Preoccupation of the mind. A curious concept. On the one hand it indicates one is absorbed in thought, or engrossed in a particular idea, or dealing with some current situation requiring resolution or action of some kind. The consequence of this mental activity, one’s mind is so occupied that it is unable to entertain any additional thought or matter that may arise. Rather like a cubicle with a sign indicating ‘occupied’. The brain is certainly capable of dealing with a multiplicity of ideas and enabling multitasking, assuming the physical requirements for such endeavours are available; but, there are moments when the absorption or mental concentration is so deep, that one appears to be distracted and not open to any interaction, not even of any kind. It becomes in effect unavailable for use.
This state of being is naturally transient. We usually work through situations that occupy our minds to such an extent as to effectively close it down. This enables us to interact with others. At any rate, it is the normal and usual course of action between human beings. A give and take exchange of ideas. On the other hand there are minds that are full of specific ideas, so firmly held, that they are permanently occupied. This is a state of being that is beyond preoccupation. Areas of the mind, at its corp, are so completely absorbed with locked in thoughts, that nothing newly apparent or diverting can enter. The mind is not so much distracted but, rather, petrified. Hence interaction seems to take place on the periphery of the brain. These fixed ideas are retrieved on occasions, not so much to elucidate new thinking, but to reenforce the already fixed idea. It is like a cubicle with a permanent sign indicating “occupied” whichever way one turns the latch. There is no way in. It is never available.
As I sit here preoccupied, pondering, I wonder whether there is an area in my own brain which harbours such petrified thoughts. Am I a creature of what is called the radical left, or am I capable of accepting certain conservative concepts. William Pitt the Younger was a Conservative politician, yet he said in the House of Common "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”. A sentiment which any lefty would agree with. Indeed many people in their youth have aligned themselves with the political left and mellowed in their later years to join with a more conservative approach to governance. I do not think I have gone that far, but there are certain aspects of civilisation, in particular, what might be called the social contract, which may seem conservative on my part. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the duty of care. There are a number of conservative politicians who would express a similar view. The difference is the extent to which laws are made to control behaviour and thought, and to what extent one enforces the duty of care.
Russell Kirk (1918-1994) an American philosopher and historian, wrote a book published in 1953 called The Conservative Mind. In it he suggested five canons of conservatism:
1-A belief in a transcendent order, described as based in tradition, or natural law;
2-An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
3-A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasise natural distinctions;
4-A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5-A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.
To begin with I find the second premise of an affection for the variety and mystery of human existence, completely at odds with a so called transcendent order or the idea that society requires orders and classes that emphasise alleged natural distinctions. What the conservative mind sees as tradition, natural law and distinctions is thinking of themselves as, by natural right, above the general population and consequently more worthy. They are not. As to property and freedom, they are to some extent linked. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with the freedom to own property, but the conservative view of acquiring property to the extent of preventing others from owning property, is something else again.
As to faith in custom, convention and prescription, it is not so much faith as it is respect. The traditional idiom of minding your p’s and q’s is a reasonable bench mark in social interaction. As regards innovation, by its very nature it cannot be tied to anything although in the light of the current expansion of the internet and AI, and its effect on societies in general, the value of prudence might apply. I confess I lean more towards the age of enlightenment in the persons of Locke, Kant, Smith (with reservations) and in the current era, Chomsky, Derrida, Barthes who probably have more to do with language and thought than politics. There are many more to chose from.
In any event, I am clearly not a conservative but I can appreciate some of its concepts; however, there are those who call themselves conservatives who do not embrace the five canons, and, whilst claiming to embrace small government, seek to impose total government control of their own making. They would impose their idea of what constitutes order, tradition and custom and prohibit any and all opposition to that order, even to the slightest degree. And so we have the likes of Orban, Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro and others of their ilk.
The current outstanding horrors are unfortunately being dominated by men whose minds are preoccupied in the sense of unable to absorb any new thought. I cannot believe that there are no people in positions close to these individuals who might break through the cubicle door and change some views. Perhaps not. I ponder.
This state of being is naturally transient. We usually work through situations that occupy our minds to such an extent as to effectively close it down. This enables us to interact with others. At any rate, it is the normal and usual course of action between human beings. A give and take exchange of ideas. On the other hand there are minds that are full of specific ideas, so firmly held, that they are permanently occupied. This is a state of being that is beyond preoccupation. Areas of the mind, at its corp, are so completely absorbed with locked in thoughts, that nothing newly apparent or diverting can enter. The mind is not so much distracted but, rather, petrified. Hence interaction seems to take place on the periphery of the brain. These fixed ideas are retrieved on occasions, not so much to elucidate new thinking, but to reenforce the already fixed idea. It is like a cubicle with a permanent sign indicating “occupied” whichever way one turns the latch. There is no way in. It is never available.
As I sit here preoccupied, pondering, I wonder whether there is an area in my own brain which harbours such petrified thoughts. Am I a creature of what is called the radical left, or am I capable of accepting certain conservative concepts. William Pitt the Younger was a Conservative politician, yet he said in the House of Common "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”. A sentiment which any lefty would agree with. Indeed many people in their youth have aligned themselves with the political left and mellowed in their later years to join with a more conservative approach to governance. I do not think I have gone that far, but there are certain aspects of civilisation, in particular, what might be called the social contract, which may seem conservative on my part. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the duty of care. There are a number of conservative politicians who would express a similar view. The difference is the extent to which laws are made to control behaviour and thought, and to what extent one enforces the duty of care.
Russell Kirk (1918-1994) an American philosopher and historian, wrote a book published in 1953 called The Conservative Mind. In it he suggested five canons of conservatism:
1-A belief in a transcendent order, described as based in tradition, or natural law;
2-An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
3-A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasise natural distinctions;
4-A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5-A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.
To begin with I find the second premise of an affection for the variety and mystery of human existence, completely at odds with a so called transcendent order or the idea that society requires orders and classes that emphasise alleged natural distinctions. What the conservative mind sees as tradition, natural law and distinctions is thinking of themselves as, by natural right, above the general population and consequently more worthy. They are not. As to property and freedom, they are to some extent linked. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with the freedom to own property, but the conservative view of acquiring property to the extent of preventing others from owning property, is something else again.
As to faith in custom, convention and prescription, it is not so much faith as it is respect. The traditional idiom of minding your p’s and q’s is a reasonable bench mark in social interaction. As regards innovation, by its very nature it cannot be tied to anything although in the light of the current expansion of the internet and AI, and its effect on societies in general, the value of prudence might apply. I confess I lean more towards the age of enlightenment in the persons of Locke, Kant, Smith (with reservations) and in the current era, Chomsky, Derrida, Barthes who probably have more to do with language and thought than politics. There are many more to chose from.
In any event, I am clearly not a conservative but I can appreciate some of its concepts; however, there are those who call themselves conservatives who do not embrace the five canons, and, whilst claiming to embrace small government, seek to impose total government control of their own making. They would impose their idea of what constitutes order, tradition and custom and prohibit any and all opposition to that order, even to the slightest degree. And so we have the likes of Orban, Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro and others of their ilk.
The current outstanding horrors are unfortunately being dominated by men whose minds are preoccupied in the sense of unable to absorb any new thought. I cannot believe that there are no people in positions close to these individuals who might break through the cubicle door and change some views. Perhaps not. I ponder.
No comments:
Post a Comment