Reality and Realism
My Objectives
We live in an interesting era. So much is happening; so much is
changing. How can we know? How can we understand? What can
we believe?
Perhaps it has always been so, but not to the extent that it is
today. Knowledge has expanded so dramatically, and
communication keeps it coming even faster, along with the
technology that supports it. In times past (and in many places, still)
one has exposure to little outside one's own small sphere of
knowledge and experience. But it is becoming less and less
possible to remain ignorant - or perhaps I should say unaware;
there is a difference. And the reason for this? Communications;
first radio, then the transistor radio, then television and the
computer. Information flows in a steady stream - with pictures and
video to accompany it.
But it is so ubiquitous, so easy to access, and relatively easy to
contribute to, it becomes more and more difficult to know what to
believe, what to question and what to reject. There is no easy
solution. On the other hand, when one wants to contribute that is
not easy either; sure you can post information, but who pays
attention to it - and for those paying attention, which to access?
Television, being an expensive visual media, is reduced to rapid
sound bite information heavily dependent upon availability of the
visual. And since Blog s\Sites are so easy to create, anyone can
create one and say what they please. But is slant any less prevalent
in the realm of professional media? In fact many Blog Sites are now
professional. But professional media in our culture has a special
role to play and is expected to be impartial, and critically impartial. Is
it? That is questionable, as mediaists have their own agenda, and
often pursue it despite more noble expectations.
So what to do? Think. But to think coherently one must have a
broad base of knowledge and that takes time and effort. I have
expended much time and effort in this regard, as I have time to
pursue it; I recognize that not all do, nor are they so motivated. I
have found that the best way to accumulate knowledge is to read
widely, not of the emotions of the moment, but through the writings
of those who h ave experienced. And they are always true? Of
course not; that's why wider reading is essential. The more one
reads the more has that with which to compare, and compare we
must; only then can one think on one's own and reach conclusions.
They not be truth either, but they have a better chance of being, if one
is open minded and wants to come as close as possible.
This Website is almost a stream of consciousness, only
minimally edited, and thus, as I have said elsewhere within it,
chaotic. So be it; that's what I do. There is redundancy because I
keep coming back to favorite texts - because they are believable and
insightful, in my opinion. This results in many different things: long
pages with many words, some additional pages to keep them from
being so long, and new pages. This is a new page in which I want
to explore and relate what I see as reality, and why. So much of
what we hear and see doesn't pass the reality test, particularly as it
relates to different countries and cultures, and our relationships with
them. When I am exposed to what seems real, and what fits with
my experience as real, I want to share it - or at least post it so it can
be shared. I shall see what I can find to begin, and then go from
there.
We live in an interesting era. So much is happening; so much is
changing. How can we know? How can we understand? What can
we believe?
Perhaps it has always been so, but not to the extent that it is
today. Knowledge has expanded so dramatically, and
communication keeps it coming even faster, along with the
technology that supports it. In times past (and in many places, still)
one has exposure to little outside one's own small sphere of
knowledge and experience. But it is becoming less and less
possible to remain ignorant - or perhaps I should say unaware;
there is a difference. And the reason for this? Communications;
first radio, then the transistor radio, then television and the
computer. Information flows in a steady stream - with pictures and
video to accompany it.
But it is so ubiquitous, so easy to access, and relatively easy to
contribute to, it becomes more and more difficult to know what to
believe, what to question and what to reject. There is no easy
solution. On the other hand, when one wants to contribute that is
not easy either; sure you can post information, but who pays
attention to it - and for those paying attention, which to access?
Television, being an expensive visual media, is reduced to rapid
sound bite information heavily dependent upon availability of the
visual. And since Blog s\Sites are so easy to create, anyone can
create one and say what they please. But is slant any less prevalent
in the realm of professional media? In fact many Blog Sites are now
professional. But professional media in our culture has a special
role to play and is expected to be impartial, and critically impartial. Is
it? That is questionable, as mediaists have their own agenda, and
often pursue it despite more noble expectations.
So what to do? Think. But to think coherently one must have a
broad base of knowledge and that takes time and effort. I have
expended much time and effort in this regard, as I have time to
pursue it; I recognize that not all do, nor are they so motivated. I
have found that the best way to accumulate knowledge is to read
widely, not of the emotions of the moment, but through the writings
of those who h ave experienced. And they are always true? Of
course not; that's why wider reading is essential. The more one
reads the more has that with which to compare, and compare we
must; only then can one think on one's own and reach conclusions.
They not be truth either, but they have a better chance of being, if one
is open minded and wants to come as close as possible.
This Website is almost a stream of consciousness, only
minimally edited, and thus, as I have said elsewhere within it,
chaotic. So be it; that's what I do. There is redundancy because I
keep coming back to favorite texts - because they are believable and
insightful, in my opinion. This results in many different things: long
pages with many words, some additional pages to keep them from
being so long, and new pages. This is a new page in which I want
to explore and relate what I see as reality, and why. So much of
what we hear and see doesn't pass the reality test, particularly as it
relates to different countries and cultures, and our relationships with
them. When I am exposed to what seems real, and what fits with
my experience as real, I want to share it - or at least post it so it can
be shared. I shall see what I can find to begin, and then go from
there.
My Realities
The first rule of reality is self interest, or as has
been said so often, if you don't take care of yourself
you cannot expect others to do so. Unfortunately
many people seem to be thinking that they will, and
they are the government. I consider that unrealistic.
The second rule is really an extension of the first:
the purpose of government is self interest - national
self interest, including primarily security.
Governments will usually work in the self interest of
the nation they represent (The United States seems
to be the most famous exception - at least part of the
time; much of the rest of the time it doesn't seem to
know what its self interest is). This is why I favor
reports from the company STRATFOR that examines
and explains geopolitics in terms of what self
interest for any nation is.
Most of the lack of realism in our country, in my
opinion, stems from a lack of understanding or
appreciation of these two rules - thus my continual
lament about ignorance (which I prefer to stupidity,
until proven otherwise - which happens often
enough) and fantasy. Perhaps they are the same; I
suggest that most fantasy stems from deliberate
ignorance. People want to believe what they want to
believe, and often that is not realistic.
What do they want to believe? Here is the true
irony: they want to believe what is good and
convenient for them, that people are basically good
(by their definition), that all want to live without stress
and tension, and for the most part all people of the
world are pretty much the same, that is, just like us.
It is not so because cultural mores, experiences,
knowledge and geopolitical realities are just not the
same everywhere, and people just do not see things
from our points of view. But, and here is the second
irony, a large number of us, most perhaps, avoid
learning the dark realities that exist in the world.
Below I will produce some quoted examples; for the
most part they just don't want to bother.
I think fantasy is so prevalent because it feels
good and doesn't take much effort. Reality hurts
when we are forced to face it, so we don't face it.
Fantasy is the favorite alternative. Even the reality of
boorish "heros" is part of fantasy. Fantasy can take
over lives, and does. Just don't think about the
unpleasantness in the world - and enjoy the world of
fantasy - so easy.
Unfortunately, when life is personally bad it can
be difficult to hide in canned fantasy, so we do the
best we can and try to deflect responsibility. I think
the ultimate head in the sand is to always look to
someone else to blame - and to accept
responsibility - for us. We seem to be doing this
more and more, and the results, although obvious,
continue to be deflected by decent into fantasy.
I have a third rule of reality: one has to live within his
means, individual or corporate, including
government.
The first rule of reality is self interest, or as has
been said so often, if you don't take care of yourself
you cannot expect others to do so. Unfortunately
many people seem to be thinking that they will, and
they are the government. I consider that unrealistic.
The second rule is really an extension of the first:
the purpose of government is self interest - national
self interest, including primarily security.
Governments will usually work in the self interest of
the nation they represent (The United States seems
to be the most famous exception - at least part of the
time; much of the rest of the time it doesn't seem to
know what its self interest is). This is why I favor
reports from the company STRATFOR that examines
and explains geopolitics in terms of what self
interest for any nation is.
Most of the lack of realism in our country, in my
opinion, stems from a lack of understanding or
appreciation of these two rules - thus my continual
lament about ignorance (which I prefer to stupidity,
until proven otherwise - which happens often
enough) and fantasy. Perhaps they are the same; I
suggest that most fantasy stems from deliberate
ignorance. People want to believe what they want to
believe, and often that is not realistic.
What do they want to believe? Here is the true
irony: they want to believe what is good and
convenient for them, that people are basically good
(by their definition), that all want to live without stress
and tension, and for the most part all people of the
world are pretty much the same, that is, just like us.
It is not so because cultural mores, experiences,
knowledge and geopolitical realities are just not the
same everywhere, and people just do not see things
from our points of view. But, and here is the second
irony, a large number of us, most perhaps, avoid
learning the dark realities that exist in the world.
Below I will produce some quoted examples; for the
most part they just don't want to bother.
I think fantasy is so prevalent because it feels
good and doesn't take much effort. Reality hurts
when we are forced to face it, so we don't face it.
Fantasy is the favorite alternative. Even the reality of
boorish "heros" is part of fantasy. Fantasy can take
over lives, and does. Just don't think about the
unpleasantness in the world - and enjoy the world of
fantasy - so easy.
Unfortunately, when life is personally bad it can
be difficult to hide in canned fantasy, so we do the
best we can and try to deflect responsibility. I think
the ultimate head in the sand is to always look to
someone else to blame - and to accept
responsibility - for us. We seem to be doing this
more and more, and the results, although obvious,
continue to be deflected by decent into fantasy.
I have a third rule of reality: one has to live within his
means, individual or corporate, including
government.
Human Nature - Talking
The most consistent indicator of reality is human nature, a term many social
scientists (surprise, surprise) no longer use, since they reject human nature out
of hand - there is no such thing. There is, and any glance into history shows
how ubiquitous it is; humans in many ways have not changed much since one
or another version of the ten commandments came into being.
Corruption is one example of human nature in action: humans tend to
succumb to temptation. Or as the popular saying goes, everyone has their price.
That is likely not true, as are many other generalizations we ascribe to the nature
of humans. So what we ascribe to it is generality - trends. Corruption needs no
more discussion here.
Another nature, however, is useful to our discussion; people like to talk, to
hear themselves pontificate, whether they know what they are talking about or
not. Much of talking without really knowing underlying facts is emotional, but
when people talk they practice the message and it only improves - that is,
becomes more entrenched, with practice. They also like to complain, again
often without really understanding what might be involved in that about which
they are complaining; it is enough that they are inconvenienced, irritated or put
out, and they will let you know what they think about it.
Expand that to professionals - mediaists of the traditional type, but also
bloggers of the new model. They write and talk because it is their place
(professional or of choice) to do so, and so talk they must, even if there is not
much to talk about. A quick glance at the newspaper, magazines, television or
Internet shows clearly how they feed off each other, each picking up from another
and giving their take on it - their opinion, opinions being another nature of
people; all have them, sometimes a number on a single subject. The
professionals also feed on their messages, becoming surer and surer that they
are right with each iteration - buying into their own hype. Maintaining an open
mind, listening - and thinking - are not part of human nature, in fact being quite
rare.
Professor Bryon Kaplan of George Mason University in Virginia offers an
interesting insight into part of what I am calling human nature that he calls myths
ascribed to the rational voter. These he lists as, Antimarket bias, antiforeign
bias, make-work bias and pessimistic bias. I have referred to them elsewhere,
so will not elaborate again, but my favorite is the last; it states that people always
think things are worse than they are - and are willing to believe the worst,
particularly if it is consistent with their already existing beliefs or inclinations, as it
applies to them, that is*). This leads into propaganda, an art that has been
honed to perfection in that its practitioners know all about human nature, and
use it to their advantage. Advertisements are propaganda, and advertisers are
hired to support politicians, with known results; propaganda is particularly
effective in sound bite form, without much background detail, making it a perfect
fit with television.
Obviously the less one knows the more he is likely to believe what is being
spewed forth and often things totally untrue are generally accepted and believed,
even in the face of subsequent facts to the contrary. This fits nicely with the
ignorance that reigns throughout most of our culture, making much that is wrong
an accepted part of our reality, prompting an interesting oxymoron: fantasy is
often more of our reality than facts; and perception is everything.
*when it applies to others we just send money and then feel better about it.
The most consistent indicator of reality is human nature, a term many social
scientists (surprise, surprise) no longer use, since they reject human nature out
of hand - there is no such thing. There is, and any glance into history shows
how ubiquitous it is; humans in many ways have not changed much since one
or another version of the ten commandments came into being.
Corruption is one example of human nature in action: humans tend to
succumb to temptation. Or as the popular saying goes, everyone has their price.
That is likely not true, as are many other generalizations we ascribe to the nature
of humans. So what we ascribe to it is generality - trends. Corruption needs no
more discussion here.
Another nature, however, is useful to our discussion; people like to talk, to
hear themselves pontificate, whether they know what they are talking about or
not. Much of talking without really knowing underlying facts is emotional, but
when people talk they practice the message and it only improves - that is,
becomes more entrenched, with practice. They also like to complain, again
often without really understanding what might be involved in that about which
they are complaining; it is enough that they are inconvenienced, irritated or put
out, and they will let you know what they think about it.
Expand that to professionals - mediaists of the traditional type, but also
bloggers of the new model. They write and talk because it is their place
(professional or of choice) to do so, and so talk they must, even if there is not
much to talk about. A quick glance at the newspaper, magazines, television or
Internet shows clearly how they feed off each other, each picking up from another
and giving their take on it - their opinion, opinions being another nature of
people; all have them, sometimes a number on a single subject. The
professionals also feed on their messages, becoming surer and surer that they
are right with each iteration - buying into their own hype. Maintaining an open
mind, listening - and thinking - are not part of human nature, in fact being quite
rare.
Professor Bryon Kaplan of George Mason University in Virginia offers an
interesting insight into part of what I am calling human nature that he calls myths
ascribed to the rational voter. These he lists as, Antimarket bias, antiforeign
bias, make-work bias and pessimistic bias. I have referred to them elsewhere,
so will not elaborate again, but my favorite is the last; it states that people always
think things are worse than they are - and are willing to believe the worst,
particularly if it is consistent with their already existing beliefs or inclinations, as it
applies to them, that is*). This leads into propaganda, an art that has been
honed to perfection in that its practitioners know all about human nature, and
use it to their advantage. Advertisements are propaganda, and advertisers are
hired to support politicians, with known results; propaganda is particularly
effective in sound bite form, without much background detail, making it a perfect
fit with television.
Obviously the less one knows the more he is likely to believe what is being
spewed forth and often things totally untrue are generally accepted and believed,
even in the face of subsequent facts to the contrary. This fits nicely with the
ignorance that reigns throughout most of our culture, making much that is wrong
an accepted part of our reality, prompting an interesting oxymoron: fantasy is
often more of our reality than facts; and perception is everything.
*when it applies to others we just send money and then feel better about it.
Getting More Specific
A related reality - probably
arguable - is that the
tremendous proliferation of
advisors at the upper reaches of
government; lobbyists as well
as staff, congress and cabinet
departments; makes the flow of
information murky at best,
particularly for an administration
not known for experience and
knowledge.
But more than one sage
has pointed to the careerism of
the various advisors, including
NGOs that obfuscates event hat
questionable knowledge. The
reality? What the government
and its officials do not know or
understand - or accept - is
legion.
This extends the influence
of fantasy far beyond the
individual level, only to be
exacerbated by an inside the
beltway mentality. Without a
doubt our leaders are guilty of
their own brand of fantasy, often
self generated and ego driven;
they definitely succumb to
believing their own hype.
A related reality - probably
arguable - is that the
tremendous proliferation of
advisors at the upper reaches of
government; lobbyists as well
as staff, congress and cabinet
departments; makes the flow of
information murky at best,
particularly for an administration
not known for experience and
knowledge.
But more than one sage
has pointed to the careerism of
the various advisors, including
NGOs that obfuscates event hat
questionable knowledge. The
reality? What the government
and its officials do not know or
understand - or accept - is
legion.
This extends the influence
of fantasy far beyond the
individual level, only to be
exacerbated by an inside the
beltway mentality. Without a
doubt our leaders are guilty of
their own brand of fantasy, often
self generated and ego driven;
they definitely succumb to
believing their own hype.
Robert D. Kaplan
The Coming Anarchy
The Coming Anarchy
- Quoting Henry Kissinger from A World
Restored
- "Disorder is worse than injustice."
"Obviously great injustice is worse
than a little disorder."
Nothing is more dangerous than
people convinced of their own
moral superiority. (paraphrased)
A true conservative is in fact a
hesitant progressive: he or she
seeks to slow change when
society is reforming too fast and to
instigate moderate change when
society is not reforming at all
(paraphrased)
- The dangers inherent in fast social
transformation are so great that
demands for universal justice are
ill informed (paraphrased)
- "Realism is in part the ability to see the
truth behind moral pretensions."
- "Our much-vaunted foreign-policy idealism
is mainly confined to the media and
academia, and particularly to the
intellectual journals of opinion."
- "Realists almost always run foreign policy;
idealists, i have found, attend academic
conferences and write books and articles
from the sidelines."
- "Robert Musil, the Austrian writer, defined
realism in The Man Without Qualities, his
seminal 20th century novel, as a political
sensibility driven by needs rather than by
ideas."
- "Realism is thus about deftly playing the
hand that is dealt you.
- "Americans champion idealism while
employing realists, perhaps because we
need to have a high opinion of ourselves
while pursuing our own interests."
- "So many students who gravitate to
political science and journalism these
days tend to come from well-off
backgrounds and hold idealistic views -
as opposed to other young people I have
encountered at universities and in the
corporate world, from harsher
backgrounds, who are unashamed about
just wanting to 'make money.' It is
ironically the latter - those with no interests
in political science but who have been
conditioned as realists - who may be
better equipped psychologically to
comprehend the situation in many
troubled places in the world."
"Chances are that , for the foreseeable future, our Presidents
will have to operate within a nearly evenly divided electorate,
with political debate driven by hard and vocal (and
disproportionately influntial) ideological minorities, soft silent
majorities, weak and fractious parties, and hostile,
irresponsible mass media."
Wilfred M. McClay, Observations ("Nixon's Fate, and Ours"),
Commentary Magazine, February 2008.
"In spite of the constitutional power of the U.S. president in
foreign policy, in most cases, the president really doesn't
have a choice. Policies have institutionalized themselves
over the decades, and shifting those policies has costs that
presidents can't absorb. There is a reason the United States
behaves as it does toward Russia, China and Europe and
these reasons usually are powerful. Presidents do not
simply make policy. Rather, they align themselves with
existing reality...The United States does not simply decide on
policies. It responds to a world that is setting America's
agenda...Presidents are not to be judged by how they make
history. They are to be judged by how gracefully they submit
to t he rules that history lays down."
George Friedman, "Foreign Policy and the President's
Irrelevance", Strategic Forecasting Report, February 2, 2008.
will have to operate within a nearly evenly divided electorate,
with political debate driven by hard and vocal (and
disproportionately influntial) ideological minorities, soft silent
majorities, weak and fractious parties, and hostile,
irresponsible mass media."
Wilfred M. McClay, Observations ("Nixon's Fate, and Ours"),
Commentary Magazine, February 2008.
"In spite of the constitutional power of the U.S. president in
foreign policy, in most cases, the president really doesn't
have a choice. Policies have institutionalized themselves
over the decades, and shifting those policies has costs that
presidents can't absorb. There is a reason the United States
behaves as it does toward Russia, China and Europe and
these reasons usually are powerful. Presidents do not
simply make policy. Rather, they align themselves with
existing reality...The United States does not simply decide on
policies. It responds to a world that is setting America's
agenda...Presidents are not to be judged by how they make
history. They are to be judged by how gracefully they submit
to t he rules that history lays down."
George Friedman, "Foreign Policy and the President's
Irrelevance", Strategic Forecasting Report, February 2, 2008.
| Power The struggle for primacy - for power; among people, families, tribes and nations is a consistent fact of history; it is not likely to suddenly disappear, and those who think it will ignore reality. Alas, there are many, and they live in an emotional, ideological world of ignorant and naive fantasy. |
Bishop John Butler, Bishop of Durham, quoted by Isiah Berlin to begin
his introduction to Karl Marx: "Things and actions are as they are, and
the consequences of them will be what they will be: why then should we
desire to be deceived?"
his introduction to Karl Marx: "Things and actions are as they are, and
the consequences of them will be what they will be: why then should we
desire to be deceived?"