I posted this in a thread on Alexei Panshins wall about the new Heinlein book. Panshin posted his review of Expanded Universe, which Heinlein freaked out about. Heres my post: If I can add a philosophical note here. In several of the post-graduate courses I took, the thought was put forth that after WWII, as the scale of the Nazi madness became known to the world, a lot of philosophers were stunned into asking, how the hell did we stumble into this? and the result was the beginnings of existentialism, particularly in France. Existentialism arrived in the USA where it collided with a growing awareness of eastern philosophies, like zen Buddhism, and the reslt was the beat generation, the bohemians, the flower children, and ultimately the hippies. At the same time, psychology plus behaviorism plus L. Ron Hubbard, plus Mind Dynamics plus General Semantics eventually resulted in the human potential movement -- which was a very existentialist movement. You are the conversation you create about yourself. You are the story you live in. Werner Erhards est training was very much influenced by all of that, so was John Hanleys Lifespring training. (Ive had access to some unpublished memoirs in addition to the published works.) The point of all this is that just like Ayn Rand stopped at the sophomore level of selfishness, Heinleins equation of morality=survival is also a stop at the sophomore level. Whether one respects the human potential movement or not, its influence and impact has been considerable -- because most of the courses spent the first half demonstrating the great personal cost to the self of focusing on survival. The Landmark Forums first day is about how a persons winning formula is actually a trap, because one doesnt get out of it. The Lifespring basic and advanced courses were about how your survival strategies limit you by keeping you in the comfort zone -- and away from the risk zone that actually produces results. Sorry to get pedantic here. The point is that if Heinlein believed that morality is about survival, then he never had any motivation to look beyond that. The above-mentioned courses are about giving up the investment in survival so that taking risks creates the possibilities of greater results. In practice, most of these courses are actually about effective relationships, listening effectively, speaking to be heard, and connecting to others with clean authentic communication. The goal is to empower individuals to contribute to themselves, their families, their communities, their nation, their species, and their planet -- in that order. Yeah, there was a lot of touchy-feely jargon, but in practice the transformation was about scaling up ones perspective to a higher level of being -- a way of being that allows one to recognize an increased ability to make a difference. After the word went out in the late seventies that most of the people responsible for Star Wars had done est, almost everybody in Hollywood rushed to sign up. Now, philosophically speaking, Heinlein almost made the same leap of understanding with Stranger In A Strange Land, but like the cat in that video that misses the target and instead falls flat on the floor -- thats what happens with Stranger. It remains stuck in the morality-survival model. That might have been fine with The Puppet Masters or Starship Troopers, but not in a book thats supposed to be about the next step in human consciousness. Pardon the shift in metaphor, but Stranger is an aspiring souffle that collapses in the end, with the core characters reverting to their untransformed selves. Smith discorporates the bad guys -- ie. justified killing -- and is then revealed to actually be the Archangel Michael. A literary stacked deck of the worst kind. Even worse than and then she woke up because it denies the reader an opportunity to make his/her own choices. And I think this is why Heinlein feels quaint, even dated, to many of todays readers. Its why a reexamination of his work is justified. The underlying subtext of morality=survival is incomplete and unsatisfying to a generation that has grown up in a culture that is learning about contribution to others. The possibilities inherent in transformation, transhumanism, and more -- all those things are undreamt of in Heinleins view of heaven and Earth. This is why I think the above review of Expanded Universe is so insightful -- because it does recognize where Heinlein hit his own ceiling and was unable to break through. And if I were Heinlein, being forced to recognize that horribly uncomfortable truth, Id freak out too. There is much much more than survival. There is more to morality than survival. In my own studies, I came to a somewhat different view. I recognized morality (as it is practiced in this culture) as a set of rules impressed upon us by a higher authority. Ethics, however, was automatically derived from the logic of the system -- ethics are an emergent behavior designed to protect the functioning of the system. Subsequent to that -- having been kicked in the head by life a few times -- I began to recognize just how much those definitions were unworkable because keep us stuck in disagreements and arguments. Theyre too small. Theyre still rooted in the cultural context. We can argue morality until the cows come home, open the fridge, take out a beer, plop themselves down on the couch in their underwear, and tune to the football game. Nothing will be accomplished except a lot of sound and fury and self-righteousness. Thats insufficient, because both morality and ethics are about distinguishing a difference between right and wrong, about drawing a line and making judgments. zen Buddhism is about moving beyond judgment. Its about recognizing that cause and effect are judgments that we make because we arent yet big enough to recognize larger processes. So morality and ethics and discussions of survival are the small game. Is there are larger place to stand? Consider the possibility that what there is, is nothing more than us. All we have is each other. And if we dont learn to get along with each other and our environment, there wont be any of us left. So in my view, we might want to put aside arguments about survival and morality and replace them with a commitment. My personal commitment is to push for a world that works for everyone, with no one and nothing left out. Those are not my own words -- that commitmentment has been floating around the human potential movement for a long time as a higher place to stand. But its a start, until we can see the next mountaintop beyond.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:49:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015