The Problem of All Problems

If we view self-knowledge as the problem of all problems, do we start from God's grace, the best political regime in which self-knowledge can be pursued, the scientific method, a lens of relativism, the individual as he or she experiences the world, or some other beginning point? In Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics, Nasser Behnegar states that (see pages 33-34):

"The difficulties of a relativistic ethics did not lead to a critical reappraisal of relativism, because there were countervailing ethical and political reasons that inclined political theorists to relativism. To see these reasons, we must return to normative political theory's and existentialist historicism's common antagonist: positivism. The failure of positivistic social science to reflect on politically and morally important issues is the unintended consequence of the appropriation by modern man of what one of the fathers of modern mathematics and therefore of the scientific method called 'the problem of all problems, which is: to leave no problem unsolved' (Vieta, 1968, 353). The method by which all problems are to be solved, however, requires a seeming reversal of man's natural priorities. Whereas according to out natural judgment 'the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of the lowest things,' the scientific method demands that 'we should attend only to those objects of which our minds seem capable of having certain and indubitable cognition (Descartes 1988, 'Rules for the Direction of Our Native Intelligence,' Rule 2; see also Aquinas 1945, Summa Theologica q1.a5.r1). but the original intention of this reorientation is not to ignore but to solve the great problems of metaphysics and ethics."

When do you remember first wondering about nature and your role in it, and how did you articulate that wonder? Do you remember letting go of something as a child to see what would happen? When you let something go, were you thinking about Newton's laws of gravity? I suspect not. When you flew a kite, did you consult your aerodynamics equations? When you and your friend both grabbed for the same pail in the sandbox, did you think about conflict resolution techniques and how the power relations between your ethnic and social status and your sandbox companion's ethnic and social status affected the grab for the pail, or whether your grabbing was consistent with morality? If not, do you think you know more about yourself today with your knowledge of Newtonian physics or aerodynamics or psychology or sociology or religious training? Perhaps you do. I have come to the conclusion that I don't, and that I must begin from as close to the beginning as I can, that is, how did I experience the world as a child. In effect, I must try to observe, without the filter of intervening years, the impressions, objects, other people and my own thoughts made on me. To even begin to address the problem of problems, for indeed self-knowldge in my view is that problem, I must return to the beginning. How about you?

Fiddling in Harmony on MLK Day

I was looking for an appropriate quotation for MLK Day. Eureka, I have found it in a comment on a prior post of mine. Here is the view of "fiddler" on the quest for self-knowledge:


"My plea is to lead a life of virtue, work hard, be curious about everything, be a good friend, keep a good humor, stand up for what you believe, and the knowledge of who you are at the core will come through."

"Fiddler" reminds us that a quest for self-knowledge is no excuse for not making efforts to live a life of virtue and hard work at this moment. To combine "fiddler" and Dr. King, let us measure, in ourselves and others, the content of these efforts and not skin color or social status. Perhaps "the core will come through" when we act to grow the seed of the core that is already in each of us.

The Best Regime

The commenters to the post titled "The Sensible Center" have brought us to the problem of developing and nurturing the best regime. Among the definitions of "regime" in The Free Dictionary are the following: (i) "[a] form of government" (for example, a fascist regime or a democratic regime), (ii) "[a] prevailing social system or pattern" and (iii) "[a] regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen." Thus, a regime may refer to a governmental, social or personal system. Oh, what a wide ranging topic we have opened up in discussing developing and nurturing the best regime!

The commenter "forbearance" asserts that the "birthright of freedom comes by God's grace, not from the consent of any man or government." But what system of government on the human level of creation (the core meaning of "All men are created equal" in my view is that all humans exist on the same level of creation with, despite differences in certain physical and mental aspects, the same opportunity for development in virtue) best nurtures this birthright? Is even considering governmental systems as potentially nurturing a birthright given by God (or, for those not inclined to speak about God, a birthright on the basis of freedom's being an inherent aspect of humanity), by starting from the governmental system and not the individual, starting from the wrong place? My answer is that we must look at the struggle to use our freedom as the responsibility and birthright of each individual, but be open to the possibility that certain governmental and social systems profoundly affect the individual struggle.

In this regard, the commenter "greg" suggests that moderation may emerge as one of the goals in the process of achieving self-knowledge. Well, "greg," is moderation as an end defined by the parameters set by the governmental and social systems in which one happens to find oneself at a given moment in history, or is moderation (or virtue in general for that matter) a transcendental end? This seems to me to be another way of posing the problem of the relationship among the development and nurturing of the individual, social and political regimes.

On the level of regime clashes, "forbearance" cautions that, "The idea that we should expect the followers of Mohammed to try to fight the American war machine in a traditional manner is completely insane." My initial response to this caution is that, on this blog, let us begin our search for the best regime (whether individual, social or political) with no preset expectations: in other words, let us begin with no expectations other than a faith that seeking is its own reward. Let the students of Abraham, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Shankara and every other teacher of fine essence, along with those who reject the notion of a divine being or the idea that a human could be imbued with the spirit of a divine being, join together in a search for the best regime.

The Sensible Center

Hooray!! In the finest Socratic tradition, interlocutors have commented on my first post. "Greg" reminds us that recognition of our physical, mental and spiritual strengths and weaknesses is an ongoing process throughout our lives, and questions how we can know whether we are fulfilling our essence given the difficulties of grasping our physical, mental and spiritual complexities at a given moment. "Forbearance" asserts that (i) the approach I suggested in my initial post goes astray by attempting to "find yourselves outside of the larger purpose of the Preserver of the universe," (ii) "[o]ur purpose is to seek out righteousness" and (iii) eschewing all pursuits outside of seeking out righteousness by putting ourselves into the service of love and charity with our neighbors is the way to find ourselves.

To "Greg," I would suggest that looking within ourselves in a practical, non-judgmental way is the closest imperfect humans can come to achieving self-knowledge. Yes, this is a life long process fraught with uncertainty, and ultimately, neither religious nor secular authorities can provide a formula for achieving self-knowledge (or to put it in a more modest way, to approach that level of self-knowledge possible for humans given our level of creation). If we study religious and secular authorities humbly and with attention, we can be aided in our quest, but all will be in vain without relentless, practical and non-judgmental examination of ourselves.

To "forbearance," I say "Thank God" (so to speak) that in this therapeutic state era there are those who will speak up for righteousness. I would respond to your posted comment by suggesting that while our ultimate purpose may be putting ourselves into the service of love and charity with our neighbors, we do so from the houses of our beings, and that those houses will have been built upon shifting sand, not rock, without the base of self knowledge (I realize that many will argue with this interpretation of Matthew VII 24-27; at this point, I simply request that you be open to this line of interpretation).

Well, let us not forget that "Know thyself" was only the first inscription written at the entrance to the sacred temple of Delphi. The second was "Nothing too much." Does this suggest a "sensible center" approach to everything? Or need we make some prior measurement or have some fine purpose before we know what is "too much?" If the life of a loved one is threatened, is putting ourselves in harm's way to attempt to save the loved one "too much?" Is Seinfeldian irony a useful buffer against pursuing matters too seriously, or is it an opiate keeping us in a state of seeming lightness but actual darkness as to our measuring what is "too much," "too little" or "just enough?"

I hope that "Greg" and "forbearance" continue to weigh in with comments, and I hope that the rest of you also feel free to comment. If Socrates and the Bible didn't entice you, certainly Seinfeld should.

Initial Post-Setting Sail

May we journey together to a land of beautiful music. A land where we all speak from the heart. A land where our thoughts express our essences, and our essences delight in spirited conversation. A land where what our lesser aspects call disagreements our finer aspects recognize as differences in understanding. A land where we strive to learn from our differences in understanding, and express those differences without rancor or resentment. A land where we exult in our common humanity and in our equality as beings on the same plane of creation. A land where we take each other seriously and don't take ourselves seriously. A land where the flowering of beautiful thoughts from the buds of our musings is always in season. A land where our community of seekers provides a haven from the coarser aspects of our souls. A land where our conversation builds a hermetic seal around our souls so that our finer aspects can be nurtured from within and our lesser aspects are banished to a junkyard.

My primary purpose in starting this blog is to learn from my betters. Who are my betters? Anyone who leaves a comment, that's who. Although at times I might like to think of myself as a unified being, much of the time I function as a multiplicity of scattered aspects. I hope by this blog to enlist and receive your help in putting these aspects in a finer order than they are at present. What do I offer in return? I don't know that I have anything to offer. I hope that each of you who takes the time to read this blog finds something of use for your being, whether or not you choose to leave a comment.

A word on the title of this blog. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition (The New World Publishing Company, 1957), defines "statecraft" as "the art of, or skill in, the managing of state affairs; statesmanship." With your indulgence, I plan, for purposes of this blog, to expand "statecraft" to include not only the art of ruling a state, but also the art of ruling oneself. This approach has support in Plato's Republic, in which Plato describes a conversation in which Socrates and some of his pals analogize the nature of justice within an ancient Greek city-state to the nature of justice within an individual soul. The "Socratic" part of this blog's title is most assuredly not intended as an assertion that by a series of Socratic questions I will lead blog readers to a higher state of being, but to suggest that the Socratic quest of exploring the essence and elements of the cosmos, the political bodies and the human souls is as fine an activity today as it was over 2,000 years ago, and at the same time as problematical (you might recall that Socrates was sentenced to death for this activity).

If on occasion a few days or a week elapse between posts, please don't take offense; the issues I hope we will discuss are eternal, so what's a few days between friends?

So, let me start by asking for help with a question that on occasion I ponder, namely, what does it mean to know myself? When I ponder this question, I invariably come back to the question of whether I can even start from the point of assuming that what I am calling "myself" is a unity. I stumble out of bed in the morning. If I am lucky I get through shaving, showering and dressing without cutting my face, slipping in the bathtub or putting on socks that clearly don't match. I negotiate brewing coffee, sip it, and feel pretty good. I am on top of the day. I am fully prepared for my conference call at 11 am. I am off to the train. As I wait for the train, I hear a couple of people discussing the football scores. My mind in quick succession flips through index cards of recalled impressions: a youth throwing around a footbal with his father in the back yard, finishing runner-up two years in a row in the local Punt, Pass and Kick competition, and playing intramural footbal in college, a nonentity envious of glamorous athletes and other celebrities.

Wait a minute. Throw away that index card. That's not me. I don't engage in mindless envy. Not me. That thought couldn't be me, or any part of me. Correct?

Now I am on the train. Someone I think I know doesn't acknowledge me. He must be stuck up. Wait another minute. Maybe he is thinking about an ill family member and is distracted. The conductor comes. I have forgotten to take my pass out. The conductor looks at me disapprovingly. I finally fish my pass out of my wallet and show it to the conductor. I take my book out, open the pages and escape to another world.Time to walk to the office. I am in my office. There is an emergency voice mail. Why does the rest of the world not organize their affairs so as not to create unnecessary emergencies? I deal with the emergency and call in to my 11 am conference call. The call goes well, but my brilliantly prepared analyses are met with an "of course, I knew that" attitude by some on the call. The call is over at 11:30 am.

All right, from the time I awoke to the end of the conference call, what is the "myself" that I am supposed to know? Barely coordinated, high on caffeine, suppressing resentment at lack of celebrity, taking umbrage at not being recognized, unorganized in the simple task of getting my train pass out of my wallet, contemptuous of the disorganized world (without remembering that on the train, I was disorganized), and annoyed that my analytical brilliance is unrecognized? Now remember, all in all, the day has gone pretty well. If this is my internal state on a good day, what happens on a bad day? Perhaps before I explore the wonderful unity that is myself, I would do well, in a nonjudgmental clinical way (or perhaps even in a lighthearted way), to observe in a clear manner my disunity. What do you think? Does anything I have said about myself resonate with you? Any comments for this scattered creature?