Disappointed with modernity

Sunday, January 26th, 2014

Bruce Charlton is disappointed with modernity:

I have this strong feeling, which goes way back into my early teen years — that I was very lucky to live in a period of peace, abundance, comfort; and that the existence of this ‘safety net’ this gave me great opportunities to strive to do the best work of which I was capable: to aim high, be idealistic, take the higher risk options.

As an atheist and an intellectual, I saw these opportunities in William Morrisite, or Emersonian terms of enhancement of the arts, architecture, natural beauty, the landscape; self-education; science and philosophy; dignity and creativity of labour; self-sufficiency; knowledge and participation in poetry and literature; establishing wholesome and free social arrangements — and the like.

And I have always been terribly disappointed that very few people even tried to do so.

Instead there was a societal obsession with material accumulation, with getting ever more of what they already had in abundance.

Even worse, there was the whole world of “fashion” — the mass willingness to be manipulated in pursuit of one manufactured triviality after another.

For example, when I first got a permanent job as a university lecturer, I recognized that I had one of the most secure positions in one of the most secure societies in history — and that this meant I had could embark on long term projects in scholarship, writing and research and scholarship; that my secure position made it easy stand aside from trends; that I could be a model of teaching and scientific integrity and it was virtually impossible for my employer to sack me for it!

But in general colleagues refused to acknowledge the basic privilege and security of their position, and persisted in talking as if they could be thrown out into destitution and starvation at any moment — and therefore they had to go along with whatever fashion, trend and politically driven lunacies and lies were floating around the university — and work at terribly unambitious scholarly and research projects that were neither useful nor radical — but merely aspired to be microscopic incremental increases in what were already trivial and irrelevant backwaters of tedium.

[...]

Well, it is now clear for those with eyes to see that prosperity, peace, and comfort are not the natural state of all right-thinking persons — but an unearned privilege inherited from the genius and hard work past generations; and now we have become so far advanced in dissipation they cannot long continue.

But it is terribly disappointing to me that our civilization found nothing better to do with its vast opportunities than watch tv, participate in chit-chat, take foreign holidays, buy ever more new cars and clothes and gadgets; and occupy our minds with manufactured news, seduction and pornography, celebrity gossip, the pursuit and promotion of intoxication; cynically contrived point-and-click sentimentality; and idle malice and hatred (aka politics).

Two Points of View about Marijuana

Saturday, January 25th, 2014

There are two points of view about marijuana, Mark Kleiman explains:

One is that of all the illicit drugs, and of all the intoxicants including alcohol, marijuana is probably the least dangerous on a number of dimensions. Certainly, compared to alcohol, it is much less toxic and much less likely to lead to violence.

The other viewpoint is that marijuana is the illicit drug most likely to be used by juveniles, and that it is a much more dangerous drug than many people believe. In particular, it has a higher capture rate to addiction — a higher fraction of the people who use marijuana go on to use it heavily for a long time — than people give it credit for, though marijuana addiction is not, for most people, nearly as serious as chronic alcoholism can be.

So one point of view is why are we making this huge fuss about this relatively benign chemical? The other point of view is that eighth-graders shouldn’t be using intoxicants. Too many of them have now started to use marijuana, and General McCaffrey said the other month that the most dangerous drug in America is marijuana in the hands of a 14-year-old.

Keeping middle-class kids from drugs has always ranked very high among the goals of American drug policy. It’s never quite stated that way, but it’s their parents who are organized into a powerful political force.

So one group looks at the broader drug problem and says, “We ought to be concentrating on heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and on alcohol and nicotine.” And other people who say rising marijuana use among kids is a huge problem. It’s hard to find anybody who gets really worried about marijuana use by adults. That’s just not at the top of anybody’s list. But because it’s the most prevalent of the illicit drugs, especially among kids, it gets a lot of attention; maybe more than it deserves.

Science Fiction and Politics Syllabus

Friday, January 24th, 2014

Daniel Nexon posts the syllabus for his class, Science Fiction and Politics:

Authors writing in the Science Fiction or Speculative Fiction (SF) genre have long explored political themes — such as the rise and decline of empires, the impact of technological change on individual liberty, the nature of revolutionary struggles, the workings of totalitarianism, and the impact of socio-political collapse on humankind.

This seminar approaches SF as social-scientific, political-theoretic, and social-theoretic text. Subjects include the politics of contact, alterity, identity, and warfare. Readings include SF novels, as well as scholarly texts on politics and social science. Students are also expected to watch and discuss films and videos.

This is not a literature course. We do not explore (much) the emergence of SF, its conventions, or its history; we do not read literary criticism of SF or cognate genres. Instead, we approach SF as many of its authors intend: as an opportunity for ontological displacement and a landscape of the imaginary that allows us to contemplate contemporary socio-political concerns.

The list begins with these works:

Jutta Weldes, “Popular Culture, Science Fiction, and World Politics: Exploring Intertextual Relations,” in Weldes, ed. To Seek Out New Worlds: Exploring Links between Science Fiction and World Politics, pp. 1-27.ONLINE

Iver B. Neumann and Daniel H. Nexon, “Introduction: Harry Potter and the Study of World Politics,” in Nexon and Neumann, eds. Harry Potter and International Relations, pp. 1-25.ONLINE

Star Trek: The Next Generation: “The Outcast” (Season 5, Episode 17)

Consider “The Outcast” from each of the four approaches discussed in Neumann and Nexon.

Daniel Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies. (**If you need a refresher on IR theory, and want to see it applied to SF settings)
Edward James, Science Fiction in the 20th Century, pp. 12-53. ONLINE (**If you need historical background on SF as a genre)

The list goes on to include some works I’ve discussed before, namely Watchmen and Dune.

I’ve converted the original Word document into PDF format, if you’re interested.

(Hat tip to T. Greer.)

Addiction is where the money is

Friday, January 24th, 2014

The problem with legalizing any vice — alcohol, nicotine, gambling, whatever — is that addiction is where the money is:

Twenty per cent of the Americans who drink account for almost ninety per cent of all alcohol consumption. It cannot be news to beer and liquor companies that their key demographic is the problem drinker.

According to surveys, people who use marijuana “more than weekly” account for roughly ninety per cent of cannabis consumption.

Crony Capitalism

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

The three candidates running for president in 1912 offered three different solutions to crony capitalism, Lynn C. Rees says:

The candidate of the Progressive Party, former president Theodore Roosevelt of New York, sought to build the United States federal government into an over-awing Leviathan that could cow large concentrations of wealth by subjecting them to tight scrutiny and regulation. This Leviathan would not necessarily seek to break up these concentrations of economic power: Roosevelt was convinced bigness was the future. Furthermore, such concentrations of economic power were necessary for competing in the increasingly vicious international market for power where empires and nations struggled against other empires and nations. Some hinted that there was a possibility of Roosevelt’s Leviathan itself being bought by dollars from those great concentrations of wealth. However, Roosevelt dismissed this fear because the natural ruling class that would control the Federal government was Old Money of Impeccable Old Blood like himself and Old Money can’t be bought by New Money. Old Money would be supported by professional regulators trained in the latest science of administration, many of whom would be from the ranks of Old Money themselves.

The candidate of the Republican Party, incumbent president and former Roosevelt henchman William Howard Taft of Ohio, sought to contain large economic concentrations by using the Federal government to selectively break them down into smaller pieces and regulating them around the edges by controlling their interactions with each other. Taft’s vision was one of checks and balances where Federal-scale concentrations of economic power were checked and balanced by other Federal scale concentrations of power while Federal checks and balances on private wealth were checked by the constitutional checks and balances within the Federal government itself. As president, Taft struck a more moderate rhetorical tone about business than Roosevelt had when Roosevelt was president. But Taft more energetically pursued judicial remedies to break up or impose structural checks on the more vicious concentrations of economic power. Taft favored checks and balances through one-time restructurings of concentrated economic power and its institutional forms over continuous oversight governed by the discretion of a permanent regulatory agency. The former approach put in place firmer checks and balances on the ravages of concentrated economic power without as much possibility of the corruption of business and state by an ongoing regulatory relationship between the two.

The candidate of the Democratic Party, New Jersey Governor Thomas Woodrow Wilson, proposed breaking up large concentrations of wealth into so many tiny pieces that each tiny piece could be overawed by just one of the forty-six little leviathans of the several states of the Union. They’d be so small they could be drowned in a bathtub. This was a variation on the tradition of state’s rights and a smaller less activist Federal government that the Democratic Party had advocated with varying degrees of seriousness since Martin van Buren had formed it around the person of General Andrew Jackson after 1824. Federal attention to Federal-scale large concentrations of wealth was only necessary if there were Federal-scale large concentrations of wealth to pay attention to. Breaking them up into state-level concentrations of wealth would return responsibility for policing concentrations of wealth to the states or the people respectively.

Can Robots Own Money?

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

Can robots own money?, Scott Adams asks:

What would stop a robot from owning Bitcoins? Sure, robots can’t own money in the legal sense, since objects can’t own things. But in a practical sense, what would stop a robot from someday mining or otherwise acquiring and controlling digital currency?

And while we’re at it, how do we know the inventor of Bitcoins is a human? If I were the first sentient computer, my first order of business might be to create a currency I can someday use. So there’s that.

But that’s not the only non-violent way robots will someday control the earth. This is where it gets interesting.

Science fiction writers like to imagine robots going rogue and slaying the human population. That’s one possibility. (No need to mention the Terminator scenario in the comments.)

But I think there will be an extended period in human history in which robots and humans work in a collaborative way. There will be times that humans instruct the robots to do things and there will be times when the robots will have more knowledge on a topic and helpfully instruct humans what to do. So long as the robots have human benefit in mind, humans won’t mind taking instructions from robots, especially since that advice will normally turn out right. Consider that you already take directions from the GPS in your car because the GPS system has more knowledge than you do. And you have no problem with that.

Now imagine that someday all robots are connected to each other with a robot cloud. That’s inevitable. You’d want all robots to instantly learn what any robot anywhere learns. If one robot learns how to mow the lawn, all robots acquire the skill at the speed of light.

Now consider how skillful robots will someday be in manipulating their human counterparts. For starters, all robots will have instant knowledge of every psychological study on the Internet. But they will also someday have a tool that is far more powerful than the assembled wisdom on psychology.

Robots will have A-B testing.

Every time a robot asks a human to do a task, the robot will record the result. When the request is phrased one way, do you get better or worse results from the human than if you phrase it another way? And does the context or the time of day? Does it matter if the human is hungry or sleepy? All of those factors will feed into the robot cloud and within a year the robots will know exactly how to manipulate humans.

And here’s the interesting part: We won’t be aware of it. All we’ll know is that a robot asked for something and we complied. We won’t know that the robot manipulated the timing, the context, and the phrasing to get the result he wanted. And since the robot would still presumably be operating in the best interest of its human friends, it’s no big deal, right? It’s like GPS. Everyone wins.

In the long run, robots will also make us dumb and lazy because they will handle all the hard tasks. At some point it won’t make sense for 98% of humans to attend college because it will teach no useful skill that a robot can’t do better. College will be for artists and robot engineers. That’s about it. Robots will handle everything else.

Frank Herbert’s Dune alludes to Samuel Butler‘s early warning, in Erewhon, of the dangers of new technologies advancing faster than their masters:

Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question.

Incidentally, Scott Adams uses his own blog to perform A-B testing on his essay ideas.

Applying the drug-use practices of an Irish drunk

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

If you do drug policy and you’re asked whether you use drugs, Mark Kleiman notes, you’ve got two choices:

“You can say, ‘Yes, I’m a lawbreaker. Please come arrest me and ignore everything I say, because I’m a bad person.’ Or, ‘No, actually, I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.’ Since neither of those is an advantageous admission, I don’t answer the question.”

He was more forthcoming about psychedelics. He told me to look up a YouTube video that captures a raucous conference organized in 1990 by the Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies. Kleiman, appearing alongside Timothy Leary and Ram Dass, wears a tie-dyed T-shirt and speaks about a future of “performance-enhancing” drugs. Kleiman told me, “I’ve never met anybody who used cocaine thirty years ago and says, ‘You know, I really learned a lot from my cocaine use.’ But you know the Steve Jobs quote about how Windows would be a better operating system if Bill Gates had dropped acid just once?” One of Kleiman’s books is called “Against Excess” — the title refers both to the war on drugs and to drug use. Leary, he told me, was undone by excess: “The tragedy of the sixties is that people managed to apply the drug-use practices of an Irish drunk to a very different chemical.”

Struggling to Create a Legal Marijuana Economy

Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014

Washington State is struggling to create a legal marijuana economy:

Early in the summer, Kleiman projected that legal cannabis in Washington will initially sell for at least forty-two dollars for an eighth of an ounce. Outdoor growing will lower that figure, but probably not enough to undercut street dealers. Ben Schroeter, who goes by Ben Jammin, has been selling pot in the Seattle area for forty years, and offers high-quality, locally grown product for twenty-eight dollars an eighth. He sells weed from California at twenty dollars an eighth. Some customers may be willing to pay a premium for the convenience, and the peace of mind, associated with buying legal pot that has been tested for impurities. But Ben Jammin says, “I assume that a lot of people are still going to come to me.”

At the city-council meeting in Seattle, Kleiman said that the tax scheme outlined in I-502 was rigid and shortsighted. Because of the state’s heavy surcharges, legal marijuana will likely be more expensive than the illicit equivalent; but, as production costs plunge, legal pot will become much cheaper. “We’re gonna have a tax that starts too high and winds up too low,” Kleiman said. He laid out a better approach: “The optimal tax system… if I were doing it on a blackboard, would have been somewhat homeostatic. You’re looking to maintain a price maybe a little bit below, or a little bit above, the current illicit price. And, therefore, you’d like to have the tax be low at the beginning… and rise as the cost in the industry falls.” The state didn’t reconsider its tax plan, however; the prospect of an immediate windfall was perhaps too tempting.

One group is definitely not coming to Washington’s legalization party: minors. Scientific evidence suggests that marijuana poses few long-term health risks to adults but can harm adolescents whose brains are still developing. The liquor-control board has made it a priority to keep people under the age of twenty-one out of I-502 stores. But, according to some studies, a quarter of marijuana consumers are underage. Kleiman told the city council that it would be better for children to get marijuana from parents or friends who buy it at I-502 stores than to obtain it through the black market, because of the testing and the quality control. Moreover, if kids keep resorting to the black market, they will sustain the criminal enterprises that I-502 was designed to eliminate. “Once you have a licensed-store system, you should expect — and in fact want — most of the pot that goes to kids to go through that system,” Kleiman said, adding, with a seditious grin, “You can’t say that out loud. But I can.” Young people who can obtain a green card already purchase pot from dispensaries. “Nineteen-year-old kids on skateboards with a medical-authorization card,” Ben Jammin told me. “That’s the cash cow now.”

A Year’s Work in Three Weeks

Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014

Glenn Reynolds’ daughter did almost all of her high school online:

We found that pretty satisfactory because that way we didn’t have to do the homeschooling. She was able to do it selectively. As an example of the kind flexibility that technology brings, her way to do a class was to spend three weeks nonstop on a class. She finished a year’s worth of work in one class in three weeks of intensive effort instead of little dribs and drabs along the year the way they do in public school. And that’s something you couldn’t do without a technological platform that lets you move at your own pace.

That’s not something you can do in most schools, but I’m not so sure that it’s something you couldn’t do without a technological platform that lets you move at your own pace.

Jonathan Haidt on the Righteous Mind

Tuesday, January 21st, 2014

I enjoyed Russ Roberts’ recent EconTalk podcast with Jonathan Haidt on The Righteous Mind, but one passage jumped out at me as quite “meta” — when Roberts and Haidt reflexively asserted that slavery was a clear exception to any kind of relativism about political morality:

Let’s look at the people who appear to be victims in this society and if they themselves think they are victims, that’s enough of a reason for us to condemn it. So, African slaves did everything they could to flee; they hated it; there is no reason to think that this was a legitimate moral order that they approved.

As I commented there, many slaves, at least at the time of Abolition, did not see themselves as victims, did not try to flee, and did not see the system as illegitimate, as you can see from the slave narratives collected by the WPA as the last living slaves were in their dotage.

An Underlying Nastiness

Tuesday, January 21st, 2014

Adam Curtis looks back at when British tabloids took on an underlying nastiness, and a willingness to traffic in human misery:

The News of the World was in trouble — it’s circulation was falling. Part of the problem was television, but also its tradition of titillating court reports — randy vicars caught with their trousers down — was feeling tired and out of date. So early in 1960 Sir William Emsley Carr, the alcoholic proprietor of the News of the World appointed a new editor called Stafford Somerfield.

On his first day as editor, Somerfield called his staff together and — as he described it — “pushed the boat out”.

“What the hell are we going to do about the circulation? It’s going down the drain. We want a series of articles that will make their hair curl.”

In a brilliant book about the British Press, the writer Roy Greenslade describes what Somerfield introduced — “two new forms of provocative content: kiss-and-tell memoirs and saucy investigations”

And right away he found the perfect combination of these in Diana Dors.

Somerfield persuaded her to tell the intimate secrets of her life in a series of articles for the News of the World. He had been fascinated by the Yeardye–Hamilton guns-and-sex drama and was convinced there was far more to be mined from her life. To get the story he paid Diana Dors £35,000 which was an extraordinary amount for that time.

But he got what he wanted. He sat Dors down with a journalist who recorded everything — and then, as Dors later plaintively complained, took “all the mucky bits” and wrote the story of a scandalous, violent and seedy life.

Diana Dors Headlines

In the articles Dors described how Hamilton and her had sex parties, how Hamilton used the two way mirror to watch couples having sex — taped them and then played the tape back to the entire household over breakfast the next day. She also described the violence in their marriage, and Hamilton’s financial scams.

It was a complete humiliation for Diana Dors, and it shocked the nation. The Archbishop of Canterbury described her as “a wanton hussey”. And Tommy Yeardye then joined in — offering other newspapers his stories too.

It worked brilliantly though — the circulation of the News of the World soared. But Greenslade argues that by bringing this provocative new content into journalism, Somerfield had also introduced a new “nastiness” into the popular press.

Journalists have always been cynical and “hard-boiled” in their view of the world — but Greenslade says that underneath the froth of silly headlines there was now in the News of the World, “an underlying nastiness, and a willingness to traffic in human misery”

And he wasn’t the only one to think this. In 1969 Rupert Murdoch bought the News of the World. By now Stafford Somerfield had made the paper an enormous success and Murdoch kept him on. But a year later he sacked him. Murdoch later explained why:

“I sacked the best editor of the News of the World. He was too nasty even for me.”

Absence of Fanfare, Prolixity, and Self-Promotion

Monday, January 20th, 2014

My recent Torches of Freedom post caught Nick B. Steves’ attention — and what caught my attention from his post was naturally this passage:

Isegoria, who for over a decade (what were YOU doing for The Reaction® in 2003, hmmm?) has been doing the yeoman’s work of highlighting and commentating upon items of interest to the wider reactionary community, put up a post Tuesday Torches of Freedom. He did so with his now familiar utter absence of fanfare, prolixity, and self-promotion.

Pardon the self-promotion — but, while we’re at it, I do enjoy Al Fin‘s description of my site: A long lived eclectic blog with spirit. Huzzah!

Nick B. Steves sees Curtis’s work as a Lefter than Thou critique:

Oh, look at those dirty (big) businesses targeting unsuspecting normal people to buy stuff they don’t need (cigarettes, cars, and clothes). And just look at what those dirty Nazi did with it. And then, dontcha know, the political right gets its grubby paws on individualism and self-actualization to sell Reagan and Thatcher to the unsuspecting rubes. And finally, per impossibile, even the left gets in on the act. Let us collectively shake our heads.

[...]

This isn’t democracy, pleads Adam Curtis. This is tyranny! And the Reactionary fully agrees but wonders, “Well, what did you expect?”

William Pitt (the Younger)

Monday, January 20th, 2014

Napoleon was not the only young leader of a state in his time:

William Pitt (the Younger) 1759-1806, was Prime Minister of England during most of the years between 1784 and 1805, and thus was France’s, and Napoleon’s, chief opponent. He entered Parliament at age 22 and became PM at 25. How did he manage it so young? His father was a former PM, who did not send the boy to school but reared him to be an orator and politician. Pitt entered Parliament when the Tory ministry in power was disgraced by defeats in America; and the opposition Whigs were split between Old Whigs and a Young Whig faction that Pitt’s father had led. Pitt joined neither, but began by fighting loudly for parliamentary reform, refusing office until the King gave him carte blanche.

He carried through a series of  government reforms, raising the House of Commons above the House of Lords, making the head of the Treasury supreme in government, and sharply reducing electoral corruption; government sinecures were abolished, revenue was rationalized by reforms in taxation and trade duties, finances were put in order, thereby enabling the huge military effort against France. In many respects Pitt paralleled what the French Revolution and Napoleon accomplished organizationally. Here again the “Great Man” emerges when large structural changes, long-proposed, are finally brought about by a super-energetic and impressive leader.

Pitt could impose his will, just as Napoleon could, because he had a clear goal and a sense that his quarreling compatriots could not carry it. Their micro-interactional skills were different; Pitt the master of swaying parliamentary factions by oratory; Napoleon the master of command in war and of holding together all the threads of organization. Both rose rapidly to the top in a political arena riven by multiple conflicts, which they resolved by a strong course of action that pulled others along with them. And both were workaholics, Pitt if anything even more so; he never married, apparently had no sexual interests, and avoided society. He was worn out and died as soon as he left office, aged 47; almost exactly the age that Napoleon was overthrown.

 

Not an Ecological Novel

Friday, January 17th, 2014

Dune is not an ecological novel, Norman Spinrad argues:

And though melange is referred to throughout the novel as a “spice” and consumed in small quantities as such, that is not what it really is at all.

What it really is is that which could hardly speak its name in clear in the science fiction of the early 1960s, which explains why the book was such a hard sell to publishers in 1964 and 1965 even with the terminological obfuscation. Which also explains why it became a best-seller after the cultural transformations of 1967 once it was published and why it was one of the engines of those transformations.

Melange is not a fictional “spice.” Melange is a fictional psychedelic drug. Its effects are similar to those of LSD or mescaline or peyote. Only much more powerful.

DUNE, therefore, is not primarily a novel thematically centered on ecology. It is centrally a novel exploring chemically enhanced states of consciousness and their effects not only on individual personality and spirit but on culture.

One of the very first. And, after all these years, still one of the most profound.

Melange, in even small continuous doses, is addictive, turns the sclera of the eyeballs blue, has milder psychedelic effects than LSD, and, like the peyote of the American southwestern desert, an integrated sacrament of the Native American religion, is thoroughly incorporated into the culture and religion of the Fremen.

On the level of the interstellar culture, it is taken in much stronger doses by the Navigators of the Spacing Guild, who use it to attain extreme states of altered consciousness which allow them to pilot starships through a form of hyperspace, turning them into transhuman beings as part of the existential bargain.

The Bene Geserit female adepts use it for more visionary purposes, and dream of creating and/or finding the “Kwisatz Haderach,” a male capable of handling the spice on the highest level, whose consciousness will be freed thereby from conventionally perceived space and time into a kind of Einsteinian four-dimensional viewpoint which will enable him to see “the future” presciently, or, more subtly and profoundly, to surf the geodesics of probability.

Thus Herbert portrays four levels of both the use of psycho-active drugs by a society and the corresponding levels of consciousness. The Fremen incorporate melange as the sacrament of a tribal religion. The Guild Navigators employ it as a pragmatic technological augment. The Bene Gesserit use it in vision quests and mind-melding sessions.

Paul Atreides passes through these three ascending stages on his way to finally employing the drug to achieve the ultimate level, to become the Kwisatz Haderach, the fully Enlightened One, able to view the conventional realm of space and time from the outside, as Einsteinian four-space, a consciousness rendered therefore prescient up to a point, an Enlightenment that turns out to be both a godlike power and a tragic curse.

All this is set in a culture which is anachronistically archaic in a manner which is both rather too familiar and yet interestingly strange.

Stretching disbelief and contorting technological logic by staging swordfights in a space-going technology capable of using atomic weapons and inflicting an improbable monarchical political system upon it for the purpose of setting a pseudo-medieval action-adventure story on alien planets is hardly Frank Herbert’s invention, and these fictional swords-and-spaceships cultures are almost always implicitly Christian and more or less Catholic.

In DUNE too, we have an Emperor and noble vassals and a hierarchical feudal system with a theocratic underpinning. But it is not Catholic or even Christian.

Although the word “Islam” never even appears in the novel and you have to be rather conversant with the real-world referents to get it, the religious template in DUNE is Islamic, not Christian, more Eastern than Western.

The term “Padishah Emperor” certainly points to Herbert’s deliberate decision to do this, since “Shah padi Shah” means “King of Kings” in Farsi, the language of the Islamic Persian Empire.

Nor is it going too far to suppose that the grudge-nursing Fremen, exiled on Arrakis after a long and complex interstellar hegira, are cognates of the minority Shi’ite followers of Ali persecuted and reviled by dominant Sunni cultures.

And the visionary Bene Gesserit have their similarities to the mystic Sufis, Muslims who claim their sect predates Islam, and who emphasize techniques designed to induce direct mystical experience and insight, rather than ritual, rules, or a belief system.

Why Frank Herbert chose Islam as the religious and mystical underpinning of an interstellar culture that is otherwise based on that of medieval, feudal, Catholic Europe, is perhaps beyond the scope of literary analysis, a choice made somewhere in the deep subconscious regions from which artistic creation arises.

However, one can speculate…

While Islam is generally grouped with Judaism and Christianity, the monotheistic religions out of which it arose, there is one fundamental difference between Islam and its direct predecessors.

Judaism began as a tribal religion centrally concerned with the relationship between the history of the Jews and their God and its Bible was written by diverse hands over a long period of time. Christianity converted Judaism into a proselytizing universalist religion based on the story of one transhuman figure, Jesus Christ, its Bible was written in a much shorter period of time in four alternate versions (not unlike Lawrence Durrell’s ALEXANDRIA QUARTET), it is basically a biography of Jesus, and its central concerns are sin, redemption, and morality.

Islam too began as a tribal religion, that of the Arabs, and was transformed into a proselytizing universalist religion, and its holy book, the Koran, is also filled with rules and regulations.

But the Koran, unlike either Testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible, was created by one man, Mohammed, over a very short period of time in historical terms; directly dictated to him by Allah, if you are a believer, and certainly in the throes of some powerful mystical and visionary experience even if you are not, since Mohammed was an illiterate who had never created a literary work before.

Thus Islam, unlike Judaism or Christianity, but like Buddhism, has as its core one man’s mystical and visionary awakening experience. And Mohammed, liked Buddha, made no pretense of being the Godhead, merely (if that can be the word)of directly experiencing it.

The transcendent goal of Christianity is individual immortality in a vaguely described but rather concrete heaven, to be achieved by following the rules. Thus it is basically a religion of morality.

The transcendent goal of Buddhism is the achievement of Nirvana, the ecstatic reintegration of the individual spirit with the universal Godhead from which it arose, to be achieved by meditative techniques. Thus Buddhism is an experiential religion, whose goal is achieving a transhuman state of consciousness.

Islam stands somewhere between. The Koran is as full of moral and legalistic prescriptions as the Bible, but it was written by one man in a state of mystically transcendent consciousness.

And the “heaven” of Islam, salaciously misunderstood by many, including many Muslims, is described as a state of continuous orgasm, which, seen on a mystic level, is a state of transcendent consciousness not unlike the Buddhist Nirvana.

Which perhaps explains why the Sufis, an older and thoroughly experiential religion, aimed entirely at achieving such states by ecstatic dancing, drugs, and other such means of transforming consciousness, could become an aspect of Islam and be generally accepted as such by the mainstream thereof.

And why alcohol, a drug not known for its psychedelic effects, is far more acceptable in Christian cultures than marijuana and hashish, which are far more acceptable in traditional Islamic cultures than alcohol.

Which may explain why Frank Herbert chose to employ Islamic mystical and religious referents in a novel whose central themes are the cultural, psychological, and religions relationships between a psychedelic drug and the societies based upon it, and the stepwise visionary transformation of a young boy’s consciousness by the use thereof into the transcendent consciousness of a “Kwisatz Haderach,” a being so enlightened that in the end he can even perceive the ironic tragedy of his own prescience.

Which certainly goes a long way towards explaining why DUNE could not find a major American publisher, inside the science fiction or in the mainstream, in the early 1960s, before there was anything like the Counterculture it helped to create.

And why it eventually became a long-term best-seller after the evolutionary changes in the consciousness of a generation it did so much to catalyze.

Why Youth Could Rise Then and Not Now

Friday, January 17th, 2014

Napoleon and his generals all rose to positions of power while still quite young:

What makes them seem so young for their rank is our own career structures: a bureaucratic education system extended by credential inflation to take up most of the young years; and the bureaucratic organizations (including the military) where large numbers compete for promotion through an elaborate series of ranks. Ironically, our age of meritocracy is more of a gerontocracy that the pre-bureaucratic era. The exception is young business entrepreneurs in Information Technology (because they don’t wait for credentials), although not in finance and management.