Thanks for re-grounding our conversations in some original language and meaning. Your summary is brilliant, worth repeated re-reading. I especially appreciate the psychological contribution. Liberalism has a vaunted history, misappropriated by virtually everybody. Worst of the lot is the economic neo-liberalism that abandons responsibility for the common good – the strange “freedom” that preys on conscientious adults. It’s pursued by those with stunted emotional self-mastery.
Parallel to your insight, “conservatism” is a psychological disposition, not a political wing, marked by insecurity, rigidity, and hidden hostility, the root of authoritarianism. Things like circumspection, prudence, and caution are practicalities available across the political spectrum, not “conservative”.
Liberalism was originally the claiming of authority for a widening spectrum of society, from the superstition and corruption of the medieval clergy to more independent thinkers. It was institutionalized by our Founders in recognition of the Haudenosaunee tradition of the longhouse, where elder men chosen by elder women would debate down to consensus. Traditional orators were known to argue circles around the Jesuits, prized debaters of Europe.
The Founders realized that society’s foremost responsibility was to work toward a more perfect union, bringing together all ideas and factions toward the common good. That’s liberalism: opening toward better understanding.
Loved this, essay, Mike. I have two comments. First, relating to this sentence:
“ The alternative architectures—whether Chinese techno-authoritarianism, Russian oligarchic chaos, or Silicon Valley algorithmic optimization—all represent different approaches to the same fundamental problem: how to organize human societies when the cognitive architecture for collaborative truth-seeking breaks down.”
I think it’s maybe not the case that these alternative architectures are different approaches to how to organize when collaborative truth-seeking breaks down. I think they are reactions to the loss of power (or the threat to loss of power) that comes from collaborative truth-seeking.
The human ego (whether entrepreneurial or political in disposition) seems to want control over resources (in this case, perception and consciousness) for the sake of its own validation and aggrandizement. Collaborative truth-seeking is a threat. These alternative structures are like immune system responses from the ego to prevent usurpation of the ego’s power to determine reality.
My second thought here is that capitalism will always get in the way of collaborative truth-seeking precisely because exploiting attention is more profitable than letting it mature into truth-seeking. So while I applaud your vision, I don’t see how it will survive the exploitation of attention by capitalism. Maybe you can help me out here?
Really appreciate and agree with what you say about collective meaning-making across difference. But I always wonder about where bodies are in this Liberal Enlightenment discussion and how it might be useful to expand the boundaries of “cognition” to include more than “thinking”. Because knowing doesn’t just happen through disinterested and purely conscious contemplation of ideas in the abstract; it is a whole body enterprise. And this has not been well understood by the liberal project. Speaking of cognitive architecture, without a real integration of the sensing, feeling, experiencing bodies doing the processing, is to reduce our intelligence to a subset of its extraordinary capacity. Bodies have been seen as not-to-be-trusted, rather than integral. And it seems to me that the attempt to escape embodiment—to render feelings and emotions as obstacles to, rather than aspects of, truth seeking—is where the liberal project might have also contributed to where we are currently. Separating out, and discounting, important aspects of our knowing means we cannot skilfully work with them. And our discernment becomes impaired. How might liberal thought begin to embrace a more holistic understanding of cognitive architecture that does not reduce it to disembodied reason? Might the question move from “how can we get more of humanity to embrace liberal cognitive architecture?” to “how might liberal cognitive architecture expand to include more humanity?”
Great insights! I have been especially impressed by the challenge of stretching our minds to embrace the familial contributions of people around the globe, immigrants to the land of precisely this opportunity. I have abandoned philosophy for the neurology of emotional self-mastery.
Mike, this is a great piece. It would be better if you referred to real world projects. Like the Digital Democracy of Taiwan. There are many others. People are working on what you advocate. Connect your ideas to the world, please.
How am I not connecting them to the world? People read the ideas. If they are meaningful to them, they take these ideas with them out into the world. Sometimes the bias to action blinds one to the importance of simple awareness. Awareness of the real. It is when you stand there, that one can focus on what can be changed and not be paralyzed by worrying about what cannot.
Mike, this is great to see. Your notes have often brought me clarity of focus or reminded my just how disturbed I should be; here it is exhilarating to see a fundamental defense of the "cognitive architecture" of liberalism articulated so well. Thank you.
Any philosophy that views tribal affiliation as a net negative is doomed to fail.
Tribalism is a core building block of what makes us human, it’s what allows us to do incredible things, it’s what gives us stability and structure, resilient networks that help us weather storms of all types.
While I agree that this answers the first question of one’s duty to one’s self; it has trouble answering the question of what is our duty to each other; and then can’t answer the third question of what is our duty to our place.
We need to form tribes and tribes need to be rooted. When we do this in healthy, negotiated ways, we thrive.
When we idealize rootlessness and independence, we open our selves to cooption by system and people who can simulate our natural condition and bend us to their will.
Amazing argument as to why nothing should change. For a minute there I got all caught up in this hype of “we actually need to do SOMETHING” but you’ve made me realize that this would only result in socialism
However, when I read "The liberal cognitive architecture represents humanity’s most successful approach to the fundamental question of conscious existence: How can meaning-making beings pursue truth and create value together across irreducible difference?" we need to recognize that this "success" has been very checkered and limited to certain entities only. Imperialism, slavery, war, genocide and now destruction of the planet itself -- it's not exactly a record of success. The pursuit of truth and the creation of value is often far from evident.
Thanks for this “lesson”. I’m a retired elementary school teacher. I appreciate your sharing and reflect upon my teaching experience. God Bless us all!
What documents could be part of the new liberal enlightenment? The Constitution of the United States? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? What books and authors?
Too many people are too fucked up these days. If enough of a plurality decides liberal values are worth upholding, then the recalcitrant need to be given the harshest treatment possible. Some liberal minded people need to beat the darkness until it bleeds daylight. I am at the point where I want to be such a person. I’m a nurse by trade but I now see myself as an inquisitor, who will beat the hatred and evil out of these demons!
Thanks for re-grounding our conversations in some original language and meaning. Your summary is brilliant, worth repeated re-reading. I especially appreciate the psychological contribution. Liberalism has a vaunted history, misappropriated by virtually everybody. Worst of the lot is the economic neo-liberalism that abandons responsibility for the common good – the strange “freedom” that preys on conscientious adults. It’s pursued by those with stunted emotional self-mastery.
Parallel to your insight, “conservatism” is a psychological disposition, not a political wing, marked by insecurity, rigidity, and hidden hostility, the root of authoritarianism. Things like circumspection, prudence, and caution are practicalities available across the political spectrum, not “conservative”.
Liberalism was originally the claiming of authority for a widening spectrum of society, from the superstition and corruption of the medieval clergy to more independent thinkers. It was institutionalized by our Founders in recognition of the Haudenosaunee tradition of the longhouse, where elder men chosen by elder women would debate down to consensus. Traditional orators were known to argue circles around the Jesuits, prized debaters of Europe.
The Founders realized that society’s foremost responsibility was to work toward a more perfect union, bringing together all ideas and factions toward the common good. That’s liberalism: opening toward better understanding.
Your writing helps me focus my unstructured rage and angst into a focus of goals and active steps. Thank you.
Loved this, essay, Mike. I have two comments. First, relating to this sentence:
“ The alternative architectures—whether Chinese techno-authoritarianism, Russian oligarchic chaos, or Silicon Valley algorithmic optimization—all represent different approaches to the same fundamental problem: how to organize human societies when the cognitive architecture for collaborative truth-seeking breaks down.”
I think it’s maybe not the case that these alternative architectures are different approaches to how to organize when collaborative truth-seeking breaks down. I think they are reactions to the loss of power (or the threat to loss of power) that comes from collaborative truth-seeking.
The human ego (whether entrepreneurial or political in disposition) seems to want control over resources (in this case, perception and consciousness) for the sake of its own validation and aggrandizement. Collaborative truth-seeking is a threat. These alternative structures are like immune system responses from the ego to prevent usurpation of the ego’s power to determine reality.
My second thought here is that capitalism will always get in the way of collaborative truth-seeking precisely because exploiting attention is more profitable than letting it mature into truth-seeking. So while I applaud your vision, I don’t see how it will survive the exploitation of attention by capitalism. Maybe you can help me out here?
Really appreciate and agree with what you say about collective meaning-making across difference. But I always wonder about where bodies are in this Liberal Enlightenment discussion and how it might be useful to expand the boundaries of “cognition” to include more than “thinking”. Because knowing doesn’t just happen through disinterested and purely conscious contemplation of ideas in the abstract; it is a whole body enterprise. And this has not been well understood by the liberal project. Speaking of cognitive architecture, without a real integration of the sensing, feeling, experiencing bodies doing the processing, is to reduce our intelligence to a subset of its extraordinary capacity. Bodies have been seen as not-to-be-trusted, rather than integral. And it seems to me that the attempt to escape embodiment—to render feelings and emotions as obstacles to, rather than aspects of, truth seeking—is where the liberal project might have also contributed to where we are currently. Separating out, and discounting, important aspects of our knowing means we cannot skilfully work with them. And our discernment becomes impaired. How might liberal thought begin to embrace a more holistic understanding of cognitive architecture that does not reduce it to disembodied reason? Might the question move from “how can we get more of humanity to embrace liberal cognitive architecture?” to “how might liberal cognitive architecture expand to include more humanity?”
Great insights! I have been especially impressed by the challenge of stretching our minds to embrace the familial contributions of people around the globe, immigrants to the land of precisely this opportunity. I have abandoned philosophy for the neurology of emotional self-mastery.
Really an excellent essay, Mike.
Mike, this is a great piece. It would be better if you referred to real world projects. Like the Digital Democracy of Taiwan. There are many others. People are working on what you advocate. Connect your ideas to the world, please.
How am I not connecting them to the world? People read the ideas. If they are meaningful to them, they take these ideas with them out into the world. Sometimes the bias to action blinds one to the importance of simple awareness. Awareness of the real. It is when you stand there, that one can focus on what can be changed and not be paralyzed by worrying about what cannot.
Mike, this is great to see. Your notes have often brought me clarity of focus or reminded my just how disturbed I should be; here it is exhilarating to see a fundamental defense of the "cognitive architecture" of liberalism articulated so well. Thank you.
Any philosophy that views tribal affiliation as a net negative is doomed to fail.
Tribalism is a core building block of what makes us human, it’s what allows us to do incredible things, it’s what gives us stability and structure, resilient networks that help us weather storms of all types.
While I agree that this answers the first question of one’s duty to one’s self; it has trouble answering the question of what is our duty to each other; and then can’t answer the third question of what is our duty to our place.
We need to form tribes and tribes need to be rooted. When we do this in healthy, negotiated ways, we thrive.
When we idealize rootlessness and independence, we open our selves to cooption by system and people who can simulate our natural condition and bend us to their will.
Educational systems that develop critical thinking rather than information processing. — As a teacher, I 100% agree. Viva the New Enlightenment!
Amazing argument as to why nothing should change. For a minute there I got all caught up in this hype of “we actually need to do SOMETHING” but you’ve made me realize that this would only result in socialism
A fine essay, thank you.
However, when I read "The liberal cognitive architecture represents humanity’s most successful approach to the fundamental question of conscious existence: How can meaning-making beings pursue truth and create value together across irreducible difference?" we need to recognize that this "success" has been very checkered and limited to certain entities only. Imperialism, slavery, war, genocide and now destruction of the planet itself -- it's not exactly a record of success. The pursuit of truth and the creation of value is often far from evident.
Thanks for this “lesson”. I’m a retired elementary school teacher. I appreciate your sharing and reflect upon my teaching experience. God Bless us all!
What documents could be part of the new liberal enlightenment? The Constitution of the United States? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? What books and authors?
Too many people are too fucked up these days. If enough of a plurality decides liberal values are worth upholding, then the recalcitrant need to be given the harshest treatment possible. Some liberal minded people need to beat the darkness until it bleeds daylight. I am at the point where I want to be such a person. I’m a nurse by trade but I now see myself as an inquisitor, who will beat the hatred and evil out of these demons!
I believe so too, what you say about liberalism and the Enlightenment-ideas.
Also that the explosion of (apparently working, to even miraculous levels) science and technology has everything to do with it.
That people realize that, next time they drive a car, use a smartphone or launch a rocket.