Interesting pondering, Curtis. I almost always read your meanderings but sometimes feel I can't add anything meaningful, so don't. I apologize. One of the things I like about blogs is the long-tendril conversations across sites and tons of miles. (Now I'll go read the article you refer to. . . .) I should add that although we share many things, I think I prefer questions to answers. Interesting.

Sorry Curtis, Technorati lags a lot with zenpundit for some reason - updating the TY list today and put PC on and a number of other blogs on it.

Meanderings, Anne?

Eh, you are right about that. I often wish I could write concise, informative and interesting posts that are much smaller -- like Alan Sullivan does at FB. (Incidentally, perhaps this is the reason I gave up trying to write poems!)

------

Mark,

I hadn't actually linked the discussion yet. I have read the entries, however, and expect I'll be responding to them and highlighting them individually over the coming weeks.

Y'know, I wonder if a "carnival" type of blog should be set up, so that your commentators could post to it on this subject at whim: that might allow for a more ongoing discussion of these things.

"I grow weary of talk, want a little less conversation, a little more action."

Yes indeed. I love ideas, but ultimately ideas must lead to actions. And so I have become obsessed with the idea of institution building. It is through institutions that the ideas that are developed through the great dialogue of blogs become actions. Institutions bring together the talents of many people towards a common cause. So let's brainstorm, what kinds of institutions can we create to act on your ideas? A publishing business:books, graphic novels, films, radio documentaries etc? A charity? A think tank? A magazine? A video game? Something that hasn't been invented yet? How do we translate your ideas into an institution and how do we get people to pay for your product or donate money? How do we translate ideas into actions?

Something that hasn’t been invented yet?

Hey Phil, I like that one! ;)

Problematically, I'm still thinking of necessity, trying to fit ideas and actions with needs. But if we are brainstorming...(or stormingbrain, which is my normal method)...I think that what the world singularly lacks and very much needs is a coherent understanding of the flux we are currently witnessing in various levels of society. A cessaton of fear, a rebirth of hope. A move away from perpetual defense and a move toward -- well, toward action, activity, and motivation, etc.

These are, of course, broad targets. I imagine that many activities will be important for providing these things, so at the end of this bit of brainstorming, I'm no nearer to making up my mind!

It is odd that you mentioned institution building, because I had considered exactly the same thing a little after my last comment. By suggesting a "carnival" of sorts, I realized the institution-building aspect of that... I don't know if ideas must be "translated" into actions. I think sometimes that ideas must stop for activity to happen. But that activity would be informed by ideas that have already occurred. Maybe that's what you mean by translation.

Curtis, I didn't mean 'meanderings' in any negative way at all. To me, mental meanderings is the same thing as thinking out loud. It's a GOOD thing.

Also, I agree that a huge topic is the flux and change that society (not just ours) is undergoing. The migration of formerly excluded groups into the mainstream continues somewhat successfully (gays, women, people with no interest in 'regular' things, etc.) but the general tone of society is becoming less separated in partly good, partly not-so-good ways. I'm thinking out loud here and suspect there may be a post subject eventually. I'm not sure how to verbalize this but it used to be that the tastes of the so-called upper classes were considered good, if not best; now their tastes are considered a bit airless and odd, while things formerly seen as somewhat ordinary have become desireable. I need to think this out further and carefully before writing about it in detail but there's also a growing vivid separation into two divides (relativists and moralists) and they look at each other warily, angrily, suspiciously.

Anyway, keep on thinking out loud and writing!
-Anne

P.S. Alan's shorter pieces are great, but fortunately there's more than enough room in the idea-logical world for lots of different sorts of writers.

"I think that what the world singularly lacks and very much needs is a coherent understanding of the flux we are currently witnessing in various levels of society. A cessaton of fear, a rebirth of hope. A move away from perpetual defense and a move toward — well, toward action, activity, and motivation, etc."

That sounds like a worthwhile enterprise. There are probably other people who share your interest and there are probably many others who are capable of being inspired by this idea. Finding a way to bring people together to work towards this as a common goal amplifies each individual's contribution in a way that is greater than the sum of the parts. What kinds of actions can you take to work towards a "rebirth of hope"?

Anne,

I’m not sure how to verbalize this but it used to be that the tastes of the so-called upper classes were considered good, if not best; now their tastes are considered a bit airless and odd, while things formerly seen as somewhat ordinary have become desireable.

This is an interesting vantage point. I wonder how truly this is happening, or if the upper classes were in fact always considered a bit airy by the lower classes. Nowadays, the lower and middle classes, thanks to widespread accessiblity to communications technologies and a more level playing field, seem to have a greater influence over society: the vulgar has become truly common, receiving the most focus; but the patrician is relegated to incidental focus, like in television shows and magazine articles about the rich and famous.

I also wonder if a general sense that "the American Dream" is just that, a dream only, has led to a sweet-lemon reaction. Some people of the lower and middle classes can work themselves into the patrician classes, but most know they cannot. The incidental focus on "success" stories only reinforces one's own feeling of inferiority; so, sometimes the lower/middle classes elevate their own ways of life and ideas to greater status in order to subvert the patrician ideal. This might also be why intellectualism is disdained so broadly.

On the other hand, perhaps we are merely witnessing a reaction against postmodernism.

there’s also a growing vivid separation into two divides (relativists and moralists) and they look at each other warily, angrily, suspiciously.

This, I think, will be a greater issue than the split over economic classes -- although I think it's related.

As always, those who can define morality generally do so in order to gain control over society. To the degree that laws are set according to interpretations of morality, and that general fear of consequences for breaking rules of morality (legal or metaphysical consequences) exists, the moralist point of view is in alignment with power projection and the subjugation of the morally indifferent or "anti-moralist" individuals in the society.

I'm not pointing a finger at one group of moralists, only. Two or more groups might be in conflict over conflicting standards of morality because each group desires the position of control and power.

Relativists, on the other hand, seek to subvert the system of moralism/power-projection. I suspect that very few authentic relativists exist: most so-called relativists use arguments of relativism to first break the status quo (including all conflicts of morality being played out by moralists) and then supplant it with an alternative, stealth moralism. These anti-warrior warriors often do not realize that this is what they are doing. The self-proclaimed moralists recognize the stealth maneuver and so oppose the so-called relativists as they would oppose other moralists. Meanwhile, these relativists distrust self-proclaimed moralists -- which seems to be antithetical to their own supposed "relativism" since even the open moralists are "right" from a truly relativistic point of view.

At heart between the conflict of self-proclaimed moralists and avant relativists is the question of where real morality and real truth come into being:

The strident moralists seem to be under the impression that morality and truth are fairly simple, easily discernible realities which do not depend whatsover on human interpretation -- such is their interpretation, that is. ;)

So-called relativists believe that human interpretations play a key role in determining morality and truth, perhaps the only method of determining these things -- and they espouse this doctrine as if it transcends all human subjectivity!

Thanks for inspiring the above bit of stormingbrain, Anne. This is long enough to be an entry, but I'll leave it as a comment for now...

Phil,

There are probably other people who share your interest and there are probably many others who are capable of being inspired by this idea. Finding a way to bring people together to work towards this as a common goal amplifies each individual’s contribution in a way that is greater than the sum of the parts.

I'm suspicious of "greater than the sum...of parts" arguments. I do have some peculiar ideas on the differentiation of sums and multiplications, which I might blog about in the future -- the difference between a mixture and a compound; but, people are not so much compounded as intermixed... -- but the idea of institutionalization can be looked at from multiple perspectives.

Ralph Waldo Emerson believed that every institution is the lengthened shadow of one man.

We institutionalize mad men and women; from a historical perspective, we can see that some were institutionalized who did not deserve it.

Etc.

We can also look at the problems of communism and the benefits of democracy through the lens of institutionalization and institutions.

I realized after some above comments that I had railed against excessive conversation whereas you introduced the idea of ideation -- these are two separate things. My experience of institutions is that they are often made impotent by too much conversation. Many individuals throughout history, operating alone, have never ceased thinking even while they were acting -- but nevertheless changed the world in significant ways. If they had had to negotiate and debate with other members of an institution, and could not do what they did alone but only via an institution, they would almost certainly have never achieved what they achieved.

Of course, taking Emerson's idea and expanding it...Some individuals have used institutions to expand their influence via so many proxies...-- I don't think this is what you mean by your concept of the benefit of institutions, however.

And how many institutions have we seen fail because their once-strong ideation, their raison d'être, their SOP, or any of these things became diluted, corrupted, etc., from the admixture of so many individuals?

Hey Curtis,
By "institution building" I mean "entrepreneurship". I've been reading blogs now for several years, in fact, I'm an addict. I love exploring blogs because I love ideas and discussions. But at some point it's not enough to just talk about what should be done, we have to actually do something. Last year and a few months this year I worked as a tour guide in DC, which opened my mind to the influence of philanthropists to DCs culture. The Smithsonian, the Hirshorn gallery, Freer gallery, Sackler gallery, Nat'l Gallery of Art (Andrew Mellon), Phillips Collection, Corcoran gallery and Renwick gallery. All are examples of how a passion for art, a passion for knowledge can be translated into institutions that enrich society. That institutions are imperfect and can fall prey to human flaws is simply an acknowledgement of the human condition. You mentioned that maybe you thought it was time to stop talking and start acting. I think that's right. But how do we act? What actions do we take? Which actions are most likely to have a positive impact on society? Assuming that there are many people who want to take action, then how do we organize that desire? And that brings us to entrepreneurship and institution building. How can you take an idea and distill from it a vision that can inspire people to act in concert to create something significant?

Curtis - Awesome "essay" in response to my questions. I'm going to print and read - and then reply. I may have to refer and copy to jmbm eventually since it's so interesting..... Thanks again!

Phil,

PBS recently aired a kind of broad-spectrum symposium on the issues of education and health care, in which groups around the U.S. were brought together to discuss these issues. I don't remember the exact name of the program, and only caught part of it. The idea is appealing. Sure, it's an organized set of conversations -- but those conversing could actually choose to act on some of their themes, in a next step approach.

I think that a greater connectivity at the local level is important. American governance has become too centralized, too distant from the average American, on the whole. Average Americans need to be given incentives to act, a somewhat free reign to modify their own local environments, as a substitute for "acting" by merely casting votes.

Thanks, Anne. You also helped to inspire some thoughts in my most recent extraordinarily long and somewhat meandering post!