Mike, this was excellent. Your framing of the “tragic dimension” captures something most political movements try to wish away — the limits, uncertainties, and trade-offs that make us human in the first place.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how our institutions were built with those realities in mind, not to suppress meaning but to channel it. Your piece puts a deeper vocabulary to that idea.
Thanks for grounding the conversation where it belongs.
Wow, this made me reorganize my thinking. You captured both my own youthful flaw - the belief that reason would lead to knowing, and my grievance with the US that I couldn't quite put a name to - illusion. I've always felt most of American life is attempts to mimic things that once were authentic but now are farce that most are blind to. Performances from behind the highly rated mask of the season.
The tragic dimension is also the human dimension. This is the unquantifiable realm of heroic losers and pyrrhic victors that cannot be quantified because they make no empirical sense. The idea that AI or an algorhythm can predict human desire is absurd. Writer and director John Milius put it best, “All creative work is mystical. How dare they demystify it? How dare they think they can demystify it? Especially when they can’t write. How arrogant it is to assume that you know the market, that you know what’s popular today. Only Steven Spielberg knows what’s popular today. So leave it to him. He’s the only one in the history of man who has ever figured that out.”
I have been restacking you ever since first encountering your stack Mike. I have to find a way to pay my share for the invaluable service you provide with your scribbling.
Thank you for this thing that you do. You are a maestro of the written word!
That's mighty generous of you Carol. Whether you find it or not I intend to "pay it forward" nonetheless. Your intent is pure and that's what really matters.
This is how each can light a candle so all will have light.
Mike you unlocked a LOT of countries with this Meditation! Both ontological and liberalism were words I looked up, having 'known' these words, but the context and juxtaposition with passion, tragic fired up my thirst to 'know' these in a new way. No shame, just raw curiosity! This Meditation became a very fun activity :)
So much of my early years work in German literature and related music was piqued in this process, as well... the Goethe - Schiller - Mozart - Chopin - Beethoven... Thank you so much for re-freshing so much in your post. I love how you wander through the many ways of Being with such grace, sharing generously, inviting us in. You have a beautiful mind.
The problem is that Love and Hate are inextricably tied. We hate those we perceive as threatening those or what we love. When we fail to love equally it is often perceived as hate. When someone we love seems to betray us, our love may turn into hate instantaneously. These times when the tugs on our heartstrings *snap* is when MORAL INVERSION occurs.
Human beings are an inherently TRIBAL species. This has made us the most successful species in the history of the World. But it has tremendous down sides as well.
In Evolution, if a species needs to go from eating plants to eating meat, it has to evolve different teeth, maybe claws, other weapons like venom. Human beings, on the other hand, can just invent spears, knives, cooking, hunting techniques, preservation methods, etc. If we want to live at sea , we don’t need fins, we invents boats, navigation techniques. If we want to live in colder climates, we sew clothes instead of evolving fur. This allows Humans to live in every possible climate on Earth and possibly, someday, off Earth.
So what is really key to this success isn’t our individual CLEVERNESS, or mere intelligence, it is the ability to ingrain knowledge within a tribe that gets passed to all its members. That is Social Knowledge, the Knowledge of the Group. That is CULTURE.
Along with Cultural Knowledge comes symbols that identify the closeness of individuals, their kinship, their individual knowledge of what is sacred to each Tribe. When tribes come in contact with each other, they can choose to keep separate, exchange members intermittently, merge or, at extreme, GO TO WAR.
The innovation of the evolution of culture is that it allows Darwinian competition not just as Humans vs. the World, but each Tribe to compete as mini Species that compete against each other. In this contest, of Tribe vs. Tribe, THE HUMANS ALWAYS WIN. So not just individual tribes are competing against each other, but individual CULTURES. Humans are the only species that can wipe each other out constantly and, paradoxically, make themselves more likely to survive. At least, until now.
So the feature that has made us the most adaptable and successful mega fauna in the history of the Earth is now our greatest threat - our Tribalism. A species that is able to adapt to any ecosystem, any evolutionary niche and unimaginable circumstance is faced with a previously unthinkable problem — how to create a Global Tribe.
There are infinite emotions between love and hate—indifference, like, dislike, annoyance, equanimity, tolerance, ambivalence to name a few. And rarely are things so cut and dry that the only options are love and hate.
Furthermore, we don’t necessarily get to choose our emotions, but we always get to choose how to respond to them.
Many thanks for this as I head back to work tomorrow. Oddly enough, or not, it will be referenced in the intro to a Public Art Collection Management Best Practices Guide.
Friedrich Schiller spent his life (approx 230 years ago) working on this topic. I just went back reading him and about him. Very interesting. I think that the opposition of enlightenment and romanticism would be key to understand the current problems of liberalism.
As a teenager he wrote *The Robbers* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Robbers which was a sensation when it first performed and we still performed it at our highschool when I was a teenager. Only now I read the conflict of the brothers as a philosophical reflection on Hume's and Kant's take on the opposition of reason and the passions. Schiller was familiar with Hume and Kant at the time due to his teacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Friedrich_von_Abel . I am no expert, but I believe it is known that S intentionally wrote the play as an exploration of these philosophical themes. Btw, the play appeared in the same year as Kant's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason. Afaics, Schiller was extremely influential in bringing on its way the "counter enlightenment" movements of German Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism and of Romanticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism . But one has to take the "counter" in "counter enlightenment" with a large grain of salt. Schiller and his friends had a really very nuanced and complex position, which I find interesting to explore even today. One good source for this is Schiller's *On the Aesthetic Education of Man* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schiller#Aesthetic_Letters . Schiller's poems are still beloved. And lots of great plays (Wallenstein, Wilhelm Tell, Maria Stuart, ...)
Your writing is so generous not demanding but inspiring engagement. For instance, if in Darwin’s theory of evolution the moral imperative is that of the animal choosing to not be defined by another’s script or fear thereof but of collective loving through suffering, a secular spin on the concept of the Christian crucifixion, the elision of this with material progress is heresy. In which case your Silicon Brethren are choosing not to evolve.
Walking the wire requires balance -- not of thought or purpose but of physical capacity. Thinking and talking about it is an approach, a map, not the thing itself, not walking the wire. Walking the wire takes practice, not preparation, visualization, anticipation, understanding. Those without internal physical/emotional self-mastery may never step onto the wire -- they'll circle, gauge, "galvanize", consider. Stay safe, take your chances on the near side; the fire hasn't consumed you yet.
Thinking about your excellent commentary on liberalism and the tragic dimension I can’t help but ponder how so much of the political/social infrastructure of the latter twentieth century was built in response to the direct experience of the tragic dimension of life so evident in the early twentieth century: the carnage of two world wars, the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, the ecological catastrophe of the dust bowl, the injustice of Jim Crow and of lynchings, the familiar tragedy of childhood mortality and abandonment of the elderly. Our forebears were well acquainted with the abyss and through democratic engagement (guided in no small part by reason) fashioned the wires on which we have, with rather remarkable success, tried to negotiate it. Perhaps it is our very success that has seduced us into the illusion that there is no abyss. And so the inevitable uncertainty and tragedy that comes from our being mortal humans arising out of indifferent nature comes to be regarded as the “fault” of our institutions, not an ultimately irreducible feature of our very existence. So, in the eyes of many, liberal democracy is labeled a failure. To be replaced with…what? The abyss, I fear, is yawning.
One ought not give way to despair, dear friend. The tragic dimension is perilous. But it is pregnant with possibilities. Stand with the faith that love is possible. Then take a step.
Mike, this was excellent. Your framing of the “tragic dimension” captures something most political movements try to wish away — the limits, uncertainties, and trade-offs that make us human in the first place.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how our institutions were built with those realities in mind, not to suppress meaning but to channel it. Your piece puts a deeper vocabulary to that idea.
Thanks for grounding the conversation where it belongs.
The Greek Tragedians would agree. Brilliant as always. ✨
Wow, this made me reorganize my thinking. You captured both my own youthful flaw - the belief that reason would lead to knowing, and my grievance with the US that I couldn't quite put a name to - illusion. I've always felt most of American life is attempts to mimic things that once were authentic but now are farce that most are blind to. Performances from behind the highly rated mask of the season.
This is so beautiful!
Bravo!
The tragic dimension is also the human dimension. This is the unquantifiable realm of heroic losers and pyrrhic victors that cannot be quantified because they make no empirical sense. The idea that AI or an algorhythm can predict human desire is absurd. Writer and director John Milius put it best, “All creative work is mystical. How dare they demystify it? How dare they think they can demystify it? Especially when they can’t write. How arrogant it is to assume that you know the market, that you know what’s popular today. Only Steven Spielberg knows what’s popular today. So leave it to him. He’s the only one in the history of man who has ever figured that out.”
I have been restacking you ever since first encountering your stack Mike. I have to find a way to pay my share for the invaluable service you provide with your scribbling.
Thank you for this thing that you do. You are a maestro of the written word!
My subscription once contained an opportunity to add a guest. If I can find that option again, I’ll add you.
That's mighty generous of you Carol. Whether you find it or not I intend to "pay it forward" nonetheless. Your intent is pure and that's what really matters.
This is how each can light a candle so all will have light.
hear, hear!
Excellent writing. I had to look up ontology, ontological. As a liberal, I know we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Each new word you learn is a new country of understanding unlocked.
Mike you unlocked a LOT of countries with this Meditation! Both ontological and liberalism were words I looked up, having 'known' these words, but the context and juxtaposition with passion, tragic fired up my thirst to 'know' these in a new way. No shame, just raw curiosity! This Meditation became a very fun activity :)
So much of my early years work in German literature and related music was piqued in this process, as well... the Goethe - Schiller - Mozart - Chopin - Beethoven... Thank you so much for re-freshing so much in your post. I love how you wander through the many ways of Being with such grace, sharing generously, inviting us in. You have a beautiful mind.
The problem is that Love and Hate are inextricably tied. We hate those we perceive as threatening those or what we love. When we fail to love equally it is often perceived as hate. When someone we love seems to betray us, our love may turn into hate instantaneously. These times when the tugs on our heartstrings *snap* is when MORAL INVERSION occurs.
Human beings are an inherently TRIBAL species. This has made us the most successful species in the history of the World. But it has tremendous down sides as well.
In Evolution, if a species needs to go from eating plants to eating meat, it has to evolve different teeth, maybe claws, other weapons like venom. Human beings, on the other hand, can just invent spears, knives, cooking, hunting techniques, preservation methods, etc. If we want to live at sea , we don’t need fins, we invents boats, navigation techniques. If we want to live in colder climates, we sew clothes instead of evolving fur. This allows Humans to live in every possible climate on Earth and possibly, someday, off Earth.
So what is really key to this success isn’t our individual CLEVERNESS, or mere intelligence, it is the ability to ingrain knowledge within a tribe that gets passed to all its members. That is Social Knowledge, the Knowledge of the Group. That is CULTURE.
Along with Cultural Knowledge comes symbols that identify the closeness of individuals, their kinship, their individual knowledge of what is sacred to each Tribe. When tribes come in contact with each other, they can choose to keep separate, exchange members intermittently, merge or, at extreme, GO TO WAR.
The innovation of the evolution of culture is that it allows Darwinian competition not just as Humans vs. the World, but each Tribe to compete as mini Species that compete against each other. In this contest, of Tribe vs. Tribe, THE HUMANS ALWAYS WIN. So not just individual tribes are competing against each other, but individual CULTURES. Humans are the only species that can wipe each other out constantly and, paradoxically, make themselves more likely to survive. At least, until now.
So the feature that has made us the most adaptable and successful mega fauna in the history of the Earth is now our greatest threat - our Tribalism. A species that is able to adapt to any ecosystem, any evolutionary niche and unimaginable circumstance is faced with a previously unthinkable problem — how to create a Global Tribe.
"The problem is that Love and Hate are inextricably tied."
Not true. They are distinct forces.
How so? You hate what is perceived as a threat to yourself or what you love.
I will be writing a meditation on hate in the near future.
There are infinite emotions between love and hate—indifference, like, dislike, annoyance, equanimity, tolerance, ambivalence to name a few. And rarely are things so cut and dry that the only options are love and hate.
Furthermore, we don’t necessarily get to choose our emotions, but we always get to choose how to respond to them.
Many thanks for this as I head back to work tomorrow. Oddly enough, or not, it will be referenced in the intro to a Public Art Collection Management Best Practices Guide.
Thanks for the inspiration!
Friedrich Schiller spent his life (approx 230 years ago) working on this topic. I just went back reading him and about him. Very interesting. I think that the opposition of enlightenment and romanticism would be key to understand the current problems of liberalism.
Any books/writings you can recommend from Schiller?
As a teenager he wrote *The Robbers* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Robbers which was a sensation when it first performed and we still performed it at our highschool when I was a teenager. Only now I read the conflict of the brothers as a philosophical reflection on Hume's and Kant's take on the opposition of reason and the passions. Schiller was familiar with Hume and Kant at the time due to his teacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Friedrich_von_Abel . I am no expert, but I believe it is known that S intentionally wrote the play as an exploration of these philosophical themes. Btw, the play appeared in the same year as Kant's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason. Afaics, Schiller was extremely influential in bringing on its way the "counter enlightenment" movements of German Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism and of Romanticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism . But one has to take the "counter" in "counter enlightenment" with a large grain of salt. Schiller and his friends had a really very nuanced and complex position, which I find interesting to explore even today. One good source for this is Schiller's *On the Aesthetic Education of Man* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schiller#Aesthetic_Letters . Schiller's poems are still beloved. And lots of great plays (Wallenstein, Wilhelm Tell, Maria Stuart, ...)
This is awesome, appreciate the response!
Your writing is so generous not demanding but inspiring engagement. For instance, if in Darwin’s theory of evolution the moral imperative is that of the animal choosing to not be defined by another’s script or fear thereof but of collective loving through suffering, a secular spin on the concept of the Christian crucifixion, the elision of this with material progress is heresy. In which case your Silicon Brethren are choosing not to evolve.
Walking the wire requires balance -- not of thought or purpose but of physical capacity. Thinking and talking about it is an approach, a map, not the thing itself, not walking the wire. Walking the wire takes practice, not preparation, visualization, anticipation, understanding. Those without internal physical/emotional self-mastery may never step onto the wire -- they'll circle, gauge, "galvanize", consider. Stay safe, take your chances on the near side; the fire hasn't consumed you yet.
Thinking about your excellent commentary on liberalism and the tragic dimension I can’t help but ponder how so much of the political/social infrastructure of the latter twentieth century was built in response to the direct experience of the tragic dimension of life so evident in the early twentieth century: the carnage of two world wars, the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, the ecological catastrophe of the dust bowl, the injustice of Jim Crow and of lynchings, the familiar tragedy of childhood mortality and abandonment of the elderly. Our forebears were well acquainted with the abyss and through democratic engagement (guided in no small part by reason) fashioned the wires on which we have, with rather remarkable success, tried to negotiate it. Perhaps it is our very success that has seduced us into the illusion that there is no abyss. And so the inevitable uncertainty and tragedy that comes from our being mortal humans arising out of indifferent nature comes to be regarded as the “fault” of our institutions, not an ultimately irreducible feature of our very existence. So, in the eyes of many, liberal democracy is labeled a failure. To be replaced with…what? The abyss, I fear, is yawning.
One ought not give way to despair, dear friend. The tragic dimension is perilous. But it is pregnant with possibilities. Stand with the faith that love is possible. Then take a step.