On the language of angels

Rationalists typically do not discourse much on the subject of angels. But perhaps there are more uses to such a language than is commonly thought.

The essential point is this: social structures often evolve as if they had intentions. This can be a convenient view, even if one does not believe that social structures actually have intentions. Let us therefore set aside the question "Do social structures really have intentions?" and explore more fully instead the handiness of the metaphor.

Whether we speak of families, companies, religious bodies, clubs, towns, or nations, a social structure is maintained by countless small daily decisions, made by the people who (in aggregate) form the structure. Some of these decisions are conscious -- but many of the decisions are made in an automatic manner by people who are completely unaware that they are making a decision, who feel that they are doing the only right and natural thing under the circumstances, or who believe that they do not really have a choice.

Each of these decisions, individually, may seem as inconsequential as the firing of a single neuron in a brain. In aggregate, however, they can produce a substantial amount of social force and can lead to material evolutions which seem far beyond the power of any individual to change.

For example, in a structure the size of the United States, the natural decisions of millions of people, to prefer the convenience of their automobiles over public transportation, produces huge parking lots, highway exchanges, and urban sprawl; similarly, such decisions produce foreign policies intended to secure oil supplies and television appearances of pundits who favor demonstrative military action in the Middle East. Whether such consequences are "deliberate" or not, they are as predictable, and as organized, as if they were the actions of a conscious entity with certain self-interested motives. In this sense, we might talk of certain events as being guided by the nation's angels or demons.

Marx's achievement was to recognize that the countless individual decisions that make up these social forces involve a number of different interest groups, with potentially conflicting interests, and that the decisions themselves can be conscious or unconscious. The unconscious decisions are conditioned by traditions and societal histories and blind self-interest. But conscious decisions, based on a deliberate effort to see a larger picture, are also possible.

This leads to the idea of "raising consciousness" in social groups -- and the idea of appealing to the "better angels" of human nature. The object is to cut through social conditioning and to present facts in a clear way forcing decent people to look up from their narrow daily concerns to see a larger picture and to make an ethical choice.

Gandhi applied such a method brilliantly. The notion, that a nearly naked unarmed man might take on the British Empire and win, was simply laughable. But in a sense Gandhi appealed to the better angels of the Empire: he forced the English, by thousands, to look up from their cosy tea-trays and to see that the economic advantages they reaped from British control of India was associated with a brutal colonial system. He cut through the social conditioning that allowed the British to think that their association with India was a magnificent example of the modern West bringing goodness and light to the backwards East. Once the self-serving ideological justifications for the colonial system had been demolished, the daily decisions that had masked and perpetuated that system ceased to reproduce themselves with full vigor.

I know of no better way to describe such phenomena, than by using the language of angels.

There have been, and are, truly excellent humans on this planet. I don't see the necessity or benefit of crediting angels with human greatness.

...I tend to remove literal references to biblical ideas and look for the underlying symbolism which they represent. I didn't take it as an endorsement, per se, of angelic influence but an structural reduction of what people consider "angelic influence" to the mechanics of thought. That was my take, anyway.

PB

If so, I still think the OP takes too much credit away from human potential by attributing human greatness to something angelic. I also don't think that using angelic language fosters an accurate understanding of reality.

  The OP seems to shift scales first showing how one small thing (the individuals' choice) collectively has greater and greater impact as the aggregate of the group. But then in the Gandhi bit, he drops it back down, zooming in instead of out to illustrate the argument that Gandhi's success came from manipulation of this smallest part of the whole system and that that caused all the other things to, or be more likely to, naturally occur.

  So basically, stopping a tidal wave may be impossible but if one can stop the individual waves which slowly build into it one won't have to: it will not form in the first place. Physically, easier said than done with waves. But socially, with people, maybe a little easier.

PB

is obtained by adding together a vast number of minute decisions.

that angels actually exist in any traditional sense.

I merely suggest (following Walter Wink somewhat) that social organizations behave as if they had guiding spirits and that meaningful statements can be made using this language.

Many people will have no trouble understand the sort of thing that is meant, if one speaks about "the demons of Nazi Germany" although perhaps few would try to relate such notions to social forces.

Your OP stated that using the language of angels enables descriptions of some things that otherwise can't be described.

own effort to put words in my mouth, not any claim I made -- and it completely misrepresents my post, which was largely devoted to a entirely different sort of description, in terms of social forces. I merely said I do not know a better language

To say it again, large social structures behave as if they had consciousness and intentions and as if they made deliberate choices to behave in certain ways. Speaking about such social structures in this way is useful, and people do it all the time: "Gandhi appealed to the conscience of Britain" (for example -- as if Britain were actually an entity with a conscience). In this manner, it is possible to make sense of assertions such as "an evil spirit came over the land."

"Uncle Sam" may not "exist" in any ordinary sense. But there is a sort of "aggregate personality" to the political structure, or to the economic structure, in which Americans live. This "aggregate personality" (to continue the metaphor) might be irrational, moody, violent, good-intentioned, schizoid ... but whether it "exists" or not, something collective has an inertia and exerts a profound psychological effect on the individual members of the society. I do not consider it inaccurate in this sense to speak of "the angel of America," without necessarily implying that it is angelic.

Materialist issues are not the only issues that affect people.

What is it about the language of angels that makes it the best way to describe such phenomena?

" .. I .. said I do not know a better .."

Why continually misrepresent what is said?

I didn't do that to misrepresent what you said, and it doesn't make a difference. (sorry, I don't think it makes a difference;))

Ok, you said: "I know of no better way to describe such phenomena, than by using the language of angels." To try to be clear, I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but I'd like to.

... whether you misrepresent what I say. Two, of course, can play this game of misrepresentation. And after you've accused me of "crediting angels with human greatness" (which does not reflect anything I wrote) and have claimed I "stated that using the language of angels enables descriptions of some things that otherwise can't be described" (which likewise does not reflect anything I wrote), it becomes difficult to accept the innocence of subsequent misrepresentations.

.

I'm not getting the feeling you're willing to answer my questions:
- "What do you mean by the language of angels?" &
- "What is it about the language of angels that makes it the best way to describe such phenomena?"

I'm only asking for some clarity.

struggle4progress: "I know of no better way to describe such phenomena, than by using the language of angels."

greyl: "Your OP stated that using the language of angels enables descriptions of some things that otherwise can't be described."

What's the problem?

We could play verbal definitional games all day without accomplishing anything at all, but in the end, meaningful definitions are not given by words but by pointing at something.

In my OP, I tried to point in the direction of definite phenomena while using certain words -- or I tried to do whatever thing, nearest to such pointing, I could accomplish in an internet post.

If you don't think the phenomena, at which I tried to point in the OP, are important, then of course you will not care about ways to discuss them.

My reply didn't include any name-calling. Fyi, I've lost interest in this now.

PB

realistic enough.

But then I always have been one for very exact meanings. :shrug:

Forgive me if I haven't a glimmer of an idea what you are talking about. The only "goodness" of which I wrote, was the self-image of the British in relation to India under Gandhi.

Watch.

"For example, in a structure the size of the United States, the natural decisions of millions of people, to prefer the convenience of their automobiles over public transportation, produces huge parking lots, highway exchanges, and urban sprawl; similarly, such decisions produce foreign policies intended to secure oil supplies and television appearances of pundits who favor demonstrative military action in the Middle East. Whether such consequences are "deliberate" or not, they are as predictable, and as organized, as if they were the actions of a conscious entity with certain self-interested motives. In this sense, we might talk of certain events as being guided by the nation's angels or demons."

Of course, what they do is not good, and it is indeed statistically predictable, but before anything else I would point out the lack of parsimony in the idea of a new entity.

Next, I will point out what I see as flaws.

For instance, which party people vote for is also a statistically predictable event.

By what method do you propose we decide which is the 'better' action for society to have taken?

(I speak from a society without republicans, you see, so each choice may be considered rational)

If you are without method with which to choose what choice is the correct one, then of what value is the concept "better" for the angels?

And finally, what use is this model? (Not to be offensive, this is a real question).

Basically, the difference between a more parsimonious model using statistical predictability rather than statistical predictability taken to the creation of a new overseer entity, as implied by the above quote?

Finally, my apologies for using such a long quote.

Due to problems with my computer, this message had to be copy-pasted (2) times.

.. capitalists to atomize social relations is motivated by a desire to predict certain quantities by statistical means, because this is useful for their planning purposes.

But the aggregate relations which I consider may have substantial historical or traditional components, not amenable to any simple statistical treatment. The aggregate relations cannot simply be the sum of independent individual actions or fractions of that total: despite having been constructed by individuals, the whole structure then exerts a substantial psychological force on the individuals that belong to it, limiting their choices, as long as they fail to realize that they have choices. Statistics has no manner to account for the possibility that the particles it contemplates might become conscious of their condition and take action to change it.

You apparently want to devolve into a discussion of the mechanics of choosing what is "better." But perhaps most people think that the "right decision" will become obvious if the "right information" is available: otherwise, advertisers would not spend money urging us to become happy by slurping fizzy drinks, nor would warmongers devote much time to propaganda about how horrid an intended enemy is. Similarly, the Marxists and the Buddhists alike, whatever their other differences, seem to concur that "consciousness" is the prerequisite for appropriate action. I indicated that direction fairly clearly in my original post.

Parsimony has advantages and disadvantages. If you want to insist on discourse using an absolutely minimal number of logical notions, perhaps you could in the future write all of your posts using the so-called "lambda calculus"? Your posts will then be long and opaque, of course, but you will be able to feel happy that you are really using the most atomic notions available.

Sometimes this happens.

First:

"the aggregate relations which I consider may have substantial historical or traditional components, not amenable to any simple statistical treatment"

That is quite true.

"The aggregate relations cannot simply be the sum of independent individual actions or fractions of that total:"

If you remove "independent" then it does not seem like a supported premise to me - why not exactly? Something bieng affected by all parts is certainly not simple, but that does not make it greater than the sum of all the dependent actions... though if you would provide a counter-example that would be very interesting. I like interesting things.

"Statistics has no manner to account for the possibility that the particles it contemplates might become conscious of their condition and take action to change it."

...

...

Yeah, it does... what kind of statistics looks at particles? You can assign an arbitrarily large amount of information to each 'object' you know.

Wait a second - I think I see what is wrong! Basically, I am talking about statistics as they are, that is, independent of human interpretation.

The little discrete operation things we usually use are certainly incapable of such a task, I agree.


"You apparently want to devolve into a discussion of the mechanics of choosing what is "better." "

Here is one of the spots where communication fails. I wanted to make sure that you were not pushing some kind of ethics as "best", (because that is what 'angels' implies to me), that's all.


"Parsimony has advantages and disadvantages"

I agree - it is useful to have but not a means unto itself.


"If you want to insist on discourse using an absolutely minimal number of logical notions"

I don't. Not in the slightest. What I said about parsimony was actually a question, which I will re-iterate perhaps clearer:


What is the difference between using a model where we have society with these 'better angels' external, as in added onto, rather than internal to society?

Statistics, as a subject, involves making certain assumptions about the relative frequency of events and drawing numerical conclusions from those assumptions. In practice, there is some art to choosing the assumptions so that calculations are feasible without too much loss of credibility, and the interest in the calculations is always interpretative. When practiced well, the subject is essentially principled rhetoric supported by calculation. For these reasons, and because the subject is a human invention, there's no such thing as "statistics as they are, that is, independent of human interpretation."

Just because we like to draw simplifications does not mean nothing existed before the simplifications.

Basically, remove the rhetoric, and you have literal mathematics, which is not something inside our heads by any account.

objects are in some sense "real" even though they have no materiality?

I know what what phrases like "classical mathematics", "constructivist mathematics", "formalist mathematics", "intuitionist mathematics", &c signify but frankly "literal mathematics" is a phrase I have never heard before ...

Just from all the physics and chemistry I have done.

It's made of math, and describes the world outside our heads.

And yes, some of it is statistics.

Therefore those statistics are outside our head.

That is pretty much my line of thought. :shrug:

to believe in God is because of the existence of pure evil and of pure good.