History and Evidence of a coordinate

When you come sixteenth in a race for fifteen seats, it’s cold consolation to be told, “Don’t worry, it’s just a popularity contest”—as though life were a Family Circus strip. But I don't regard losing popularity contests as a personal defeat. I hear my social web whispering, "take the loss personally, but also constructively" -- and they're right, pragmatically: man, a social construct, must obey his social web.

But I'll learn that lesson ass-backwards, if you don't mind. That is to say: considering that my perspective is the opposite of yours, don't be shocked to see me believing the contrapositive of what's expected of me -- to see me taking it "with certitude, but also socially:"

• I'm proud of my loss, which is resounding evidence that my genius is still misunderstood -- tangible proof of just how far ahead of my peers I am ...

* but I'll also take it socially: * but I also I’ll take it socially: * Remembering what William James wanted us to know: that the measure of Truth is the number of persons who act as though it’s meaningful to themselves (such that my election loss was an experiment, challenging a hypothesis about how I’m perceived);

• • ...and acting as though that were true -- as though I would deserve moral condemnation for not acting on his critique of useless knowledge -- acting as though "Wisdom is a curse, when wisdom does nothing for the man who has it (once I knew this well but I forgot)," as Teiresias never got Oedipus to understand.

This second draft of my Second paper interprets today's referendum as analogous to this community's negative responses to my first draft of this paper. It writes a revisionist history of my first draft, as well as of my Senate campaign: "It failed because it failed to find a thesis in my personal narrative." And because my social web has whispered that it wants to hear that thesis, I'll tell it too.

The narrative starts with me going to Eben’s office late last semester, to ask him to let me transfer into his class. He asked me why I wanted to be a lawyer, and I told him; and he responded, “Clearly your father’s a surgeon: you were taught to view warm human bodies as cold inhuman flesh. You do not belong in my class; you and I will not get along; I do not want you in my class"; and I said something and here I am. The narrative starts with me going to Eben’s office late last semester, to ask him to let me transfer into his class. He asked me why I wanted to be a lawyer, and I told him; and he responded, “Clearly your father’s a surgeon: you were taught to view warm human bodies as cold inhuman flesh. You do not belong in my class; you and I will not get along; I do not want you in my class"; and I said something, and here I am. Before I trust you to understand the things I said immediately before and after Eben's comment about my father (who, as is now legendary, is in fact a surgeon), you need to know what came before that meeting, by which I mean, my life up to that point. I've always regarded myself both blessed and cursed to be among those who are well-educated and highly perceptive. We are both blessed and cursed, you and I, in that we cannot disprove what Voltaire meant only ironically -- that “to understand all is to forgive all" -- for, the more we learn about the Actors that harm us, the harder it is to identify the Actors against whom we want to be morally indignant. Which is great, if you’re trying to be a good Christian ... But I’m Jewish.
Before I trust you to understand the things I said immediately before and after his comment about my father (who, as is now legendary, is in fact a surgeon), you need to know what came before that meeting, by which I mean, my life up to that point. I've always regarded myself both blessed and cursed to be among those who are well-educated and highly perceptive. We are both blessed and cursed, you and I, in that we cannot disprove what Voltaire meant only ironically -- that “to understand all is to forgive all" -- for, the more we learn about the things that harm us, the harder it is to identify an Actor against whom to be morally indignant. Which is great, if you’re trying to be a good Christian ... But I’m Jewish. It's a blunt stereotype, but is what I mean: It's a blunt stereotype, but is what I mean by "being Jewish": To be commanded -- * As a Jew, I’m commanded to act like one who believes that beneath the descriptive meanings I’m so adept at finding lie latent normative meanings, for the very purpose of finding which my father and mother gave me these cursed smarts. * to act like one who believes that beneath the descriptive meanings I’m so adept at finding lie latent normative meanings, for the very purpose of finding which my father and mother gave me these cursed smarts. * I'm commanded to believe that my social position, and the information impacting me about others’ social positions, can never be “arbitrary,” -- * to believe that my social position, and the information impacting me about others’ social positions, can never be “arbitrary,” -- * to believe that no matter what I learn about physics, biology, evolution, psychology, sociology, and path-dependant accounts of history—that all of these bottom-up accounts are ruled, from the top down, by morality. * to ignore what I'm learning about physics, biology, evolution, psychology, sociology, and path-dependant accounts of history—because all of these bottom-up accounts are ruled, from the top down, by Morality.

And yet, for all my blessed perceptiveness, I'd never seen a single one of these meanings. What a curse! to be apathetic towards things that should make a mensch indignant. To hesitate to make Holocaust jokes, not because they make me uncomfortable, but because when they make others uncomfortable, those people criticize me. When I deferred my admission to Columbia Law School for a year—and worked for the American Jewish Committee, explaining that I was looking to learn what issues I should be concerned about as a lawyer—I emerged a year later with a list, but I still couldn’t care less whether I ever checked anything off that list. For all my blessed perceptiveness, I'd never seen a single one of these meanings. What a curse! to be apathetic towards things that should make a mensch indignant. To hesitate to make Holocaust jokes, not because they make me uncomfortable, but because when they make others uncomfortable, those people criticize me. When I deferred my admission to Columbia Law School for a year—and worked for the American Jewish Committee, explaining that I was looking to learn what issues I should be concerned about as a lawyer—I emerged a year later with a list, but I still couldn’t care less whether I ever checked anything off that list. So you can understand why, between Eben’s asking why I wanted to be a lawyer, and his telling me that I ought rather to be a surgeon, I said this: “Because I hate myself, and I want power.” I presented the phenotype of the son of Jewish parents, who wanted me to do good and to do well, but who also wanted proof that I would do good and do well.

• Given the dilemmas that parents face, the rational response is to train a son to seem rather than to be.
• Given that their control over our choices must eventually end,
  • parents first train us to seek things verifiably (call that "language acquisition");
  • and since their surveillance of us must eventually end too, they conform our visible choices, while still surveillable, towards the trappings of doing well and good.

But the tool of seeming is much better calibrated to identify doing well than doing good --

• just as it's easier for a surgeon to do good for organs but bad for the patient (cf effect of cheap MRIs ( 1 and 2 / my dad's mafioso stroke patient, "I knew something was wrong when I couldn't pull the trigger);

* or easy for a lawyer to do well for the client but bad for society; * or the ease with which a lawyer can do well for the client but bad for society. I, like everyone, was taught to favor living well over living good—indoctrinated to use education to inject myself into power, and to postpone figuring out why I deserved that power until I'd consolidated it. And so I, like everyone, was taught to favor living well over living good—indoctrinated to use education to inject myself into power, and to postpone figuring out why I deserved that power until I'd consolidated it. Eben understood, and so he forgave -- If by "forgiveness" we understand, Jewish forgiveness, the forgiveness of Maimonides, "charity by stealth:" he indicted that story to my face. MY STORY: He attacked my story, not me. He attacked my background, my assumptions, my history, my sociology -- EVERYTHING EXCEPT ME. Only that kind of indictment could crack open my precocious Jewish-boy graph-paper brain-cage and tell me what to do. Eben understood, and so he forgave -- If by "forgiveness" you understand Jewish forgiveness, the forgiveness of Maimonides, "charity by stealth" -- he indicted my story to my face. This is what his words meant to me: Of course, it’s easier for your Jewish-boy head to find descriptive truths rather than normative truths; your father taught you to be this way, in order to make you a good boy, as it made him a good surgeon. But fathers, though perhaps moral authorities, _cannot be their sons' moral authorities. Moral authority comes from Rabbis / those who study Torah. Which in a secular era, means, those who purpose by studying truth, to reveal NEW ETHICS, not ossify the old._ And this is what I heard: it’s easier for your Jewish-boy head to find descriptive truths rather than normative truths; your father taught you to be this way, in order to make you a good boy, as it made him a good surgeon. But fathers, though perhaps moral authorities, cannot be their sons' moral authorities. Moral authority comes from Rabbis, persons who study Torah. Which in a secular era, means, persons whose purpose in studying truth, is reveal NEW ETHICS, not ossify the old._ Christian or Jew: if we are secular, we must look to Socrates. We must look to him, and forgive his mild pedophilia, because he was the first, the Big Bang, of secular ethicists. But we have too little time, and too few words remaining, in this century, and in this month of the semester, and in this paper, for me to tell you what sort of Republic I plan to derive for my life— too little time for me to tell you what I said to Eben, that got me into this class. I'm happy to share in person, what I mean by personally deriving a personal "Republic," i.e. a vocation. Christian or Jew: if we are secular, we must look to Socrates. We must look to him, and forgive his mild pedophilia, because he was the first, the Big Bang, of secular ethicists. But we have too little time, and too few words remaining, in this century, and in this month of the semester, and in this paper, for me to tell you what sort of Republic I plan to derive for my life— too little time for me to explain how my response to Eben got me into this class. You'll have to ask me in person, what I mean by personally deriving a personal "Republic." If you want an advance idea of what I'm doing, ask yourself this: Which figure is Plato, and why?

Answering that question has something to do with this: Which figure is Plato, and why? I'm not trying to be cryptic. My father surprised me by sending me this print for my birthday. I've lost sleep looking at it. What the hell is David getting at? To me the answer has a lot to do with what Peter Drucker said about marketing. Which is why I'd like to get a Ph.D. in marketing. I'm not trying to be cryptic or trivial. My father surprised me by sending me this print for my birthday. I've lost sleep looking at it. What the hell is David getting at?

---

My guess: He's the depressed dude sitting at the foot of the bed. He is depressed because he knows Socrates points to the ceiling, and not a higher realm of existence. Perhaps he thinks Socrates is foolish not to flee.

Anyways, I really enjoyed this paper. It is very honest. I recommend getting a new checklist from an experience that allows you to connect and relate to people from different walks of life. I'll comment more later... I want to think about this some more.

-- JosephMacias - 11 Apr 2008

I rarely understand what you write, Andrew, probably because I am not 'listening' at the same frequency as you are speaking or because I am just watching when you do speak. That being said, when you write as lucidly as the prose of this essay, you really demonstrate your ability to be good. And instructive. I do not mean this to be an arrogant or condescending comment, if it comes out so. Indeed, that is precisely the opposite effect that I intend it. From the above, you have a good mind, and I wish I could 'read' it more often, in every sense of that verb.

-- JesseCreed - 11 Apr 2008

Jesse
Thank you for being willing to admit when you do not understand what I write: that's my fault, and hearing you say it is the best form of constructive criticism. It's the writer's sin to not make himself understood (William James and Teiresias again).

I guess this is the lesson I learned:

• One must in some way already be relevant to his readers (e.g. shared election / public "father surgeon" story) before his writing can portray him in a way that they consider relevant ...
• ...just as you need some data (from an election or a poll), before you can craft a message to your voters.
  • --> thus the "Senate Election" was a POLL, urging me to change the message in my Second Paper.

-- AndrewGradman - 11 Apr 2008