COMMENSAL ISSUE 93

Dear Theo,

I have, at long last, been shamed by the exchange between yourself and Mark Griffin into making my maiden contribution (at least it is within a year of joining).

The suggestion that I may be a "lurker" prompted me to reflect upon why, when I contribute in an uninhibited way on Internet newsgroups of which I am a member, and also to other Mensa SIG's, that it should be different with PDG and Commensal ? I have concluded as follows:

1). some of the articles are submitted by those who are clearly technically competent in philosophy, familiar with the language and structure of philosophical argument. This results in, what may be held by some to be, "intimidating" articles that would at least demand some research and thought to compose a half-credible reply to. I have no quarrel with these articles as they set a high standard to learn from and to aspire to. (Occasionally contributors have aspired to this category of article but have, transparently, ended up with a long-winded, self-important, set of navel-contemplating padding; this is obvious to the average discerning reader, "lurker" or otherwise, and requires no further comment.) Of articles in this category, some are long and erudite, some short and rapier-like (Malcolm Burn's, C92/35, deserves special mention and praise in this category). Some are neither (sorry Albert Dean, C92/38-48).

2). there are some articles that prompt an immediate response and have one reaching for the nearest pencil with saliva dripping, only for one's enthusiasm to be thwarted by the realisation, a few column inches further on, that you, Theo, have done the deed already, made the pithy point, or rubbed the errant correspondent's nose in his upstart supposition or polemic. Therefore the pencil goes back into its sheath, unbloodied, waiting for the next sighting of virgin text against which to sally forth.

I do not think that it is practical to hold your comment until a subsequent edition, as by then, often, the trail has gone cold and the immediacy lost. The answer is, however, to hand; the discussion running at the moment on whether or not to have a "web-Commensal", holds the key.

Why not publish Commensal, as now, in hard copy, without immediate editorial comment, and simultaneously post it on the web for (interactive?) discussion. For non-web-denizens, the upshot of the discussion could be reproduced in the next or subsequent Commensal, perhaps when the discussion thread has concluded or petered out?

As I'm here now, I shall offer a couple of general comments.

Graham Dare (C92/21-22). Theo has dealt the first and probably decisive blow, therefore, my comment is a general one about the kind of position held by Graham. One of the things that attracted me to philosophy was that it appeared to challenge unsubstantiated beliefs and moral structures founded on such weak bases, leaving woolly thought to the fields of religion or astrology or something. Nevertheless, we are repeatedly treated to the views of people (nice, decent, intelligent people) who, irrespective of their words, all say the same thing: "I want a nice, cosy, safe world for me, my offspring and all furry animals to enjoy and thrive in free from the threat of rape, murder, famine or naughty words, so don't say anything that would suggest I might be in such a nightmare world".

The fact is, unfortunately, that we live in a world where animals (including us) live on the basis of survival of the fittest, strongest and, often, meanest. Furry animals are nice, but, unfortunately, often taste good too, so tough!

Horror-struck expositions of the evil human condition, such as presented (ignoring the historical cherry-picking and arbitrary snapshots) in hand-wringing fashion by Graham and his ilk, ignore cause and effect. We are here, in this technically advanced and sophisticated existence of ours, because we were the "meanest son-of-a-bitch in the valley". We did not "decide between right and wrong and ... (choose) to kill"; we were able to kill efficiently, so became stronger and dominant as a result, and that is the reason why our brains are, despite the softer veneer of modern society, those of aggressive carnivores, resulting in our ability to engage that necessarily ruthless survival mode when necessary, manifested, according to need, as the tendency to hit back if struck rather than run, or press the nuclear button before it is pressed against us. If we were not such creatures by nature, we would not be here today, secure enough to have been able to generally drop our guard and engage in comfortable, surreal pursuits such as religion and moralistic self-criticism. It is easy to identify the victim, the poor, the quarry, as being in some way morally superior, but hypocritical (some would say pathetically self-deluding) to do so.

Stef Gula (C92/31) has summed it up, but the fact is that what he ironically describes is not a state of anarchy, but "civilisation" as we know it behind the thin, but very necessary, veil of the social contract.

I am not in any way anti-religion; it has served well over the millennia as a control mechanism and the glue of various societies has been stronger for it, but in a philosophical discussion group, some degree of honesty in these matters is a necessary prerequisite to constructive debate?

In a similar vein, I would disagree with Rick Street (Aquariana, C92/25) when he, presumably tongue in cheek, suggests that the "sceptics' and the new-agers' " views do not mix and should be kept in different debating fora; surely that denies the value of constructive debate. I for one, as a member of the sceptic tribe, do not want to be completely insulated from views that differ from my own, whether political, new-age, religious or whatever. I want to try to deconstruct views if I can, respect the differences in viewpoint where that respect is earned and, from time to time, see those who rely entirely on belief systems introduced to the rigours of philosophical inquiry. Who knows, after prolonged exposure to such belief systems, I too may end up wearing a daisy chain necklace and flip-flops!

Finally, and probably on the same theme, I note Rick Street's idea on the genetic approach to crime reduction with interest. However, if the feminists are to be believed, and in this matter they probably are, the solution would surely be to raise the scalpel another inch, changing the sterilisation to castration. Apart from having the desired effect on genetic continuity, it would also be a hell of a deterrent.

Hope that'll do for openers; keep up the good work .

Kevin Arbuthnot

Kevin : Well, it's good that you've stopped lurking. We seem to be somewhat of a mind on most things.

Sorry to "get in first" with the obvious comments ! The editor has to have some fun, and there's usually enough flesh on the bones for others to have a good pick. However, I'll try to watch out for stealing the membership's thunder - if that was causing contributions to dry up, I'd definitely say less.

I'm glad you support internetting. I agree that it would be fun for those on-line if I posted an un-edited Commensal, and then hoovered up the ensuing threads for the next edition. This would preserve the immediacy for those on-line without me stealing all the easy comments. The vast majority would have to wait a couple of months without feedback, however. Also, I think that I wouldn't just be able to print the posts as they were - this really would be taking endless replies to the extreme. It's OK, just about, with one or two correspondents, but with a network the volume of correspondence balloons alarmingly ! So, we'd be getting into serious editing - and some people object to editors tampering with their outpourings. We'd still encounter Mark Griffin's objections as well.

Do you belong to the Mensa newsgroup ? I listen in for a few days occasionally and then unsubscribe. The quality of discussion was appallingly feeble (in my view) and the volume was such that if anyone did have anything valuable to say you'd never spot it because of all the dross that had to be waded through each day (about 100 e-mails). ISPE has an excellent newsgroup, though even there 15 or so emails a day is a lot to cope with, especially if you wish to take an active part. Via this forum I've just heard of some Americans wanting to set up an on-line "Philosophers Guild" - I could send you, or other SIG members, some info if you're interested; not that I’ve had the time to follow it up myself yet, beyond listening in.

With respect to your final comments to Graham Dare, I don’t think victims or the poor are said to be morally superior, as such, unless their present situation is the result of moral choice. Clearly, the meek are favoured over the rapacious, but not the passive over the active. Whatever blessings are in store for the oppressed are due to the bounty of God, who is said to look out for them, not anything intrinsic in themselves. There’s no virtue in being poor or oppressed in themselves. After all, it limits the amount of good you can do.

Theo