The Strange, the Bizarre, the Unexpected

I'm reading a book by the prolific Colin Wilson called The Occult.  He wrote a number of books on a number of matters, and what is called the "paranormal" was one of them.  He was the author of the existentialist classic The Outsider, which I vaguely recall having read in the days of my youth.

He seems to have been a devotee of the paranormal, or at least that part of the paranormal involving communications with ghosts and spirits, telepathy, magic and knowledge of future events.  It doesn't seem extraterrestrial life or encounters with it meant a great deal to him.  His book is full of references to cases, and highlights seances which took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which make his musings seem somewhat quaint.  I don't know whether they're held with any frequency, now, but they were for a time a kind of fad and associated with those who advocated a study of ghosts and the possibility of an afterlife such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Emanuel Swedenborg, Franz Mesmer and other prominent "spiritualists."  Seances were apparently full of floating musical instruments and tables or other furniture rising from the floor and moving about, and ethereal figures.  That isn't the sort of thing which I've seen portrayed lately, except in period pieces.  

I've read that Wilson was thought by many to be quite gullible as far as these things were concerned, and it seems that he accepted what he writes of for the most part, though acknowledging that frauds exist and existed.  But his review of them is refreshingly matter of fact.  I was particularly charmed by his insight, based on reports from communications with the dead, that the afterlife is not all that different from the life we live, and is surprisingly mundane.  He notes that the dead evidently have nothing very profound to relate to us, citing to the fact that they tend to mention matters of strikingly limited importance and significance.

The paranormal remains quite popular and is now perhaps more popular than ever.  It's the subject of various ghost hunter and paranormal investigator shows on TV, podcasts, You Tube videos and no doubt other media with which I'm unfamiliar.  If the possibility of extraterrestrial life is a matter included in the paranormal, it seems that even our governments have taken to acknowledging that some phenomena exist which are inexplicable, for now, and that this is a matter of some concern from the standpoint of security and has military significance as a result.

Back in the 1980s there was a show hosted by Jack Palance based on Ripley's Believe It Or Not which claimed to be devoted to an exploration of "the strange, the bizarre, the unexpected" (thus the title to this post).  I'm generally skeptical of claims made regarding the paranormal, but think that there are such things which manifest themselves in certain circumstances, though I have no idea what they may be.  I've had no "close encounters" of any kind, but what appears on camera and radar and are attested to by military pilots and personnel aren't likely to be nothing at all or mere hallucinations. I've seen no ghosts or spirits either, but would accept that there are confrontations with the unexplainable which actually take place.   

Where I would differ from most if not many believers in the paranormal is in ascribing them to the supernatural, which is to say with something outside of Nature, or the Universe.  There's much we don't know about the Universe, and what we now learn about it through the technology available to us indicates that what's been called the mechanistic or materialist view of it, like Newton physics, is lacking or limited to only certain aspects of it.  

There are strange, bizarre and unexpected things, and it's foolish to deny them without investigation.  The paranormal should be subject to the same tests of critical intelligence as any other phenomena, rather than merely dismissed.  It's difficult to accept much of what we see in popular media, of course, as sensationalism is part and parcel of every form of media in these sad times.  The tendency is to do what's necessary to attract viewers and "clicks" and messages.  But recognizing that to be the case and making informed judgments is a part of playing the game of life well, and perhaps the games of after and other life also.

 

Mere Stoicism

Yes, the title to this post borrows from the title of C.S. Lewis' collection of broadcasts made by him in his capacity as chief Christian apologist after the death of G.K. Chesterton (or so I think).  Unlike Chesterton, Lewis was more smug than clever, a characteristic of apologists throughout history, but one which Chesterton managed to control.  Chesterton also managed to defend Christianity without creating an elaborate fantasy world, which strikes me as a more effective approach if one is inclined to defend a religion or belief system which clearly must be defended, or else there would be no apologists.  A religion which produces apologists must be questionable by nature, but appears especially questionable if its apologists must defend it by resort to fantasies.

I don't think Stoicism requires apologists, and don't intend to be one.  That's not what this post is about.  It's meant to explore the limits of Stoicism or what it must be to have no limits, if that's possible.

The limits I refer to relate to its effectiveness in achieving tranquility, and in avoiding sadness or despair.  I sometimes am inclined to think there are limits and that they're unavoidable, particularly with respect to what has taken place.  In other words, I wonder whether the maxims of Stoicism, which are so sensible and seemingly effective in relating to the here and now and anticipating the future, suffice to provide solace regarding the unending, irrevocable past.

The past would seem to be necessarily a matter beyond our control, and therefore nothing to be disturbed by according to Stoicism, and particularly according to Epictetus.  To the extent what took place in the past has consequences now, Stoicism serves to address those consequences, and thought and conduct may serve to diminish their effects.  One might remedy what took place in the past in that manner and in that sense, and one may, with effort, not allow the effects of past actions in the present to be unduly disturbing.  

That's to consider past actions.  What, though, about past omissions, and specifically those omissions which result in one having missed an opportunity, being unable to do what one desperately wants to do or have a life which one longs for now?  The disturbance and despair one feels in that case, especially in highly personal and subjective human matters such as love and happiness, can be painful in the extreme.  It can find expression in our dreams or in sudden encounters with things or persons we know from the past and are unavoidable.  You don't see them coming.

Regret is futile, of course.  There's nothing more futile.  As a result, it should be avoidable.  But how do we avoid what cannot be avoided because it can't be altered, and when what could have been cannot be?  There's nothing to fix.  Nothing can be made better.  Mistakes can't be "made good."

Perhaps the power of regret lies in the fact that nobody else is responsible for what took place, and what didn't take place.  It's easier to ignore or discount things beyond your control when you didn't cause them to be.  It's difficult to be indifferent to yourself, to your own acts, failure to act, or your own thoughts and feelings.

Merely Mooching

Assuming what we hear from ProPublica is true, the frequent acceptance by Justice Thomas of extremely expensive and largely unreported gifts in various forms has been a regular feature of his life over the many years since he became a member of the Supreme Court.  This hasn't concerned some, who in explaining their lack of concern do so on several grounds.  For example, they claim there is no illegality involved, or that members of the Court cannot be regulated, or that the spending of huge amounts of money for the amusement of a Justice of the Supreme Court is done merely as an expression of friendship and the matters before the Court are not discussed by the Justice's benefactors.

Thomas may be the most benefited by the purportedly disinterested kindness of others, but he isn't the only Justice who has accepted gifts, free travel, free food, free lodging and various other freebies and perks, nor is he the only one who has been less than candid or forthcoming in disclosing them.  Nonetheless, it's claimed by them and others that there is no cause for concern.

It may well be the case that there's nothing illegal about this conduct.  The Supreme Court has not been especially zealous in upholding ethical standards in ruling on cases in which claims are made that public officials have misused their offices, especially when the claims are based on "gifts" made to them which were followed by favors granted to the "donors."  The narrowness of the Court's construction of statutory language and its disregard of the potential consequences of its decisions is notable in this respect.  When it's interpretation is broad, it seems that it has sanctioned the spending of money on the wants and needs of politicians and public officials.  Thus, for example, the spending of money has become a form of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, and a private jet has been defined by one Justice as a "facility" in a self-serving defense of his acceptance of free travel.  It therefore isn't surprising that the Justices are disinclined to take seriously the influence of money on their conduct.

There's certainly nothing unusual about laws and codes of ethics which prohibit public officials from accepting gifts.  They're common, in fact.  But they don't prohibit specific conduct only on ethical grounds.  They also provide that officials should avoid even "the appearance of impropriety."

But those defending the Justices, and it seems the Justices themselves, also narrowly define what constitutes "the appearance of impropriety."  It's difficult, for me at least, to believe that someone who benefits so much from money spent on them would not feel beholden to those who are so generous.  That feeling would, I believe, influence conduct towards them, if only as a matter of personal honor.  The fact that those who pay for the gravy train on which they ride don't have matters immediately before the Court, or if they do don't discuss them with the passenger on the train, doesn't mean that the passenger is not or will not be favorably disposed towards them or the matters in which they have an interest.  It's naive to think otherwise.

If it's maintained that no appearance of impropriety arises, though, why would that be the case?  If a person spends huge amounts of money on you for your enjoyment and benefit and you feel no obligation to them, are not inclined to do anything for them in return, then you're a moocher.  Your a person who lives off of others without giving them anything in return.  You exploit the generosity of others; you seek out and obtain handouts.  You mooch off others.  You're the type of person Cab Calloway sang about.

Moochers aren't admirable people.  A person who mooches has no honor, feels no obligation, has no respect for others.  A moocher delights in receiving unearned benefits.  Moochers are selfish and self-centered.  Moochers are exceedingly self-indulgent.  

Perhaps, then, public officials like the Justices in question don't violate the law, and if they are unethical are so merely because they're moochers.  Maybe they simply enjoy having their expenses paid by others and receiving a great deal of something for nothing, and feel no shame in doing so.

That would make them only unsavory, or disreputable.  Perhaps that's the best we can expect of them.

 

Razzle-Dazzle

Sometimes, when feeling despair at the fact that such a large percentage of my countrymen are seemingly incapable of making reasonable judgments based on available evidence, and subject to delusion, I try to comfort myself with the idea that they are not truly saps, but rather are so entertained by the spectacle our politics have become that they simply don't want the show to stop.  What is taking place now would make a good dark comedy, after all.  Perhaps not even a subtle one, subtlety being something lacking in American politics and perhaps even culture, but more of a Marx Brothers' movie along the lines of a farce like Duck Soup or A Night at the Circus, though Groucho was far more clever and intelligent than the main character of this ongoing farce can ever be. Can it be that they are so amused by the freak show that they fear it may end, and so clamour for more and more despite the consequences for our nation?

This is wishful thinking, unfortunately.  It's odd enough that anyone would find this thought a satisfying alternative to what's actually taking place (better a perverse but knowing cynicism than what Mencken would probably have called "boobery"), but no.  We may not be sophisticated enough to be decadent.  Only ignorance and gullibility can explain what's now the case.  Gullibility in particular, I think.  Which brings us to the notion of razzle-dazzle.

This is a word which it seems has its origin in late 19th century American slang.  So, at least, is thought by the editors of the Online Etymology Dictionary which describes it as "a word, app. of U.S. coinage, used to express the ideas of bewilderment or confusion, rapid stir and bustle, riotous jollity or intoxication, etc.  Also, deception, fraud; extravagant publicity."  The rallies we see seem to be a sort of tent show of the kind that evangelical preachers and faith healers used to put on (or do they still?), inspiring the believers to unthinking credulity.  Or, maybe, a magician's act of a sort, in which the misdirection is obvious enough but nonetheless persuasive.  The snake oil salesman has a place in our history.  Perhaps its become an honored one.  Is there a nostalgia for the days of the bumpkin being taken advantage of by the city slicker, which also is a part of our history?

How do we explain the appeal of something or someone so obviously a con?  There must be an explanation.  Razzle-Dazzle seems as good as any.  If it's a peculiarly American word it may also be a peculiarly American tendency, to be dazzled and confused by showy deception.  Do we long, spiritually, for the arrival of the circus or the Wells-Fargo wagon, to bring color to our drab lives?

I find it hard to think of any historical precedent for this situation.  Hitler wreathed himself in Romantic, mystical appeals to a German Volk, a Master Race, and was aided in such claims by philosophical and intellectual loonies like Heidegger, but there is no philosophical appeal being made in this case.  Resentment is being fostered, but not yet to the extent it was in Germany after WWI. Intolerance and the desire for sameness has always been characteristic of Western civilization, but the blithe disregard of honor and virtue we seethe with as a nation is extraordinary.  

I don't think charisma has a place in the mix.  Those involved in this remarkable song and dance have none.  They resemble Willie Loman more than any successful leader in history, good or bad.  They seem gnomish, if not in actual size then in stature and character.  

We can look to the example of Rome in this and other cases, and there may even be some justification in doing so.  Spectacles were wildly popular with the people.  Celebrations of triumphs, the games of the arena, the races of the hippodrome, attracted the attention of the populace and even the most depraved of the Emperors, such as Caligula and Nero, had the admiration of many merely because they kept the people entertained.  Perhaps our future leaders will be entertainers.  They will take residence in Washington as they now do in Las Vegas.  

Maybe this is the new form of American Exceptionalism.  We can hardly be seen as exemplary anymore, but we're certainly distinctive and unique.  Mencken called us boobs, and his assessment was thoughtful.  We're seeking, and may yet attain, a government for the boobs, by the boobs and of the boobs.