, it's exactly what “the campus” is accused of—characterizes the overall line of argument. Sullivan is a prominent member of a group of scientific racists who regularly bemoan the natural social consequences of airing racist drivel publicly. Weiss’s warnings were publicly revealed to be fabricated by numerous colleagues who disputed her narrative, calling it "brazenly careerist and self-serving" and a "willful misrepresentation" of largely unified internal opposition to publishing Cotton’s op-ed. There is reportedly a “Bret Stephens” policy at the New York Times, a double standard which allows Stephens to drone about the virtues of free speech (and join Sullivan in advancing race science nonsense) but while constantly whining or complaining to higher-ups about any writer or editor that voices criticism of his ideas.

When Stephens, another campus culture hand-wringer, failed to get a professor at George Washington University fired for insulting him, he wrote an embarassing column trying to paint the joke as anti-Semitic. When the professor invited Stephens to a debate at GWU, Stephens canceled because the debate wouldn't be closed to the public. All of this looks much more like “safetyism” than reading critical theory books or fighting an authoritarian police force.

In a convincing case as to why “safetyism” doesn’t even exist, Inside Higher Ed's John Warner wrote that "if you examine those who wield the charge of safetyism against others, they are always in positions of superior power accusing those without power of disrupting some important principle, a principle that protects the status quo." His critique also lines up with Weigel’s, which points out that these people enjoy “the luxury of living free from discrimination and domination” and “insist that the crises moving young people to action are all in their heads.”

It's hard to take seriously powerful, privileged people who insist that the marketplace of ideas can solve racism and sexism. It's even harder to do so when they insist that participants in the marketplace of ideas who follow the power of ideas they find convincing are behaving illegitimately. It's still harder when those whose entire project is pushing the idea that debate—endless, endless debate—is the way to improve the country rule out protests and uprisings as effective forms of debate. That protests inspired by and enacting ideas and ideals have been successful now and in the past (e.g. the 1960s protests and riots) does not hinder these people from making their arguments. Instead, thought leaders like Jonathan Chait use phrases like “politics is a matter of life and death” to make the case that nobody is entirely right, and that nothing should be done.

These thinkers are correctly labeled by Weigel as "right liberals" who, from "their safe space of TED talks and thinktanks and thinkpieces" create cultures and belief systems where the safety of valuing ideas you disagree with becomes a sacred value in theory, and where in practice disagreement is taken as a sort of violence, undermining the entire project of disagreement and debate which is held to be so sacred. Their position is exactly what they accuse their critics of, and as a result, their hysteria is founded in something real: They actually are being left behind by a society and by generations that are taking seriously the ideas they pay lip service to.

“The campus,” as envisioned by the reactionary mind doesn’t exist. But the protests do. The uprisings do. The CHAZ in Seattle does. As right liberals and conservatives are forced to watch more protests and occupations grow and succeed, they’ll slink back into their safe spaces. They’ll insist that their opinions be respected. They’ll demand that we engage in balancing acts to “save liberalism"—acts calibrated to preserve power, privilege, bigotry, and ignorance, and even liberalism itself.

We should see this for what it is: the coddling of the American pundit. And we should reject it.

The Coddling of the American Pundit syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[garp19-zoescott-blog]

Are we displaying visual items effectively to a wide audience?

By Zoe Scott 

Originally, in selecting a field of interest, I had thought collecting and collections would be a vast topic filled with meaning and select interest. Collecting is largely defined as seeking, and acquiring items of a similar kind over a period of time (Dictionary, unknown). After researching into the areas associated with collecting that, include: different types of items; ways of collecting; the purpose in collecting and how they are presented. The final point of these four is the most appealing to myself as an illustrator. The way I render a piece will affect its ability to convey the meaning I have applied. By learning how we present collections and understand information, I would like to find out how we best approach visual items that allow for human understanding and connection. 

The focus of this research will be in Museums with reflection on other Cultural Institutions. Museums themselves, must be defined for their purpose as ‘complex and multi-layered, acting as a sign for domination and liberation, learning and leisure. As sites for exposition, through their collections, displays and building, museums mediate many of society’s basic values (Kreps, 2003). The Museum Association goes further to say museums are, “an environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.” Moving to understand the operation of museums, the objects can be books, artifacts, buildings and documents which creates a diversity among objects, which are differentiated by how the item is documented in this environment (Pearce, 1992:2). By focusing on museums, I can look at diverse range of items in a collection and how this reflects the way they are being exhibited. 

It would be interesting to find out if diversifying the approach to displaying could change the way different people engage with things unknown to them. The inviting nature of children’s displays in cultural institutions, should probably be of a reminder the most interesting ways we can approach presenting information and engaging with collections is through gaining our interests. To start with, it is important to underpin the method of museums, museology and the people involved with them. With this understanding, I can look further into how people react with information, whether they can actively intermingle with it or are undeterred by it. In order to find out this information I need to understand the theory behind how people learn and the application of this to museums. 

Museum history 

To start answering some of these questions I have researched the history of Museums, in particular the European understanding of them. It is thought to be a modern institution that began in the middle of the 15th century in the Renaissance cities. This period saw a ‘rebirth’ in European cultural, artistic, political and economic factors, following the middle ages and prompted the rediscovery of classical philosophy, literature and art (Pearce, 1992). The advances of this modern period were seen in as an economic, scientific, ethical and historical discourse contributing to production and consumption. This cycle of producing and consuming allowed in part for capitalism and pivotally to the ownership of goods. 

This is key to my understanding of how we relate to objects. A quote featured in the book Cultures of Collecting (Elsner, 1994:50) reads “man’s fatal attraction to the object is the primary determinant of the human condition”, - original from R. H. Tawney (1921). In agreement to that quote, my understanding of objects and collections is that they can strongly reflect an individual and a group. It is museums that have the responsibility to categorise and explain all the different areas of the human existence. Whilst doing this they rely on how the people who produced the pieces saw the objects and then how we interpret those behaviours. Beyond the museum definition, it is accepted that a museums framework includes: a collection big or small; exist as a building, or part of one; has staff (not necessarily paid); visitors and a cultural perspective underpinning the entirety. 

Museums and Education 

From the private ownership of goods in the 18th and 19th centuries saw the major expansion of museums into significant public institutions. Public museums grew as knowledge spread beyond a very limited class (Hein, 1998:3). This shift attributed to “18th century spirit of enthusiasm for quality of opportunity of learning (Hudson, 1975:6). For the latter half of the 19th century Industrialisation put the opportunities, work and people into cities and the government increased their responsibility of education and social services. 

Museums were an agency for people to better themselves and exhibitions allowed for a new form of understanding. Exhibitions could be used by the government to support public campaigns for health education (Hein, 1998:4). 

Exhibiting Good Health: Public Health Exhibitions in London (Mold, 2018) is a journal that discussed the changing nature of public health services in post-war Britain 1948-71. The Exhibitions were made by the Medical Officers of Health (MOsH) in London with a purpose to focus public understanding from infectious disease to chronic conditions associated with lifestyle. Showing the danger to health as something that can be changed it was hoped people could adapt their behaviours. The public and MOsH had direct contact through these exhibitions opening the opportunity for a new relationship and ultimately positive health changes. One of the examples of an exhibition was in 1949 in Ealing, where they tackled ‘dirty food’ by creating a model of a grocers’ shop with a waxwork female assistant. The assistant wore ‘grimy overalls’ and had a finger wrapped in a dirty bandage. In the shop, the foods were uncovered and there was a large stuffed rat sat among it all. Then to contextualise where the rat had previously been, there was a glass case showing a section of sewer with a real rat inside. 

The journalist reporting on the exhibition and its many features believed it showed how and by what agent’s food can become poisoned. Ultimately, by exhibiting multiple examples of ways the standards could be raised without cost, it showed how poor food hygiene is avoidable without the previous wartime difficulties. Figures 1a. 1b. & 1c. show later versions used by MOsH and 1c. shows active engagement with the information through a question and answer device. 

In terms of the correlation between education and museums, schools and museums were developing a system of public expenditure for the masses. However, the difference between them was their accountability system. Schools started using standard curriculums, tests, and inspectors and gained a function of questioning how they were running and if they were achieving the functions, they set out. This reflection process allowed the education system to see the impact of their roll on its students (Bolton, 2012). This standardisation allows us to see figures of students in full-time education beyond the leaving age (Figure 2a) and the percentages of passes at different academic levels (Figure 2b). Generally speaking, the figures show the correlation between government acts like the minimum school leaving age in 1972 and the introduction of the GCSE system. It is a societal change of focus on education that leads to these changes and advancements. 

By comparison, whilst museums shifted to their role in wider society through a more open to all status, they did not evaluate the impact to its visitors. Hein 1998 explains how it was assumed people would be entertained and enlightened by their visits, without the museums having a study of visitor experience. The public educational function of museums by the end of the 19th century was eclipsed and that meant schools did not necessarily see museums as a support in their work. (Hooper-Greenhill, 1988) believed the ideal museum in the 19th century had the prime function to educate and be the advanced school of self-instruction. However, many museums and galleries were unable to achieve this ideal; this was a firmly held view. The conviction of thinkers in many areas of intellectual and political life by the 1920s were under attack. The curators were less concerned with public use and function of museums and more inclined by the accumulation of the collections. Therefore not working in line with the museum to reach greater populations and achieve its aims. 

Learning Theory and museum association. 

The field of museology allows for the science of organisation and management to occur and promotes the educational role of museums since the 1950s. To form a system of accountability for the future outlook of museums. 

(Mariesse, 2010:54) quotes Reviere, 1981 saying, “Museology: an applied science, the science of the museum. Museology studies its history, its role in society, the specific forms of research and physical conservation, activities and dissemination, organisation and functioning, new or musealised architecture, sites that have been received or chosen, its typology and its deontology.” Museology as a study is incredibly vast and continues to adapt its meaning with added connotations (new museology) that sees the discourse of museums by adding to their role in social and political regard. With the changing nature of museums it is expected of them to encourage new communications and styles of expression to advance from collection centred museum archetypes (Mariesse, 2010:55). 

There are different approaches that try to determine the way we learn. It is important that cultural institutions find out how we learn in order to engage the visitor with something that is likely to be new to them. To understand the relationship between the learning process’ and the way materials and information is displayed, is a vital tool at a museums disposal for study, education and enjoyment. 

The behaviourist conceptual framework has assumptions that learners come to a learning situation with none or very little knowledge. And that by after a suitable educational intervention, exit knowing something that the instructor chose for them to understand. Learners from a behaviourist point of view are a blank slate to the new learning. By contrast constructivists believe learning is a relative and constructive process (Faulk, 2000). A learning process is continual and a highly personal experience built upon prior knowledge, interests, experience and motivations. Learning is highly situated and the contextual model of leaning (figure 3a) identifies three contexts that are continually shifting across an individual’s life time. These interactions are seen as driven efforts to contextualise and make meaning and ultimately make sense of unfamiliar territory. They are personal, socio-cultural and physical contexts. 

Personal and genetic history are carried to each learning situation. New learning should be scaled to the realities of an individual’s motivations and expectations. Learning is highly personal and strongly influenced by past knowledge, interests and beliefs. An individual desires to both select and control their learning. A leaning method that focuses in on these factors is the Montessori method that works to expand a child’s natural desire to learn through self-motivation. 

The Maria Montessori Argentina Foundation (FAMM, 2018) explain, the Montessori method exists to help the development of the child through a prepared environment, with scientifically designed materials, and adults that observe and guide. The child has opportunities to learn in a free manor, to bring out long periods of concentration. A sense of responsibility and ownership for their learning is encouraged by the child through exploring with concrete materials that develop basic cognitive abilities. Key to the method is the child’s independence to explore a learning process that respond to their needs. The children establish meaning in the world around them and then constructs themselves in relation to this world. 

The Socio-cultural aspect relates to how we, are sociable beings that are products of culture and social relationships. These socio-cultural relationships are influenced at micro and macro levels. On a large scale we are impacted by our upbringing and culture. (Macdonald, 1991:10) defined culture as a “consortium of communication (or a bundle of messages) that a given people have in common: their shared experience, shared perceptions and values, shared consciousness.” The meaning and authority our communities and cultures place on an institution like a museum forms our relationship to the institution. On a micro level, the interactions that take place amongst visitors within their social groups. Alternatively, among people outside of the social group including: guides, demonstrators or performers who could strongly influence visitor experience. 

Physical environments that the learning takes place in, is also a consideration for the potential of learning. The orientation and organization of exhibitions allow for a sequence, design factors, lighting, presentation, context, quantity and quality of information presented; all advance or delay the potential for displaying and hopefully learning. 

From these factor’s coming into the museum and occurring during the visit there is also the subsequent time after the visit. Not only is the constructs put forward by the museum education a factor but the cumulation process of learning thereafter. The learning that occurs will be seen in the cumulative process of acquisition and consolidation. (Oakes, 1990) believed there are delays between an experience and genuine understanding-, which is difficult for educators. If these delays are part of the natural process of learning, the immediate findings could be seen as fruitless and that learning did not occur. Ultimately, a rich learning experience could be revealed at a much later date after talking with the visitor. 

If learning is seen to not be occurring, it is a disadvantage to the understanding of the transfer and true learning. It is not a linear process and each individual comes with varying factors, and have different attitudes to museums. The constructivist learning principles are: individual meaning; taking ownership of learning; being involved in a social activity. 

Interactive learning, fulfilling purpose? 

Paper Generators: Harvesting Energy from Touching, Rubbing and sliding is a paper written by the Disney Research program (Karagozler, 2013). It documents energy harvesting through gestures that create electrical energy through paper electronics. The researchers made various devices through interactive applications that required touching, tapping and rubbing gestures for LED’s, e-paper displays to be powered (seen figure 4a). The user actively generates energy for the device to work, which could be put into books to increase simple interactivity and enhance reader experience. With minimal instructions for using the devices, they are easily engaged with but constrained enough by the framework designers made. The constructivist learning principles of it being a social activity and taking ownership of learning are present here. By taking ownership of learning, completing the actions a participant could reveal hidden words as seen in figure 4b. Furthermore, different generators require energy for longer periods so people could work together to see who can achieve that activation the fastest. The paper generators could educate people to see how wasted energy can be harnessed into function through circuits. 

An example of an exhibition benefiting from an appropriate display is the Denver Art Museums Side Trip, which saw 37,000 people participate in making a rock poster with 90,000 in overall attendance (Simon, 2010:55). They created a framework of constraints that visitors would start off their project with to feel comfortable to contribute. By having pre-made cut outs people were able to arrange them under transparent sheets and use markers as desired. Once a staff member had colour photocopied them they were presented and the average time spent on a piece was 20 minutes. These constraints allowed an ease of engagement, which connects the audience to the space and fulfils some of the organisations mission. Although the strong figures of participation prove the approach to getting people to engage was successful. There is however, a difficulty in such institutions as it is difficult to equate whether people have gained understanding once they have visited. Is high visitor numbers or numbers reflecting participation how we understand successful learning from museum to individual visitor? 

Action Plan 

In this essay, I have looked at museums and approaches through a Eurocentric understanding. It would be important to recognize and understand the context of displays in relation to their original environment. Researching the impact of museums in different areas outside of a particularly western scope to find out more educational functions. Understanding the display of illustration based collections is limited in particular if only looking into UK examples. The house of Illustration is the UK’s only public gallery dedicated solely to illustration and graphics. 

In terms of gaps in my knowledge, there are still numerous areas to discover that would allow for my comprehension of displaying. Illustration borrows from other disciplines approaches with media, and it would be interesting to find out about the historic development from analogue to digital – The Fundamentals of Illustration Book. In exhibitions of artists, earlier illustrations and designs are displayed to support their final works. Sometimes it is in these earliest works that actually best convey what the illustrator wants to get across. I want to find out if there are examples of interactive or participation based illustration work. Can illustration achieve the functions put forward by constructivism? 

It would be helpful to draw on other people’s experiences with exhibitions to see what meanings they have made, positively or negatively. Over the summer period, I want to find out the educational function of illustration. Essentially, reading, visiting and being aware of the museological field and illustration at this time is going to help me comprehend what potential illustration has as a communicator. Find more qualitative studies that reflect actual cognition in visitors of exhibits or experiences. Essentially, be able to compile knowledge about the efforts of illustration in relation to forming meaning. 

References 

BOLTON, P. 2012. Education: Historical Statistics [Online]. UK Parliament. Available: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/22771/ [Accessed 12 April 2019]. 

DICTIONARY, O. unknown. collect [Online]. online: Oxford Living Dictionaries. Available: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collect [Accessed 14 April]. 

ELSNER, J., AND ROGER CARDINAL 1994. The Cultures of Collecting, London, Reaktion Books. 

FAMM. 2018. The Montessori Method [Online]. online. Available: https://www.fundacionmontessori.org/the-montessori-method.htm [Accessed April 15 2019]. 

FAULK, D. 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning, Walnut Creek, CA, AltaMira Press. 

HEIN, G. E. A. N. S. F. 1998. Learning in the Museum, Abingdon, Routledge. 

HOOPER-GREENHILL, E. 1988. Counting Visitors or Visitors Who Count, London, Routledge. 

HUDSON, K. 1975. A Social History of Museum: What the Visitors Thought, London, Macmillan. 

KARAGOZLER, E. 2013. Paper Generators: Harvesting Energy from 

Touching, Rubbing and Sliding. 

KREPS, C. 2003. Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums, Curation and Heritage Preservation. London: Routledge. 

MACDONALD, G. F. 1991. What is Culture. The Journal of Museum Education, 16, 10. 

MARIESSE, F. A. A. D. 2010. Key Concepts of Museology, Armand Colin. 

MOLD, A. 2018. Exhibiting Good Health: Public Health Exhibitions in London, 1948-71. Medical history, 62, 1-26. 

OAKES, J. A. L., P 1990. Making the Best of Schools: A Handbook for Parents, Teachers, and Policymakers New Haven CT, Yale University Press. 

PEARCE, S. M. 1992. Museums, Objects, and Collections: A Cultural Study. Great Britain: Leicester University Press. 

SIMON, N. 2010. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0. 

[inherentsleep-blog]

Modernism, liberalism and morality, or the dual morality.

Note: this is a general attempt to get some of my own thoughts on paper, but they remain quite disorganised. I expect as I actually do re-reading, critique and expand my own understanding that this will become a more coherent post, but this servers as kind of a reminder to myself and way to help describe my own though process.

I think a major mistake that is made when attempting to analyze liberalism is to look at it in a vacuum, particularly without the lens of modernism attached to it. There are several linked ideas here, so I’m going to try to write them all out.

When trying to either critique or promote liberalism, one must define what liberalism is.

The problem with this is that liberalism is a very large ideology that is contextualised by time period, country and thinkers. There is no one single version of liberalism.

Every variation of liberalism acts as a mix-and-match of some of it’s component parts, and therefore the exact variation being critiqued has to be defined. A common theme in the analysis of liberalism is therefore trying to look at it in isolation, and distilling it to a single mode of social and economic relations.

This critique fails, because you inevitably end up arguing against a strawman. Component and complementary ideologies are necessary for the ideology to make sense.

I think one of the inherent problems within the critique is the age of some of the most important scholars, and how changes in thinking have moved liberal positions.

I would argue that from early liberalism the most important thinkers were Locke, Mill and Rousseau. The major shared component here is that they are mostly children of enlightenment thinking.

Within Locke, you can see the idea of rules (in this case, informed by ‘natural rights’) as the foundation of society, but not the end point of personal morality. Personal morality is left to the church, the state is left to be neutral and a simple executor of inherent social rules.

The surety of thought here is typical of enlightenment thinkers.  Thinkers, Kant in particular, inform liberal thoughts on *personal morality* (which is defined as separate from government morality) during this period and this is important for later, but in general early liberalism requires the surety of thought that there is an inherent design of society.

Some branches of liberalism almost stop here. Libertarians sometimes take their cues directly from this era, and molds this thinking into a separate branch of thought.

Many critiques of liberalism also approach from this position.

Liberalism is distilled in many critiques to the idea of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!”

From this several linked ideas follow.

We don’t judge who you sleep with, who you marry or who you interact with, as that is your private choice.

We don’t make laws about what you do with your money, because     private property is protected.

We must give everyone equal, inviolable rules before anything else     because those laws inform our morality.

It’s the foundation of modern democracy, including your right to vote, to not be tortured, and to receive due process in a trial.

The only people who are immoral are not selfish or cruel people, but people who break the rules.

This ignores a very important par of thought in the era, which is the interplay of church, religion and government. The government here is a vessel to enforce natural, god given laws which are the absolute of morality. An immoral person is not someone who violates the rules of the government, but instead violates the written rules of god, as defined by a chosen church. While you can create an irreligious version of liberalism based from this (something interrelated to contractualism, I would imagine) but mainline ‘enlightenment liberal theory’ does not utilise the government as the sole (or even the main) moral standard.

Kantian personal morality also intertwines with this style of thought where the morality of an action varies based on the duty. In this way, personal duty is given to follow the greater social rules, because just as every man has general personal duties, within greater society each man has a duty to god to uphold the rules of the state (which are given by god).

There is then debate on this point. If every man has a duty to god, should the state enforce that duty, or should it simply enforce the most basic rules possible that can be agreed on by a wider society? These two opinions would help inform liberal debate for centuries after, with different branches looking to different rules (but the rule based structure mostly unchanged.)

Within the Anglophone world, Mills (and partly by extension, Bentham, but Mills was always more wildly influential) is by far the most important other thinker in liberalism, I would argue. Mills is important because it is here, I think, you start to see the transition of the idea on the role of government. Mills (in addition to other things) promoted utilitarianism, the idea that an action is moral if it helps the most people. External to debate within utilitarian theory, the important part of the ideology is that it is the start of modernism and modernist political thought within liberalism.

Modernism represents a rejection of the unmeasurable. Society, Economics, Nature and even Morality can all be measured though observation, experimentation, new knowledge and technology within a modernist worldview. Utilitarianism, in particular the Bentham variant, represents a bridge between enlightenment and modernist thought. In order for utilitarianism to be a functioning, self contained unit you must be able to measure the harm and good of an action. In this way, morality is ‘now’ a measurable component.

How then does this interface with the previous understanding of morality? Within the liberal framework, (and a modernist rejection of organised religion) utilitarianism simply directly replaces religion. Kantian morality is not abandoned, but instead is modified as such that because we wish to improve the world (and that improvement can be measured) everyone has a duty to the utilitarian cause, but at the same time is not required to abandon the ideas of local morality or duty. One might say that this system of dual morality is incoherent, where every action is measurable, and you might be morally correct (through duty) in taking a morally incorrect (though utilitarianism) action.  

They might also be at least partially right.

The expression of utilitarianism and its relationship to religion is also a highly complex one, with major regional variance, one with enough material to easily write a book on, but in short one can say that utilitarianism. The church, once the ‘single’ detemir of morality, is now replaced by a mix of church, scientists, philosophers and the state itself, when it acts as a collective voice on morality.

When interfaced with “mixed republicanism” (and the early elements of humanism) the lack of a single moral authority becomes a problem. Democracy is chosen as the answer in the eyes of many liberals, where the general opinion of the voting public decides what the state should view as moral, external to the state itself, and freedom of religion and the much discussed ‘neutrality of the state’ then has to appear.

This interrelation of religion, Kantian morality and utilitarianism becomes more complex when concepts like the real inability to measure the final result of an action come into play. One kind of morality looks at the duty of a person, or what they know when they took an action, but the other is based on utilitarianism, or the result of the action. There are of course other moral frameworks that can fill this roll, and different liberal thinkers have proposed different ones.

The law of the state, this core component of liberalism, then is not based on any one single moral framework. The example of the crimes of attempted murder and murder are a good example, where neither final result nor intent are the single determinants of a crime. There is thus a dual morality, that must be judged holistically though democracy (a jury) and a systematic authority (a judge).

The nature of the liberal system is then such that elements can be removed, expanded on and changed while still retaining the same structural liberal core, but strangely because of slow evolution might contain almost none of the elements that existed within the original idea of liberalism. I would currently posit that just about the only unmovable core of liberalism is that there is a state enforcing the rules of an external morality through a system.

Liberalism can be constructed without republicanism (beyond simply early thinkers, Latin American liberal dictatorships like under Diaz existed). It can be built without utilitarianism, without religion (indeed, the distinction of freedom from religion is made in some liberal countries like France, and different incantations have taken it to different places). It can exist without Kantian thought or the more recent Rawlsian ideas (pure utilitarian liberalism is but one example of liberal utilitarianism). It seems to thrive without natural rights (many modern liberal branches reject natural rights), can reject the more modern ‘human rights’ (consider all of the liberal slave-holding nations of the past for just a single example). In fact, Liberalism seems to be able to function without the belief in the expansion of either economic or social freedom.

The state enforcing an externally derived set of rights based on an external morality while acting as a centralised actor is then just about the only consistent element. In “Anarcho-capitalism” this is removed, along with some libertarian variants but it is just about the only single factor that causes a distinct separation from liberalism. Other groups that interact and intersect with liberalism sometimes change this, but as far as I can tell none are considered liberalism by adherents or critics (excluding the ‘everyone I don’t like is liberal group’).

This comes back then to the thrust of my argument, that liberalism is a name for a group of linked moral theories placed inside a consistent structure of the state. Not all theories that possess a state and external morality are therefore liberalism, because liberalism can additionally be defined by adherence to thinkers who have built within the liberal tradition of a particular place. The definition of liberalism must then be contextualised to who is being critiqued, as a mass critique of liberalism and all of its principles must inherently be contrarian and contradictory, because there are contradictions and debates within liberalism itself.

The dual morality common within liberalism is another deep component to the ideology, one of the role of the state and the role of the moral voice. I think it may be even worth arguing that even if not in all cases, the dual morality of liberal systems is a component that defines them as liberalism, because the very structure of liberalism encourages it. Even in a system with natural rights and a biblical morality, it may be both moral (through the system of morality) and immoral (through the system of natural right) to take a particular action if there is a mismatch. The logical idea must then be that the government must follow the first system and the individual must follow the second.

I would posit that it is partially this relationship that fuels the liberal general dislike of social regulations, the belief that even with a moral government with moral laws sometimes it might be moral to break the law, and therefore punishments based solely off that concept are dangerous, but at the same time liberals may wish to add social regulations in order to make their personal morality and the government morality better align, for example protections for violence against children or restrictions on some types of substance use/abuse.

Any critique without dealing with the chosen liberal moral philosophy, the chosen way to implement it (for example, the ‘reasonable man’ test) and the functional reasons for that implementation (for the same example, the fact that resources for constant votes and jury trials are impossible to distribute, and the reasonable man test is judged as a reasonably functional alternative).

[scotianostra]

September 10th 1771 saw the birth of Mungo Park at Foulshiels, near Selkirk.

He grew up on a tenant farm in Selkirkshire, the seventh child of a well-to-do farmer, at 17 years old, he abandoned the family farm to pursue his education and attend the renowned University of Edinburgh. It is undoubtedly not a coincidence that the soon-to-be-famous Park was studying at the University of Edinburgh during the Age of Enlightenment in Scotland. Some of Park’s earlier contemporaries at the university included, whether as students or faculty, such famous Scottish thinkers and philosophers as David Hume, Adam Ferguson, Gershom Carmichael and Dugald Stewart.

With a medical diploma and a desire for fame and fortune, Park set off for London, and through his brother-in-law, William Dickson, a Covent Garden seedsman, he got his opportunity. An introduction to Sir Joseph Banks, a famed English botanist, and explorer who had circumnavigated the world with Captain James Cook.

In 1795, Park, with the support of England's Africa Society, set off in search of the Niger and the fabled city of Tellem. Park and his team of 30 men sailed down the east coast of Africa to the mouth of the River Gambia, where the English had established a fort. After a trip down the Gambia and an overland trek through dense jungle, the team reached the Niger. By then, however, Park had run out of money and was forced to return home without finding Tellem.

Park spent the next decade raising funds and organising a team for a second expedition to Tellem. Finally, in 1805, the party embarked, fully confident in his mission's success. Park and his team returned to the Niger, where they piled into canoes and paddled south in search of Tellem. None of them were ever heard from again.

The pics are of Park, and his memorial in Selkirk.