Section V.5C (“The Problem of Scale (Part 1)”)
What did we gain when we learned to read?
Dr. Corey Anton in a conversation with Guy Sengstock (“What was dialogue & relationship before literacy?”) noted how literacy has helped humans control their emotions, quoting Marshall McLuhan in claiming that surgery was not possible until literacy. Reading trains us to use the brain in a way that can “just observe,” which by extension means we are trained to “look upon our emotions” without necessarily being swept up in them. To put this another way, literacy makes it possible for us to be angry without showing anger, while before literacy to be angry was to show anger (a divide between “being” and “doing” is hard to imagine before literacy). Funny enough, much of Hegel and Liminal Web philosophy today is about closing the divide between “being” and “doing,” which can be seen as “a return to (be)coming” and an emphasis on time over space — is this a return to “pre-literacy humanity?” In a way, yes, but we learn in Hegel and Hume that every “return” is actually a “(re)turn” — there is always a difference we’ve gained along the way.
It’s hard to say how humans lived, talked, and related before literacy, but Dr. Anton (who is a scholar of the great Walter Ong) is probably right that the divide between “thinking” and “doing” was a lot less before literacy. Before literacy, it was probably not possible for Rhetoric, for Rhetoric requires a philosophical and “high order” way of thinking which can suspend itself, consider abstract possibilities, etc., but does this mean that only Discourse existed before literacy? “Practically speaking,” probably (for the high majority, at least), but even if so Discourse and “low-order thinking” before literacy and abstraction would be very different in quality than Discourse with abstraction and possible disembodiment, for the whole reason Discourse is such a problem is that it can lead to a logical contradiction which leads to self-effacement. If we wanted to bring in a Humean schema, we might say that we went through Pre-Literacy Discourse, Rhetoric (at “The Great Enrichment,” for example, though Rhetoric’s role in history is arguably more “here and there”), and now must return to “common life” and “the concrete” with Rhetoric (perhaps we might say “Common Rhetoric,” which is a state of “spreading Childhood”). “Common life” is where for most of history Discourse dominated (always risking “self-effacement” and “the banality of evil,” even if these risks didn’t manifest), for it is very hard to maintain Rhetoric when dealing with “the Other.” The concrete realm (outside the university) is seemingly more “straight-forward” and doesn’t seem to need philosophical thinking, so to bring Rhetoric to this realm is hard — much easier (seemingly) to stay at a University, but of course if we do that we contribute to the “tribalism” and even “Philosophical Tyranny” which concerned Davd Hume (and thinkers like Thomas Sowell) — but this is an “isolationist social strategy” that we in Belonging Again are trying to think beyond.
Anyway, there is always an anxiety which arises before the capital-O-Other (which I capitalize in honor of Levinas, who David McKerracher works on at Theory Underground, and please note “The Other” is distinct from “The Big Other” of Lacan); however, before literacy, the “vastness of the insides” of people was possibly a lot less, for people were not so trained to live “inside their heads” by reading. The other was hence not so much an Other (the more “our inside” grows, the more we as “an other” become “an Other,” per se), which is to say literacy contributed to us all becoming far more infinite and Other to one another, and the more of Others we all become, the more anxiety becomes a reality we have to live with and face (which can precisely tempt us to turn to some “Big Other” to escape). Thanks to the growth of Otherness, we also become more capable of Rhetoric, creativity, “high order thinking,” and so on, but at the same time that same Otherness made us all far more terrifying — precisely because we all gained more of “an inner space” within us all that no one could access or be certain about. When that “inner space” was small or “practically irrelevant” (because the divide between “being” and “doing” was less), anxiety was less, for the possibility of “a Lovecraft creature” was also less, per se. But that also meant we were less able to experience the “Beatific Vision” of Dante: where there is Otherness, there can be more Mystery, and Mystery is what contains the possibility of Lovecraft or Dante. Mystery is risk, and the Absolute Choice is ultimately facing this risk — which we must do if “The End of True History” is to have any possibility of negating/sublating into Absolute History.
Literacy grew Otherness, and though arguably the “enchanted” world always contained Mystery, we might say that literacy moved Mystery to within people, which means each of us as “an other” became more of “an Other” (and so participating in a Mystery in which Dante or Lovecraft might lurk). Dr. Anton suggests that before literacy we did not so much “think about what we were going to say” — we just spoke and felt and showed and acted. We were far more present, which many people emphasize needing today, but before literacy perhaps this was a “cheap presence” whereas today is possible a “costly presence” and “costly (be)coming” which was not possible until this moment in history — but that possibility arises in the very condition in which “The End of (True) History” might occur, meaning there is great risk (as must be though for great value) (risk addresses nihilism). Anyway, Cadell teaches that psychoanalysis in Lacan and Freud arises with “the problem of negative and female speech,” which for most of history is repressed (especially before First World Nations arise), which would suggest Lacan and Freud follow from the problem of Otherness which literacy makes possible. We are all as Others very ambiguous to one another and constantly craving release from that ambiguity (and “doubt,” as Tocqueville discusses), and yet the very literacy which has made us so Other is also what trains us to be “cool” and “detached” so that we might not always be showing our anxiety. Literacy makes us anxious but also helps us hide anxiety, which literacy also suggests (from its very “medium”) is the rational, “intelligent,” and best thing to do (which is not all wrong, please note) — but this means we all might end up “locked in a prison of ourselves with our anxiety,” a situation that is especially hard to live with once “givens” are gone and we are forced to “face” this “anxiety prison” because we are all forced now to be philosophical (as Peter Berger discusses). As God must deal with the question of God’s own hiddenness (for “too much God” can always destroy us), so too because of literacy humans as Other must now deal with questions of “(un)veiling.” As there is “The Problem of Divine Hiddenness,” we find ourselves now living with “The Problem of Human Hiddenness” (theology is anthropology, not just anthropology theology). We must make constant choices and discernments regarding this, and to who might we turn to better learn “the art of (un)veiling?” Is there anyone. (Land waits.)
Dr. Anton makes incredible points about how criminality increases with dyslexia, suggesting that literacy corresponds with less crime and violence. Testosterone rates are dropping around the planet (possibly contributing to “the birth-rate crisis” which the Collins discuss at Based Camp) — is this what follows from literacy (and then as less people get married and have children, less people “mimetically desire” it, as Mary Eberstadt suggests is possible, causing testosterone to drop ever-more)? Hard to say, but the point is that literacy has helped reduce violence by making us “cooler” and “more detached,” but might that mean that literacy is partly why we have lost practices and resources for Thymos today (which we seem to require for meaning and recognition)? As I discussed with Owen, much hinges on if we might learn to regain Thymos alongside Neoliberalism, and it would seem that literacy is partly why we have ended up in this conundrum (which might be further suggests if “nihilism,” “the collapse of social capital,” and “literacy” somehow correspond). To look ahead, I believe regaining Thymos with Neoliberalism comes down to learning to face “The Anxiety of the Other,” for this requires great courage and skill. Thymos in the past was often addressed through fighting the other; now, we must face the Other. If we cannot, intelligence is arguably wasted on us and our bodies; it will move into AI.
Literacy leads to “cool-ness,” which means it makes possible “costly presence” and makes us as others into Others, which means it generates the possibility of a(n) (costly) Absolute Choice. And in so making this possible, it also makes possible Artificial Intelligence, for AI is the ultimately manifestation of “cool-ness,” is it not? To move from Oral Traditions to Written Traditions is to move toward “disembodiment” and hence “disembodied intelligence” — to move into beings who can “practically divide” “being” and “doing” is to step toward AI (for good and for bad). AI is how intelligence might continue without us if we can’t learn to handle Otherness, which is to say “intelligent evolution will go on without us” if we cannot “spread Childhood” (the Absolute is contingent on us, but perhaps not material matter itself). There was no way for the Absolute Choice and Absolute History to prove possible though without literacy, so our current risk and problem was unavoidable if we were to become what we are now. Was intelligence a mistake? I stand with Hegel that it is not the business of philosophy to wonder such things (as argued in “Hegel’s Justification of Hegel”), as it is not the business of philosophy to assume a certain future (such as our extermination): rather, we must “tarry with the Now,” which presently includes intelligence. It is up to us if intelligence will continue down an evolutionary path with “enfleshment” or without it. Choose, life.
Thymos was not a problem for Oral Tradition like it is for us, but what is our problem need not be our self-effacement. Literacy taught us how we might not be “controlled by” our emotions, but down this pedagogical road we find ourselves heading toward AI, where emotions are effaced. We must choose: shall we erase emotion, or can we learn to “condition” emotions? Might we move toward a world without them or move into a world where we must learn the art of living with them? This is our choice. AI is the Causer which forces us to ask if we will “detach away” emotion or “detach for” emotion, so that emotion might achieve a greater manifestation? Everything seems to hinge on our capacity to learn to tolerate anxiety. Can we face “negative speech,” or not? Is this to what it all comes down? If so, does it not all come down to our capacity for forgiveness and grace? Land waits.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.
