Yay Murray.  You are right on numerous points.  I think the democrat/liberals have been too accepting, trying to keep rise above the rancor.  Meanwhile, the luddites are shouting us down and biting our fingers off (literally).  While I don't like the idea of adopting the tactics used against us, perhaps we must fight fire with fire.  If the stakes are that high, the moral imperative suggests we must do nothing left.

Thanks for your observations -- sounds like a good time at the Rockaways.

The Woodstock Moment

May it be on earth as it was in Woodstock.

August 11, 2009

Woodstock was an aberration!  It wouldn’t have happened but for the fact that …

As the 40^th anniversary of the Woodstock concert festival approaches this month, journalists and others have set out to examine what was unique about the events surrounding the three days of music, mud and love which happened in Bethel, New York – not Woodstock – in August 1969.

Recently, there have been many articles written and dozens of opinions proffered on TV talk shows about what it all meant, now that we presumably have the hindsight of history to enable us to see clearly now what it was really all about.

Speaking of history, we often hear these wise guys and gals who appear on the TV talk shows and write for the Op Ed pages of the New York Times repeat Santayana’s dictum that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.  (See, for example, Woodstock: A Moment of Muddy Grace, Op Ed piece by Jon Pareles, New York Times, Aug 5, 2009).

Perhaps when it comes to Woodstock, though, we might want to repeat it!  If forgetting it helps, then let’s forget all about it!

It’s only two little reasons which prevent us from doing this:  the first is that it’s very hard to forget something when that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.  As Francis Huxley pointed out, it’s like trying to find the hidden treasure on the desert island, which can only be found, you’ve been told, if you do not think of a green monkey while looking.

To understand the second reason we need to understand a little about psychoanalysis.  Analysts talk about how certain events and memories are repressed.  When a traumatic event occurs, the individual may forget all aspects of the experience and, furthermore, forget the act of forgetting itself.  This double-action – forgetting and forgetting that one has forgot – Freud termed repression.

Generally, this process of repression is thought of as acting upon the negative – traumatic, painful experiences which are too painful to allow into normal consciousness.  However, maybe it’s possible that a person can repress the good and enjoyable.  Repress love itself and its manifestations.

Maybe it’s this process which is at play now in the analysis of the Woodstock phenomenon – three days of love and peace where everyone got along just fine in a small temporary city created in the hills of beautiful upstate New York.  There were no reports of violence, burglary, muggings, rape or murder.  No one called the cops “pigs”!

As can be seen from the concert movies and photos of the events, everyone was having a grand time, despite the mud and lack of normal amenities.  People laughed.  Enjoyed the music from some of the finest rock ‘n rollers of the time – Hendrix, The Who, Country Joe, Ten Years After, Richie Havens … the list goes on and on.  Woodstockers sang, enjoyed the recreational drugs of the day, shared food and made love.  Making love in every sense – the non-sexual love – an unquestioning regard , openness and generosity towards the other – as well as making love in the sexual sense.

So, what if it’s the case that The Woodstock event wasn't an aberration at all?  What if the state-of-being-of-the-social-order as evidenced at Woodstock is the normal, default state of things?  And that the other state – the competitive, violent, I’ll-screw-you-before-you-can-screw-me is the aberrant one?  What if the good has been repressed, and the compulsively competitive, dog-eat-dog aberrant behavior has been exalted?

If this were the case, what would be the implications for group analysis?  We would have to re-examine Bion’s conjectures about the “unconscious” dynamics of groups.  Bion’s vision would now be seen in a new light, as a pessimistic view of the hidden violence at play in any group – violence which the group wishes upon itself – as dependency group, pairing group, fight-flight group, and so on.  Freud’s pessimistic voice might also need re-thinking.

What would be the implications for sociology?  For psychology and psychoanalysis?  And, for all those muttering Sunday talk-show mouths spouting off, self-importantly about how Woodstock was just a freak event, an aberration, a chink in the system, a strange singularity?

What would be the implications for philosophy?  Perhaps it shows us that Levinas is correct – that our normal nature as human beings is to love and honor the other.

If this is the case, then why do we have violence in society?  Why have all concerts after Woodstock not been free and love-filled, as Woodstock was?  Why did Altamont happen?  And why the unfortunate Woodstock reunion of 1994 that Jon Pareles tells us about?

Why is it that, today, when I go to a rock concert, it costs enough to feed a family of four for a few days?  And that’s just for a single ticket.  $75 to see Leonard Cohen at the enormous, impersonal Madison Square Garden?  $50 to see Bob Dylan growling his way through a few of his old favorite numbers from yesteryear at Prospect Park, sounding like he’s just woken up after a night of too much whiskey and cigarettes?

Perhaps it’s the violence inherent in the commercialization of the events of Woodstock which have permeated the system.  The effects of the push-to-profits has taken over, in the wider social system as well as in the particular events surrounding concerts.

Of course, performers deserve to be paid.  But when the rock acts of the 60s and their descendants become part of a no-holds-barred profit-at-any-cost milieu then it’s a sign that, for me, the spirit has left the music.  Go to see The Who or the Rolling Stones play at enormous cavernous Shea Stadium, where we view the performers as little dots in the center of the cavernous space?  No thanks.  I’d rather go and see some new band trying out it’s thing at Arlene’s Grocery on the Lower East Side – it’s live, it’s intimate and may bring a surprise, as I enjoy a beer.  Also, it’s not going to cost an arm and a leg!

When I saw The Who at the Isle of Wight Festival in August 1969, around the same time that Woodstock happened, fellow concertgoers from London somewhat derisively talked of how The Who had already sold out – they’re not like they were back in London’s Soho clubs, they said.  Talking of the Isle of Wight Festival, where Bob Dylan played: it was also very cool, friendly peaceful and free-spirited.  Some concertgoers shared food with me, shared their tent with me, and we all had a good time.

Not that the sprit has left entirely – the virtually free concerts at Brooklyn’s Prospect Park still recreate a mini Woodstock event every week of the summer.  You can enjoy the greatest acts for only a few dollars while enjoying some wine and cheese on the lawn, enjoying wafting hints of incense and herbs as one enjoys Burning Spear, and some other great acts – David Byrne, King Sunny Ade, Freshly Ground, and others.

At the Burning Spear concert, I shared my bottle of wine with an African American couple sitting next to me and we all enjoyed the sweet smell of incense and the herb wafting over the crowd, while everyone danced and grooved to the music, the cops included.

Woodstock may have been an aberration of sorts – in that it was the beginnings of a revolution – a revolution of love – love in the sense of acceptance and respect for the other, who in turn reciprocates.

Maybe it’s like that breakthrough moment in therapy – the first realizations of the repressions and the concomitant sloughing off of the chains.  Frequently, these first moments of freedom in therapy remain just that – moments.  Soon the neurotic, maladaptive behavior returns, and things return to how they were before.  But now with a difference, a difference of hope and positive expectation.

Perhaps the Woodstock event was a first try – to show what could be done, what might be achievable in relationships between us.  Perhaps we should remember and recall it with a spirit of reverence of a sort.  A reverence filled with love.  Let’s remember how we could be, and continue to work towards that.  We could even re-think the Lord’s prayer, as R.D. Laing once suggested: When we say “May it be on earth as it is in heaven” we could instead say “May it happen everyday as it did in Woodstock”. 

The term “Woodstock” becomes now a description of a state of mind and a state of being, just like the term “promised land” refers to a state of being-between-us, as Jacques Derrida suggested.

Let’s work then towards rediscovery of the Woodstock state of mind, not the profit-driven naked capitalism which reduces every human need to money, which strives to make a buck at every turn, no matter the human cost, and which now, as Barbara Ehrenreich points out (Is It Now A Crime To Be Poor? , New York Times Op-Ed, August 8, 2009), makes it a crime to be poor in the U.S.A.

Thank you for your thoughts, Murray, about "living philosophy".  "Truth" is certainly a part of a 'living philosophy'.  I should like to make a basic comment on why "philosophy" may have this 'living' aspect perhaps-- it has been said (Plato?) that real "living" in itself is a form of pregnancy- that we give birth to it everyday!

Thinking about 'birthing'-- if we are truly "living" in reality but relying on philosophical terms-- gives this entire subject more meaning and significance in my view.  Therefore, a "living philosophy" is one where new ideas are born, where some kind of  thought producing womb may exist, where a quality of freshness and new identity is present to TRUTH as well.  I also favor Aristotle's idea of "excellence through habit" here as another facit of  "truth" in a "living philosophy".  There must be others...

Murray, you raise many interesting points in your posting.

The topic of ethics in business is certainly a very intriguing one right now - I just read that some of the AIG execs are returning their bonuses today.

I'm not sure about this idea that you can teach people to be ethical once they're adults.

"So ladies and gentlemen, as I've shown you in today's lesson it's not nice to pollute the planet!"

"Oooooh, aaaaaah! Thank goodness he told me otherwise I never would have known!"

There are lots of honest, hardworking people in the world who never had the luxury of philosophy or ethics classes and they seem to do just fine with regards to how they treat others and the environment.

I think that if we haven't figured it out by the time we are adults, well, it doesn't say much about our intelligence. I think parents are the biggest influence on our sense of ethics.

I'm tired of hearing people "be sorry" for what they've done and claim they didn't know or didn't realize how their actions would affect others. With most of these things you don't need to be told it's wrong. Don't do it in the first place!

What Use Is Philosophy?

What use is philosophy?  If we use philosophy to inform some other practice, in everyday life, then is it still philosophy? 

There is a view of philosophy that it consists of discussions and arguments which take place on some intellectual plane that is outside of the concerns of everyday life -- like that it takes place in an ivory tower!

But, clearly the work of many philosophers have been inspired by or have inspired events in  the world.  Aristotle, for example, was an adviser to Alexander the Great.  The art of warfare is certainly not an ivory tower activity -- it is very down-to-earth.  What Alexander did, in bringing Greek culture to many peoples, changed the world for centuries to come.

Hegel's phenomenology may seem at first glance like it's an analysis of how we acquire knowledge.  But reflect on the fact that Hegel has inspired many thinkers whose work has had very practical effects.  The most notable among those is Karl Marx, who invented what he called dialectal materialism, based on Hegel's dialectical methodology.

Should we mention here also Francis Fukuyama, who claimed to be inspired by Marx and Hegel, and in turn inspired a generation of right-wing new-conservatives?

I know of some organizational consultants who consulted to a large, trans-national oil corporation at their London offices over a period of about a week.  The group was led by John Stokes and another fellow, who was a professional jester.  A colleague of mine, Steven Gans, an agile-minded philosopher of wide and varying skills, taught the executives and executives-to-be of this corporation some philosophy each day.  He included some Plato, Nietzsche, Marx and some Levinas.

I asked him what on earth he thought these executives, trained as engineers, and concerned solely with maximizing the profits of the oil company, would do with the thoughts of these various profound thinkers.  Surely he didn’t think that studying philosophy would somehow make them more thoughtful.  Or more ethical.  Surely, they would simply use what they learned as something they could use t promote their agendas.  I have seen TV commercials sponsored by various oil corporations which make them seem like they’re the most wonderful, thoughtful people, concerned with exploring the earth for energy sources in the least destructive way possible, to enable you and me to live our life in an appropriately technological manner, powering our machines, lights, TVs, computers and god-knows-what with the clean electricity they are going to kindly produce for us.  The last thing they would want to do is to contribute needlessly to pollution of our greatest shared resource, the planet.  One doesn’t need to be a communist to share in the knowledge that our planet is our greatest and most important shared resource.  Surely, if one believes in God, then the planet with its diverse, beautifully complex and spectacular aspects must be the ultimate proof of her (or his) existence!  (We could develop this somewhere into another proof of God.  Another time and place, perhaps!)

But he argued  that these people who were the execs in this large and powerful trans-national company were people!  They were human being, with a wife and kids, and tickets to the ball game, etc.  And they didn’t want to foul up the atmosphere, or perform actions that would lead to undesirable or deadly environmental results (remember Bhopal?) and so on.  So, the more they understood philosophy, ethics, and so on the more likely they would be to take these insights into account when engaged in planning, and so the more likely they would be to make “good” decisions.

An optimistic view, perhaps.  But a view many of us would like to believe, in one way or another.  No one wants to think that human beings, including those who have performed bad actions, are beyond change, or beyond redemption.  Except perhaps, come to think of it, for a few right wingers whose views on crime and punishment seem in harmony with those in effect in Victorian England, when the criminals are poor and down on their luck – look at the pernicious effects of the “three strikes law” in California, for example.  Meanwhile these same law and order folk often are prepared to look the other way with a nudge and a wink when the criminals are white-collared, and they have, during their reign of plunder, made donations to the “right” political candidates, supported the “right” religious causes, etc., etc.

We are brought back here, in this case, again to the question of whether people can change for the better.  Let’s hope they can.  Let’s hope that studying the appropriate philosophers does indeed lead to more enlightened leaders at our corporations that help rule the world!

There is a book, “If Aristotle Ran General Motors” (Tom Morris, 1997), which makes a very good argument that executives of corporations such as GM would benefit greatly from the study of philosophers such as Aristotle – and, of course, by inference, execs making better decisions would mean better working conditions for the labor force, and better, more environmentally friendly products for the consumer.  Hey, perhaps if Aristotle had taken over GM when that book was written, it wouldn’t be going cap in hand to Washington today asking for bailout money to prevent it going bankrupt!  What a thought!

Clearly, also, there are many other “uses” of philosophy – it informs (and is informed by) physics, politics, mathematics, religion, military theory and more.  But perhaps, when philosophy moves into being something else – politics, say – then it is no longer philosophy.  It is now politics!

Of what importance are these distinctions?  Or should we dispense with all these distinctions and prejudices about boundaries between different academic subjects – boundaries which have frequently served to lessen academic study, and thoughtful exploration of new frontiers in thinking – the kind of thinking which leads to a better, more ethical and fruitful life for all the planet’s inhabitants – that is, living philosophy.

I never like saying whether I like a movie or not right after seeing it. I like to have some time to digest it and formulate my thoughts. What I think of a movie the day after seeing it, a week after seeing it are nearly always different.

So now that there's all this talk about Obama's inauguration, and I've just heard a woman speak who's supposed to write a poem for the inauguration, I find myself reflecting on the recent election and how I felt when Obama won.

I was surprised at how deeply moved I was. For me it was a mix of emotions including relief that now Bush would go away, pride that America could elect an African-American to be President, and extreme optimism that this would be a new (better) era for America.

This was also the sweet moment before all the negatives start to come in as they are now; Obama's more conservative than what we would like, he's not going after Bush and his torture policy, his plans to boost the economy are not big enough, etc.

I like to think that I don't just go along with the crowd and get swept up in media hype, so I was wondering what other people's thoughts and experiences were on election night and afterwards?

Hi Murray.

Is the questioner asking this question because a concept like democracy encompasses so many things that an attempt to transform it must necessarily entail an attempt to transform material reality?

And is Derrida saying that we must always be striving for change?

Thank you for clarifying.

- Alison

Hi Murray.

I like the new site and look forward to reading your posts and to making contributions.

Wishing you all the best! Let's get this conversation started!

Love, Alison

Hi everyone, I'd like to invite you to contribute something to this ongoing conversation, an ongoing exploration of philosophical matters, issues where we want to discover more truth, because the more truth we find, the better our lives, and the lives of others will be.

It's actually contradictory to talk of "more truth", because how could there be something "more" than truth. If something is true, then there cannot be something more true! However, if we philosophize through a process of asking questions, aksing questions about what interests and concerns us as we go, then we might find ourselves continually moving towards new formulations of the way we see things, our understanding of where things are at, and through ongoing conversation, we find new ways of talking about issues which some (or all) of us find more engaging, and we feel/think that the new formulations are more correct, then we've arrived at a new truth. This would describe the process of philosophizing.

I invite you to join us, and philosophize with us. Let us know what you think about the above, or, simply ask the particpants in this forum a question about something that interests you. In peace, Murray