The following comes as a set of email correspondence between myself and Nicholas Maxwell

___________________________________________________________________
From: Timothy Horgan
Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2014 10:23 AM
To: Maxwell, Nicholas
Subject: RE: Welcome to Friends of Wisdom
Attached: From Economic Growth to Economic Maintenance

Dear Nicholas,

It's a pleasure to be a part of Friends of Wisdom. I'm looking forward to having some meaty discussions with yourself and the other members. I've had a look through those three pages on your website (basic argument; what went wrong; what needs to change).

I must say, I feel there is one thing in need of clarification. If you read my article, The Engineer against the Scientist (http://onandoffthegringotrail.com/uncategorized/the-engineer-against-the-scientist/), you would have seen that my approach to philosophy is to look at human society as a system that can only be kept in good balance. What I gather from your ideas is that you prefer to look at it as something that can undergo an objective and permanent improvement. In my eyes, society always has been and always will be the same stock standard vehicle, exclusively because it has always been comprised of the same animal with the same limitations and same fundamental condition. On the other hand, in the eyes of the Enlightenment philosophers, it had seemed possible to retrofit that car with a greater engine and sleek, streamlined good looks. I suppose I am just curious to know which perspective you agree with. 

In 'My Approach to Philosophy', I say:

[START QUOTE]

My idea with philosophy is to look at humans as limited entities, entities not only restricted by their own conditions, but which are also influenced in their behaviours by the environment they exist within. I suppose this goes against one of the assumptions of modernist philosophy, the belief that humans can just freely better their societies when someone comes up with a good idea. A classic example of modernist philosophy going wrong was the application of Marxism, a system which had not been geared to suitably mesh with the concrete realities of the human condition. Of course with the destruction of hierarchy, the communists no longer had themselves a system from which the application of power could be suitably managed. As depicted in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, the condition in man to want to overcome his environment led to disastrous consequences, for the leaders of the communist parties were let free to naturally exploit their positions in a system that gave them power over everything.

I suppose that in part, my explorations conform to the post-modern outlook, specifically to the idea that no grand narrative can exist. Humans can’t better their condition and objectively progress themselves through application of modernising measures. As humans, we are animals that are built to survive: no more, no less.

[END QUOTE]

Of course, if we embrace this idea, it does not mean that we become powerless to effect change. If anything, it empowers us, for it gives us very real and very practical limitations to our ambitions. It gives us a firm grip on our arguments, because it checks them against the realities of life. With such a grip, we gain a whopping level of confidence, along with the power to put our wit and argument above that of our adversaries. 

The greater the understanding we have of the human condition, the easier it becomes to understand the system of human existence as a whole. We can be afforded higher powers of analysis on a bid to keep the system balanced. We can weigh up the pros and cons of different strategies more easily, and we can recommend changes with a higher degree of confidence.

Above I have attached 'From Economic Growth to Economic Maintenance'. It demonstrates this underlying approach. It explores a large scope of subject matter in an attempt to find some sort of stable basis of reality. I hope you like it.

Another thing too, I have just subscribed to friendsofwisdom-d. Would it be possible to plug this letter into that email discussion list?

Thanks and regards,

Tim Horgan
________________________________________
From: Maxwell, Nicholas <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2014 6:34 PM
To: Timothy Horgan
Subject: RE: Welcome to Friends of Wisdom
 
Dear Tim,
 
              First of all, everyone belonging to the “D” list also belongs to the main one, but not vice versa.
 
              As to your question about improving society, it seems to me undeniable that society can be improved.  Compare English society today with how it was 100 years ago, or 200, or 300 or 1,000.  Think of life in medieval Britain.
 
              Have a look at my “From Knowledge to Wisdom” (1984, or 2nd ed., 2007) or, failing that, a summary of the argument: for example my (2007) From Knowledge to Wisdom: The Need for an Academic Revolution. London Review of Education , 5 (2) 97 - 115.  Aim-oriented rationality, specifically designed to help improve problematic aims, avoids the horrors that have resulted from some past efforts to improve society.
 
                         Best wishes,
 
                                 Nick
Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom
Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/view/people/ANMAX22.date.html
___________________________________________________________
From: Timothy Horgan
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 10:29 AM
To: Maxwell, Nicholas
Subject: RE: Welcome to Friends of Wisdom

Dear Nicholas 

I appreciate your approach of aim-orientated rationality. That's why I'm here to offer you my idea of how we can go about applying it. In your writing, you argue the importance of it, but you give no solid frame of reference from which one can check their arguments against: you give no practical means of how it can be implemented. 

What I am trying to propose is such a frame of reference: the fact that we are animals engaged in a material mode of existence. 

It's like if you take a dog. Is it better off as a wolf of the wild? Is it better off locked indoors all day as a pet? Is there any ultimate criterion we can use to judge this assessment? No. In the dog's world, the only material truths are simple: one, it has to pass on its genes; two, it must maintain its existence on a day-to-day basis.  

As for the peasant in medieval Europe, the same thing applies. There exists no real base of truth we can use to judge a peasant's life. Again, in the peasant's eyes, only two material truths exist: one, he must pass on his genes; two, he must maintain his existence on a day-to-day basis.

My writing was initially motivated by my travels in the developing world. In the Andean nations and in Morocco, I came into contact with legitimate agrarian peasants. They were poor, but that was only because they weren't living within our industrialised society. Instead, they were living the life nature had designed them to live, as wolfs in the wild. On several occasions, I had locals caught in the vortex of development, question the very point of development. On observing peasants living in rock huts in Peru, one tour guide sincerely put to us the question, 'Look around at this place and these peoples lives, and tell me you think you're better off than them.'

I'm not saying that we're better off or they're better off, because ultimately there is no solid base with which we can judge the assessment. As said by another member of Friends of Wisdom, my metaphor of the car can be thought of as 'the standard stock item in need of maintenance versus an ever improved version with leanings towards self-deluding perfection'. 

I believe that the latter can only refer to a blindly rational approach to improvement. The latter is Stalin sending thousands to the gulag for the sake of the greater good. The latter is Hitler and his deluded grand narrative. The latter is Henry Ford's hopes for a happy, joyous, and peaceful consumer society. The latter is founded upon no basis of reality.

The former, however, can be thought of as aim-oriented rationality. Here we have a solid base of reality: the fact that humans will always be humans; the fact that an animal can't escape its material condition. Part of that condition specifies that humans will always suffer, that they will be always caught between the opposing feelings of pleasure and pain. It specifies the fact that humans have no choice but to submit to the material realities of existence. 

It is truly wisdom-based, because it accounts for the true realities of life. In this way it has the potential to be super-effective, because it approaches a real system with an eye to putting it back into balance. 

And for sure, in today's world there are many things in need of a serious re-balance. Society in its present condition can testify to this fact, to the fact that the dominant cultural pursuit in countries like Australia and the UK is the drug and alcohol bingeing scene. It can testify to the fact that people need to get their priorities right. Environmental catastrophe looms and people aren't properly looking after themselves, and all the while we are forced to put a singular focus upon issues of money, away from concerns either personal, societal, or environmental in nature. 

Of course, people are getting rightly fed up with a society that blindly pursues rational utilitarianism and money. Here is a series of videos from a UK-based artist -  http://popularunrest.org/

In a post-GFC world that is seriously out of balance, people ARE starting to cry out for change. They're sick of the madness of blind rationalism. They're sick of the blind, modernist agenda, the belief that the stock standard vehicle of their society can be objectively improved. In short, THEY WANT WISDOM! Now is the time to give it. 

Regards,

Tim Horgan