That Smile.

The Smile.

(Hat tip, The Sartorialist)

Your life is never really the same after a vision like that.

Christian love. (Charity)

Charity is a potency which in actualisation, perfects.

Use the Force, Luke.

Commentator Tom made the following comment in the previous blog entry:

If someone's love for you is truly unconditional and does not depend on what you are and what you do, what about you is truly being loved?

I've been mulling about this for a few days and for the few of those that are interested in my thoughts here they are.

When we think of love, we though our culture, are conditioned to think of it in a sentimental way. The feelings which are associated with love are pleasurable. The love we have towards our children, friends, partners and things is a positive experience, and we delight being in being in it's state. Couples who have drifted apart try to "rekindle" that feeling in order to draw themselves closer to each other. We associate love with a positive feeling which comes about as a result of existence of the beloved.

Considered that way, in the absence of a beloved , there can be no love. In fact conceptualised as such, love is a second order phenomena; there must be a beloved before there is love. This however makes love a response, a reaction to something, a responsive sentiment. The object which elicits this sentiment usually is in possession of some excellence or good which we recognise and respond positively to. We may love a woman because of her beauty or character, our country because of its particular features, our friends because of their good natures, the love is always a consequence of some excellence in the beloved. Our beloved generates feelings in us which continue to be sustained in the presence of the beloved and since the feelings are pleasurable, we seek to maintain them. Should we loose our beloved, the ensuing deprivation grieves us and we seek the beloved return.

It should also be apparent then devoid of excellences, a thing can be unlovable. A hideous man or woman elicits repulsion, a bad character, disgust and so on. Indeed our reactions to other things may be that of indiffernce or repulsion. We pass people on the street and think nothing of them, we read about awful criminals and are revolted by their behaviour, not seeing any goodness in either we a devoid of the loving sentiment toward them and hence don't mourn their loss.

Clearly then, love thus conceptualised, is a pleasureable sentiment elicited by the qualities in another. This type of love seeks is sustained by the pleasure elicited by another, it is sustained by hedonic satisfaction. Once the pleausure stops so does the love.

When a couple say they have fallen out of love, what they are saying that they are not getting any pleasure from the existence of the other. The husband, whom the wife would at one time love with all her heart, farts in her presence, ignores her reasonable demands, is a brutish and boring lover and has grown a beer gut. There is nothing attractive about him, his character qualities are overshadowed by his repulsive nature; she loves him no more. His presence does not elicit pleasurable sentiments and at best she becomes indifferent to him and at worse is repulse him.

Now this concept of love as a responsive sentiment is a natural and dare I say it Pagan one. It is how the pagans conceptualised love. Their love was hedonic in that it only existed as long as the beloved gave pleasure. Looking at love in this light, this passage from Luke 6:32 takes on a different meaning:

³²"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. ³³If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ³⁴If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

In all the instances cited above the lover is getting a benefit from the loved, and clearly Christ thinks that that form of love is nothing special. What precedes that bit of text and what follows is Christ's idea of Love.

‘But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. ²⁹If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. ³⁰Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. ³¹Do to others as you would have them do to you.

and,

³⁵But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. ³⁶Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Now clearly in these two passages the type of love that Christ is taking about is a love that gets no pleasure from the object of its attentions. In fact that lover may be repulsed by the beloved but the lover still wishes good to the beloved. For years I interpreted this text as meaning one must do good and have pleasant sentiments towards the wicked, but I was wrong; my feelings while performing good works don't matter. The basis of Christian love is asentimental.

This has profound consequences for our understanding of Christian love. Unlike hedonic love which is a second order phenomena, Christian love is a first order effect, it exists prior to the existence of the beloved and independent of the nature of the beloved. Christian love is the intent of perfection manifest in self, others and the world. More importantly it can't be seen as a sentiment or a feeling, but rather a perfecting "force" present in Christian nature. When Christian love is actualised it is directed towards the perfection of its object regardless of how the actor feels about the object of his actions. Christian love is the force that can love what gives us no pleasure. So when Tom asks what is unconditional love? The Christian replies it is what I give to you(even under sufferance), not what you give to me. To the pagans this concept would have been ridiculous.

Love in the time of Hedonism.

Recently over at Roissy's there was a stoush between the Errant Wife and Himself. The Errant Wife objected to Roissy's vitriol and replied in vicious kind. I really did not see what the fight was about, since both parties have essentially the same philosophy of life; Hedonism. Roissy has often said that he loves Love and the Errant Wife seems to be in search of it. The question in my mind through this exchange is how does a how does a Hedonist "love"? Or more importantly, what is the nature of Hedonistic love?

Hedonism, being a teleology which aims toward satisfaction of the self, is inwardly focused towards the individual. The goods of life have their value insofar as they provide pleasurable satisfaction to the individual. In other words, the goodness or badness of a thing is really a measure of how it pleases the individual apprehending the thing. Now clearly according to this philosophy, things of little pleasure will have little value, while things of great pleasure will have great value. Now clearly, being loved-both physically and emotionally--is perhaps the greatest pleasure possible and a hedonist the will value the lover as long as the lover pleasures them: The love of a hedonist is conditional.

But the nature of Hedonistic "love" is not the same as the nature of unconditional love, although they may appear the same they in fact polar opposites. Hedonistic love is the love of the utility of the loved individual. Its a love that exists as long as it is satisfied, it is innately selfish. The lover of a Hedonist must continually "provide" in order to be loved. Once the provision stops so does the "love". The hedonist lover is continually "taking" from his "beloved" and what he or she gives to their beloved is purely incidental to their being as the object of hedonistic love is the self.

The "marriage" of two hedonists will have all the appearance of a marriage. The partners will take delight in each other and will appear in love. However after the novelty of each other wears off and the pleasure that each receives from each other lessens, they will "fall out of love". Now it is true that the Hedonist lover can feel pain at the loss of his source of pleasure, but it is the pain of loss of loosing the pleasure not the pain of the loss of the thing itself. Since what is valued is the pleasure and not its source. A man may love the beauty of a woman but when that beauty fades so does the "love".

Unconditional love on the other hand, has as it's object the other; it is extrinsic to one's self. The love of the unconditional lover delights in the other regardless of the pleasures or grief that the lover receives from the loved. Indeed the perfect unconditional lover loves when there is no pleasure there at all except for the existence of the loved. To quote Percy Sledge:

When a man loves a woman
Can't keep his mind on nothing else
He'll trade the world
For the good thing he's found
If she's bad he can't see it
She can do no wrong
Turn his back on his best friend
If he put her down

This is perhaps where the vow stands as the perfect symbol of unconditional love. Made of our own free choosing, at the moment when we have glimpsed the beloved in their perfection, it is our desired promise, publicly proclaimed that the love we offer the beloved is unconditional. That thick or thin, our love is always there. It is a promise, not a fleeting feeling of the moment. When we keep our promises we love unconditionally. Love is sometimes a pleasure and other times a duty. In fact duty to our beloved can be a form of love.

Today I had a patient whose wife of 55 years died recently. He was clearly distressed as he missed her terribly. They were not the most glamorous couple and walking down the street, one would not notice them for any particular reason. They argued and fought, she bossed him and he annoyed her but he was always there for her and she for him. When she died he was cleaved in two, he and his partner had become one.

Intended Objects of Actors.

An act is a specific operation of a being which results in a change in the ontic state. Or in more common parlance: An act is an operation which results in a change in reality. An act instantiates change.

Since in human acts, the will effects the cause of instantiation, the effects of such acts are attributable to will. Hence the person who initiates an act is the originator of it and thus responsible for it.

If the change effected is a result of the operation of the Will, it is voluntary, otherwise it is involuntary. Furthermore, voluntary actions seek to instantiate a desired ontic state, this state being the object of the act.

The intent on the other hand is the state of reality which the intellect seeks to ultimately bring about; the ontic state which it desires, its' intended object.

Intent is realised through act or acts. However this does not mean that what is instantiated is what is intended. Indeed there may be several acts which may need to be done in order to achieve the intended state.

It appears then that the acting person has two types of motive objects. The object that we directly bring about through an act, the instantional object and the the state of affairs we wish ultimately achieved, the intentional object.

When morally considering actions a consideration of the both the instantional and intentional objects must be made in order to correctly consider the act. For an act to be good both the instantional object and intentional object must be good.

Of note, the intention of the Will can be instantiated by means outside the operating being. If for instance, we wish a man to be killed and by some other means not connected to ourselves, the man is killed, the will's intention is actuated, even though it has not occurred as a result of a specific action of our will. This is why ill will alone is viewed as moral negative.

Taylor Swift: Beautiful Girl.

I'm not a big fan of country music. But the song in the link above is quite catchy and is what my wife would call a "happy song". It's sweet, innocent and traditional and a refreshing change to all the rubbish and soft porn that is peddled by the Music industry.

I must admit I was quite arrested by the appearance of the singer whom I find beautiful. While this girl is erotically attractive-(I'm old enough to be her father)-her beauty in a way overrides it and I find her attractive in an aesthetic sense. She is just so damn pretty and feminine. Throughout the clip her appearance changes from modern college student to traditional damsel. Interestingly her femininity seems enhanced by the traditional clothing that she wears and she is more beautiful because of it. I suppose it just goes to show how powerful an affect fashion makes on a woman's appearance. She is pretty in the modern garb but stunning in the traditional wear.

Enjoy the tune. Yes, I'm a soppy sentimentalist.

And Yet Another Thought.

The innocent man is by necessity inculpable, however the inculpable man is not by necessity innocent.

Some More Thoughts for the Day on Moral Objects.

Intention of will(Finis Operantis): The appetite directed toward a certain ontic state; the desired state being its "object".

Intention of act(Finis Operis): The ontic state to be instantiated by the act; the acts' "object".

Realising our intentions: The process of instantiating the object of our will through the the instantiation of the objects of our acts.

The realised ontic state of the will may be achieved through one or many acts.

Both acts and intent have objects and these objects become moral when subjected to the standard of the morality. Without morality, there is no moral object.

Through the Finis Operis we achieve the Finis Operantis.

Thought for the day.

When we act, we attempt to instantiate our intentions.

Psychological axioms.

The ultimate female fantasy is to have the one man that all the other females desperately want , but HER special uniqueness, her beauty, her feminine charms has “tamed” and “captured” him into committed monogamy.

(HT David from Hawaii)

Too much flesh, not enough class.

Summer in Australia is a feast for the lecher but a famine for the aesthete. I'm by no ways a prude but I must admit that I find that excessive displays of flesh rather off-putting. Not so much for the display of flesh itself, rather what it tends to signify of the barer. Others may disagree, but I've tended to notice that the girls that bare the most are usually either dull or morally unscrupulous, both undesirable features.

Most women usually take great care of their appearance: They want to appear attractive. People are visual creatures, and the choices a woman makes with regard to fashion, determine what features she wishes to bring to attention or accentuate. A woman who walks around with near exposed breasts and a skirt that barely covers her bottom is going to send the signal to men that she wants to appear as sexual, in a way that a woman covered head to toe is not. Still its not just an issue of display of flesh, display of form should be considered as well. A skin tight jump suit can be as erotic as baggy track pants are not. A woman not wishing to appear as sexual would make choices which will leave something to the imagination while still accentuating her femininity.


Jayne Mansfield was endowed with enormous breasts, which she unashamedly displayed. She was cognizant that they were her main attraction and she deliberately flaunted them. Apparently she could speak six languages and purportedly had an IQ of 163 but who would know. She complained that people did not want to know about her other attributes, while at the same time emphasising her breasts. She plied the skin trade for all that she could get, arranging for "wardrobe malfunctions" when they would be most noticed. She deliberately pushed the boundaries of good taste in order to expose her "attractive assets". As her career started to nosedive, her efforts at notoriety doubled finally posing in Playboy as a centerfold. She deliberately cultivated an image as a sex symbol; a monodimensional personality. Her personal life was a wreck, she married five times, was an alcoholic and died tragically in an automobile accident. Overt sexuality: Low class. Notice whom she is sitting with; much more classy.

Beauty Queens

Both of these women are attractive and yet one is more beautiful than the other. Both were contemporaries and both were the object of much media speculation. Both met tragic ends. One died alone and unhappy by a barbiturate overdose, the other a princess in a car accident

I suppose the question to ask is, what makes these women attractive? Which of course leads to the question, what is attractiveness anyway?

I shall posit an answer: Attraction is a force that compels us towards its source. It can also be thought of as like magnetism, in that it has "polarity". The thing in possession of an attractive feature can be thought of as "positive", while the thing deficient of the attractive possession can be thought of as the "negative" pole of the force. Therefore a proper understanding of attraction involves the analysis of both poles. The potential of attractiveness therefore comes form the "potential difference in attribute" between the attractive and the attracted.

An individuals total attractiveness can be thought of as the rough sum of the attractive potentials of an individuals attributes when considered in from the point of view of the attracted. Therefore deficiencies in one area may be made up by excesses in another.

Marilyn Monroe's attractiveness lay in her sexuality and in her ability to project it, and while she is physically attractive, I don't think one could call her beautiful. Her attractiveness lays in the potential for sexual satisfaction, which would appear to be in abundance. However she appears mono dimensional in having nothing else to offer. (Remember I'm only talking about her appearance)

Grace Kelly's attractiveness lay in feminine beauty. The is also a sense of sexuality in Grace Kelly but it seems subordinated to her overall femininity, her sexuality is more restrained and refined. There is a sense of "grace", in Grace Kelly which is absent in Marilyn Monroe. So while she does not appear as sexual a Marilyn Monroe, she satisfies on many different planes. The sum of her many attractive potentials are greater than Marilyn's superlative one.

However the other point to consider is that of the attracted. A person who just wants to "get laid" is going to find Monroe more attractive than Kelly, but a person seeking beauty, sophistication and sex will find Kelly more attractive than Monroe. Monroe's attractiveness in more primal, Kelly's attractiveness more refined. Since civilised pleasures are refined pleasures, Kelly is the objectively more beautiful.

Saying that though, I would not of married either. Both were promiscuous before they were married. Big turn off.

Deceptive Packaging.

It's a sad fact of life that you can't judge a book by its cover. Likewise it's also true that you really can't judge people's characters on the basis of their appearance. Still in the real world, appearance is what most people go for and numerous studies have shown that the beautiful seem to have an unfair advantage over the ugly. Studies have shown that they get better jobs, are perceived as more intelligent and morally upright than the unattractive.
Human beings place a very considerable importance on physical beauty. I suppose it's because in our minds, the beautiful is synonymous with the good, and hence an object worthy of attainment. I suppose a great deal of human misery could be explained away be the realisation that what looks good is not necessarily good, but sometimes the beauty is so arresting, so perfect, so desirable that other considerations are put aside in order to attain the beautiful.

Young Laura Zuniga certainly does present the visage of the beautiful. An articulate pre-school teacher, she was a Mexican beauty queen. I must admit looking at her, she presents the picture of beauty, charm, intelligence and goodness. And yet the image lies.

You see, young Laura likes to spend her time with her drug cartel friends; Laura is not really that nice. I imagine that at her trial it will come out that she had low self-esteem, was pressured, was under the influence of hormones, etc. The fact would be, that these excuses would all be lies. As an incredibly attractive woman, Laura could of had her pick of men, from CEO's, movie stars, and attractive but honest men. Beautiful women get to choose their mates, and unlike the less attractive members of her sex, her choices in nearly all instances are not forced. I imagine the advances of many good decent and upright men would have been rejected in preference to the company of vicious evil men. Her preference is for bad boys.

It is said that the Angels can see not only our visage, but its composite with our natures. Perhaps if Laura's nature could be seen, it would look something like this. I want you to try to form a composite image of the beautiful body encapsulating that hideous form, in doing so you will have gained a more accurate image of the nature of this woman. Her beauty is skin deep, the ugliness goes to the bone. The beautiful is sometimes not the good, something a man or woman should remember when on the dating scene. A man is never more likely to be deceived than when enthralled in the beauty of a woman. In making our assessment of potential mates its well to consider that the packaging may not be indicative of what's in the can.

The Day the Earth Got Bored.

I went out with a friend tonight to see the movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. My advice to potential viewers, stay at home. Don't even borrow the DVD. To quote a fellow movie goer, "That was a waste of two hours of my life." The movie had every cliche imaginable. Keanu Reeves actually acted quite well but even that could not save the movie. Utter rubbish.

Disdain.

Over the past few days I've been over at Dennis Mangan's arguing that one cannot be a Conservative and an atheist at the same time: The terms are mutually incompatible. This of course, incensed Mr Mangan no end, and apart from some ad hominem attacks on my person, he presented no argument to refute my claim. What he did try to do, is to misconstrue my argument, as if I had said to be a conservative, one had to be a christian; this was not my position. I argued that at the bare minimum, a conservative must leave the room open for the possibility of some form of faith, be it in a traditional or personal form. He could be a Pagan, Hindu, Muslim, Lutheran etc.

Ed Feser does a much better job than I can do arguing this position in his essay, The Metaphysics of Conservatism. It is well worth the read. Realist conservatives leave room for faith, the others do not. To quote Mr Feser:

So let me end by citing another, and more practical, reason someone with truly conservative instincts ought to favor the Realist brand of conservatism over its rivals -- namely, that it isn't clear that the other versions are really versions of conservatism at all, any more than nominalism or conceptualism are versions of realism.

You see, metaphysics matter. Metaphysics determine both our ontology and epistemology.(Our understanding or reality and the nature of knowledge). The Ancient Greek or Roman may have disagreed with the Catholic or Lutheran about the nature of the the true God/Gods, but he would have agreed that there was some form of higher Deity than himself. More importantly, however imperfectly they did it, men orientated their lives to the imperatives of the Deity. The rules came from God, not from a rational agent's opinion of the facts. The locus of morality was external to man. The great cultural divide between the Modern World and the World that preceded it, lay in this metaphysical shift. In the Modern World, Man was the source of morals.

Can an Atheist therefore be a Conservative, if he does not share their metaphysics? I would argue not, for the same reasons Ed Feser does. Can a man be a conservative and disdain Christianity? Yes, but he cannot be a Western Conservative. He can be a Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian etc, type of conservative or he can be a Liberal.

Denis Mangan did not publish my last reply to his post. I really don't care as it is his blog and he has the right to do on it as he pleases. However the generally accepted form is to publish comments unless they are offensive, which my comments were not. I would invite the reader to to visit the discussion and make his own mind up.

Mencken, Conservatism, and Adversary Culture

Christianity and the West, II

Merry Christmas.

To my small band of readers , peace and goodwill to you all this Christmas time.



For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace!


(Handel's Messiah.)

Dead White Man. No 1

I don't have White guilt and have always preferred civilization to savagery, light to darkness. Other civilizations have had their achievements, however I will maintain, no assert, that European culture, particularly Western European culture, has had a profound and beneficial effect on the rest of the world.

With that in mind, I hope to put up a few biographies of Dead White men over the next few months. These were the type of men that traditional European society produced in abundance and who so are despised by modern Lefties, because they are ashamed of their cultural inheritance. I introduce to you a man who was tough, courageous, resourceful and loved both God and country. Introducing:

Charles James Napier.




All round tough bastard, and the type of man you want with you in the jungle.

The wikipaedia entry pretty much covers his life, but I thought I would like to jot down some of his thoughts as applied to contemporary issues.

On tolerating foreign customs within his jurisdiction:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

On Counterinsurgency:

"The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed"

On negotiating with the natives:

"Come here instantly. Come here at once and make your submission, or I will in a week tear you from the midst of your village and hang you""

On local self government:

...so perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another.

And how tough a bastard was he:

He Commanded the force employed in Scinde, and on 17th February, with only 2800 British troops, he attacked and defeated, after a desparate action of three hours duration, 22000 of the enemy strongly posted at Meeanee. On the 21st February, Hydrabad surrendered to him, and on the 24th March, with 5000 men he attacked and signally defeated 20,000 of the enemy posted in a very strong and difficult position at Dubba, near Hydrabad, thus completing the entire subjugation of Scinde.

Early in 1815, with a force consisting of about 5000 men of all arms, he took the field against the mountain and desert tribes, situated at the right bank of the Indus to the North of Skihapore, and after an arduous campaign, he effected the total destruction of the hill robbers.

Check out the odds, he was no metrosexual. There would be no place for him in today's modern Britain. The country to whom he bequeathed so much glory has dishonoured his legacy. But he lives in the Pantheon of Honour; three cheers for the Dead White Man.

The Darkness.

Some of the luminaries of the "Secular Conservative" fold have started a new blog site. Predictably religion was dissed almost immediately and rather vehemently, I might add. Which is a bit of a surprise as the Right was always seen as the natural home of religion.

For what it's worth, I think the term Secular Conservative is an oxymoron. Clearly the majority of the important Dead White men, or Hindu's for that matter, believed in some sort of supernatural existence, even though they disagreed--sometimes violently--about the composition of "the other world". God and religion get bandied about quite a bit in conservative thought, and the link with the dead through tradition is a mainstay of the conservative mindset.

Edward Feser, wrote what I think is quite a definitive piece on what in the end, separates Left from Right; a view with which I agree with. You see, in the end its all about epistemology; what we consider is valid knowledge. The secularists seem to believe that Empiricism is all that matters, and what cannot be empirically verified does not really matter. From their point of view, non empirically derived propositions are certainly not something to build one's society on. Furthermore-- and it's quite disappointing that supposed intelligent people hold these views--religious conservatives are painted as sort of nut jobs, who believe any fairy story uncritically and as people who would subordinate any scientific fact to a religious belief.

Now it is true, that there are quite a few conservative religious nuts, but every movement has its idiot adherents. But serious conservatism has never dismissed rationality or empirical evidence, it has however been open to the acceptance of truths which cannot be empirically verified such as religious teachings. I think it was St Thomas who back in the thirteenth century, stated that where faith and science are in conflict, our understanding of faith is probably wrong and needs to be modified, as the truth is indivisible and the two cannot contradict each other. Please note, thirteenth Century people.

The question to ask then is it rational to believe in things which are empirically unprovable?

Consider the following: A blind man is told of the existence of the colour red. There is no way he can empirically "prove" the existence of the colour since he cannot see, but clearly the colour exists. What should he do? If he is a Secular Conservative, he will deny that the colour red exists since he cannot empirically verify it's existence. Empiricism would have lead him to a false conclusion. The only way our blind friend can believe in the colour red is through an act of faith. He can't experience the colour red, through he can believe in it from the testimony of others. Clearly in this instance his faith leads to a belief which is congruent with reality. Empiricism on the other hand leads to an absurd result. Faith has its problems as well. It's also possible through faith to believe in things which are non congruent with reality, to believe in fairy tales.

The key issue of any knowledge is it's congruence with reality. That is, how do beliefs square up with reality. Empiricism is pretty powerful but it does have its faults. It doesn't deal well with non repeatable events and it's limits are defined by the perceptual abilities of the observer.

We can't for instance, scientifically repeat a murder in order to determine who caused it. If our courts demanded empirical proof of guilt, we would never be able to convict anyone. But we can, through a combination of science and rationalism, come to some form of conclusion about the nature of the killer. Sometimes they confess, and more often than not we're right. The point here being that valid knowledge that is congruent with reality may be obtained through non empirical methods. Sticking to empiricism is a bit like deliberately trying to live life with your eyes closed while overcompensating with your hearing.

The next question to ask then: Is there "stuff" in the Universe which we cannot perceive? I mean, are we capable of perceiving all that is out there? Just like our blind man who cannot see the light, is there other matter in the universe which we cannot sense and therefore not subject to empirical verification? I don't just mean religious things, I mean things like forces, dark matter etc. Because if there are, empiricism is not going to help us understand the phenomena. More importantly if there are such "things", the strict claims of empiricism may lead us to the wrong conclusions. Certainly at the subatomic and intergalactic levels, weird stuff happens. No one's seen dark matter.

The secular rejection of the mode of traditional conservative thought, by necessity undercuts the foundations of conservatism itself. Morals can't be derived from scientific facts, and hence conservatism becomes a "lifestyle"preference based on the hedonistic predispositions of the secular conservative; should his pleasures change so should his conservatism. The Dead White Men that made up conservatism in the past, lived that way because they thought it was the Tao of life; it was the truth.

But back to our secular blind man. His empirical enquiries have not been able to demonstrate the phenomena of colour. So when offered corrective surgery to cure his blindness, he angrily chases us away, because his method has taught him that there is no light.

(Cross Posted at The Forvm)

The paradox of extravagance.

John Maynard Keynes was profoundly influential in the field of economics, which is a bit of a shame because some of what he said needed to be thought out more. But while his unthinking acolytes continue to practice his solutions to the current economic crisis, it is worthwhile exploring one of his ideas further.

The paradox of thrift was one of those ideas of Keynes which explain the current government policy of "stimulus". It is assumed that in a normal household there is a balance between savings and spending. And tets take a hypothetical fellow who has a thousand dollars a week to spend, and let's suppose in normal times this fellow saves two hundred dollars and spends eight hundred dollars on stuff and services. That eight hundred dollars of expenditure, keeps business of all kinds profitable and in operation. On the other hand, the money that he has saved is put in a bank which then lends it out to other businesses which need it. There is both consumer demand and capital availability.

Now if our friend decides to save three hundred dollars a week, the amount left over to spend is seven hundred, a reduction of one hundred dollars. There is less consumer demand to go around and business is poor. Likewise if our friend saves only one hundred dollars, then there is more consumer demand and hence business prospers. Therefore the way to stimulate businesses is to increase consumption. However for a given income, more spending will mean less saving.

Should savings become scarce, in a natural market, the demand for savings would push up the rates of interest which would encourage more saving and decrease consumption. In a normal situation this would happen continuously so that the market would quietly hum along. Now Keynes's paradox always assumed that there would be savings to trade for consumption.



Keynes assumed wrongly. From the above chart, the U.S is spent. There are no more savings to trade for consumption. It also means that the U.S has no savings for investment. This is the paradox of extravagance. If an economy spends at its limit, then there are no savings for investment, and eventually the economy starts to contract due to capital starvation. Stimulating an economy to its maximum, eventually leads to a an economic contraction. And this contraction is going to start occurring during a period of economic boom, just as what is happening now.


Of course, one can argue that there is capital from overseas, which one can use to stimulate the economy. The logic being, that we should borrow more to get ourselves out of debt. If you can't see the flaws in the argument, then you should be the Treasury Secretary. The problem with Anglo influenced economies is that they continue to consume more than they produce, stimulating them will perpetuate the same and drive them further into debt. Over consumption is probably worse state of affairs than under consumption, since there are at least savings to invest in the latter situation.

Furthermore, this state of affairs puts a country's economy at the mercy of the providers of capital. If the Chinese and Arabs were to switch off the spigots; it's all over. If I were a Taiwanese I would be extremely nervous; the U.S. is not exactly going to bite the hand that feeds it. On the other hand, should the U.S default on its debt either explicitly or through inflation, the spigots will be closed for non-political reasons as well and U.S interest rates will go through the roof at a time of high indebtedness.

Oh just as I was about to post this, I noticed that Martin Wolf, of the Financial Times, was thinking along similar lines. His article is worth a read.

The economy needs to be restored to a point where there is approximately a 5-10% personal savings rate. This is what constitutes a healthy economy and economic policy should be geared to that goal. However given the fact that most Anglo economies have the same personal savings chart as above, trying to increase the amount of consumer savings is going to result in a contraction of consumer demand. Business is going to shrink, in the Anglo countries by a lot.
There is a lot of pain coming.

Sculptor of flesh, healer of souls.

It's been a rather unsettling week, meditating on ugliness and disfigurement. I would like to end it on some thoughts with regard to plastic surgery. I must admit to having a strong approval of the show Extreme Makeover. The change in a persons life after corrective plastic surgery is truly transformative. It would appear that healing the imperfections of the flesh, eases the sorrows of the soul.

Modern Plastic surgery has it's origin in the carnage of the First World War. Horrific head wounds left individuals grotesquely disfigured. The survivors were shunned and separated from society. In England, park benches were painted blue in order to warn people that the facially mangled might be sitting there, in France they had their own special train carriages. Struck down in the prime of their youth, one can only imagine the terrible and isolated lives these individuals must have had. Suicide, drunkenness, endless depression and despair. Repulsive to women and yet still a man. Wilfred Owen captured the torment in his poem, Disabled.

He sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark,

And shivered in his ghastly suit of grey,

Legless, sewn short at elbow. Through the park

Voices of boys rang saddening like a hymn,

Voices of play and pleasure after day,

Till gathering sleep had mothered them from him.

About this time Town used to swing so gay

When glow-lamps budded in the light-blue trees

And girls glanced lovelier as the air grew dim,

-- In the old times, before he threw away his knees.

Now he will never feel again how slim

Girls' waists are, or how warm their subtle hands,

All of them touch him like some queer disease.

.........

Some cheered him home, but not as crowds cheer Goal.
Only a solemn man who brought him fruits
Thanked him; and then inquired about his soul.
Now, he will spend a few sick years in Institutes,
And do what things the rules consider wise,
And take whatever pity they may dole.
To-night he noticed how the women's eyes
Passed from him to the strong men that were whole.
How cold and late it is! Why don't they come
And put him into bed? Why don't they come?

In an effort to heal the ravages of war a young New Zealand surgeon, Harold Gilles begins to operate on the terribly wounded soldiers and modern plastic surgery is born. There was recently an exhibition of his work, called the Faces of battle, it details his WW1 work and the men on whom he operated on. Warning it is quite graphic. It can be found here and here. Gille's aim was to restore these individuals to some form or normality so that they could return to society. He had some spectacular successes and for some there was no help. Looking at their faces, one wonders what sort of life they must have had. Although Gilles later pioneered aesthetic surgery techniques, he always felt that this was a distraction , his job was to restore the disfigured to normalcy.

It seems somewhat perverse, that modern cosmetic surgery, so often subordinated to the desires of the vain and superficial, had its origins in the noble ideal of restoring people to physical normality.

Harold Gilles, a Dead White Man. Healer of Mankind.