Zeitgeist A Philosophy of the Future (Introduction)

Introduction                                         

 “In like manner the spirit of the time, growing slowly and quietly ripe for the new form it is to assume, disintegrates one fragment after another of the structure of its previous world. That it is tottering to its fall is indicated only by symptoms here and there. Frivolity and again ennui, which are spreading in the established order of things, the undefined foreboding of something unknown – all these betoken that there is something else approaching. This gradual crumbling to pieces, which did not alter the general look and aspect of the whole, is interrupted by the sunrise, which, in a flash and at a single stroke, brings to view the form and structure of the new world.”

Hegel: Phenomenology of Mind.
There is at present hidden from view, a spirit of our times, something that might be referred to as a Zeitgeist; a reaction to the culture-consuming process of globalisation and the humanitarian and ecological consequences of democracy and the free market.
As these ongoing crises proceed towards their predictable endpoints this Zeitgeist will emerge as the only logical and indeed viable alternative for the continued existence of our species. Those few with the intellectual depth needed to recognise this ‘new’ modality of thought, and the courage to live by its dictates, will be amongst the first to catch sight of the sunrise upon a new age of enlightenment.

This quiet revolution is barely perceptible beneath the superficial clamour of our current technological and democratic social experiment. Yet despite the overwhelming noise of modernity  its voice persists. An optimist might assert that it’s nascent stirrings herald the beginning of a new era of political and philosophical thinking. Others hold that we must await the impending catastrophes of ecological and social collapse before mass thinking can change and modern philosophical or political paradigms can shift.As with any age or era that has come and gone, mankind is presently trapped within certain distinct and narrow modalities of thought, a series of mass delusions that define our age . Delusions that will be clearly recognised by the generation who will doubtless look upon us with scorn as they cope with ecological consequence and imagine a what might have been accomplished if global resource had been used more wisely and not squandered at the behest of those same delusions.
As society continues to evolve in a manner that derives its form and function from the ‘markets’, from materialism, profit and the brute instinctual desire of the masses; the need for change is as apparent as the consequences of our worsening; economic, ecological, social and personal crises. The era of ‘hydrocarbon man’ is drawing to a close which is perhaps not a bad thing for he may be as unhappy as he is ecologically destructive..

Perhaps the modern economic ‘crisis’, and the more subtle philosophical crises may be little more than cyclical eddies within the ebbing tide of human evolution? Regardless of the answer, it is increasingly recognised that the unsustainable relations between capitalism, personal happiness and global ecology, has (perhaps for the first time in the recorded history of our race) presented humanity with a temporal ultimatum: either we evolve a philosophical and political system that is compatible with basic morality and global ecology, or we face the consequences of a deepening personal and social unhappiness, impending ecological collapse, increasingly brutal humanitarian disasters and war.
Though almost impossible to reconcile within the confines of mass media and contemporary market dogmatics; these ongoing crises have opened a space within the marketplace for questions pertaining to the validity of the market itself, and its role as the single most important influence upon the trajectory of human civilisation.

“We are living in an intellectual dark age.” Stanley Monkhouse, Professor of Anatomy RCSI

A seemingly insurmountable difficulty here is an ‘intellectual contraction’ that is particularly evident in western civilisation, a contraction that is a product of market expansion and importantly, prevents the type of observation or depth of reasoning  needed to analyse social dysfunction beyond the superficial ‘sugary’ analysis that defines our contemporary profit driven media. It may simply be that the contraction itself is purely relative to the expansion of the material and anti-intellectual ideology of the market?

Mass media must appeal to the largest mass and therefore its intellectual content must be reduced in accordance with the the majority towards which it must appeal. This intellectual contraction is observable in the ‘philosophy’ of mainstream media as it exalts materialism or base instinctual desire to the highest objectives of modern democratic capitalism. Mainstream media, particularly that which is dependent upon an income derived from advertising, defines politics and social function within fiscal parameters, and it finds philosophical or intellectual discourse to be an anathema. In most western societies the most popular entertainment is invariably the most stupid and it dominates the airways during the those periods when the particular mode of media is most used.

Mainstream media analysis has become entirely market-driven and thus devoid of depth. Attention span is diminished and the process of thought is supplemented by the Internet. Arguably, we are living in an intellectual ‘dark age’ one that is a consequence of globalisation and the gradual supremacy of brute instinct in the form of the free market. Sadly the philosophy or intellectual reasoning that might afford an antidote to our present global and social malaise is an anathema to mainstream media and market forces.  Individual commentators who might look  beyond present ‘givens’ and the fixed delusions of modernity, those who might exercise a deeper analysis of social dysfunction are ridiculed and marginalised. They are often referred to as ‘intellectuals’ and are relegated to the fringes of society along with; homosexuals, housewives and children. . Generally speaking in public, intellectual discourse that might venture beyond the horizon of market ideology has become akin to breaking wind. Intellectuals are considered in the same way that homosexual men are viewed by many of  their heterosexual counterparts, superficially accepted and yet deeply reviled.  The intellectual is the new leper, the new pariah, she must dumb down her words she must become stupid if she is to ‘fit in’ or else seek solace within the shrinking walls of  factory universities and be left alone with silent books and dusty archives

Consequently education systems in the western world, formerly responsible for the cultivation of the intellect, have largely ceased to function as centres of learning and have become institutions of ‘training’. This catastrophic shift is an inevitable response to the relative social ‘value’ that is presently applied to the disciplines of; philosophy, literature, classics or the arts, and those of; business, science, fashion and biotechnology.  Universities are no longer places where a young man or woman might cultivate their intellect, but rather they are trained to do something that will generate an income and thereby increased functionality within the market and capitalist social construct.

Hope and dissent.
Despite the 'intellectual contraction' that accompanies globalisation and the expansion of the 'free' market; the current economic recession and the repetitive ‘boom-bust’ cycle of market driven economic function, has led to a questioning of market ideals by several philosophers and respected economists. Contemporary ‘thinkers’ such as; Renata Salecl, Alain Badiou and Slavov Zizek,- organisations such as; the Center for the Advancement of Steady State Economics, and more, have lately been permitted an opportunity to question the market, via the Internet and occasionally within the market defined framework of mass media. Ironically, there is now a place upon the shelves of the marketplace, for a genre, a pulp fiction of sorts, that seeks to question and even undermine the market itself. The market it appears is becoming increasingly tolerant of the dissent that is necessary to ultimately liberate it from the consequence of itself.

Yet by and large, mainstream media, radio television and publishers, continue to avoid contemporary intellectuals for fear their language will not be understood or that pertinent questions might be asked and consumers alienated. Media, (particular that which is dependant upon advertising) is compelled at all times to appeal to the masses, and should it move beyond this horizon, profits may be compromised.

In this sense modern media is not free but is subject to a silent censor, one that is as severe and as narrow as any that have gone before. Modern democracy boasts a freedom of the press that is ultimately artificial and mass media is continuously subject to a level of control that may be worse than any dictatorship that has gone before. Contemporary mass media must bow to the market and the insipid stupidity of the masses before it cam make an utterance.

Many if not most truths are not self evident but must be arrived at through thought, analysis and an application of the intellect. Yet the more intellectually demanding media might be, the less successful it will be because it will appeal to, or be understood by fewer consumers.. Therefore to the wider audience social pathology is deprived of an intellectual appraisal of any real depth and it remains confined to the horizon of; ‘good guys and 'bad guys’, ‘lack of regulation’ or ‘lack of resources' rather than consequences of the philosophical hegemony of market ideology.

Recently the media was dominated for a time with the horrific story of a policeman who was brutally executed by a criminal gang escaping a robbery with the relatively paltry sum of four thousand Euro. When I became aware of the story myself it was listening, one of the nation's higher paid presenters giving vent to the near universal sentiment of national disgust, at the heinous and brutal nature of the crime. Upon the limited horizon of mainstream media there remains no possibility that a connection might be made between the lust for wealth that was the motive of the murderous thieves, and the personification of riches that is at the same time vehemently condemning them? In the same way the social pathology of the Nazi's or the Communists was deprived of a free press and was thus permitted to culminate in genocide and holocaust, so too is democracy equally deprived of a free and intelligent analysis, and as such it proceeds towards it's own inevitable catastrophic endpoint.

This is perhaps the greatest tragedy and the greatest pathology that has come to undermine modern democracy; that 'freedom' of the press has been usurped by a profit driven agenda with its own inherent censorship. Thus in the context of economic collapse, the parameters for discussion and analysis, confine almost all discourse within the narrow coordinates of; a 'return to profit', 'job creation', and 'economic growth'. We remain incapable of seeing beyond these failed paradigms, they are of course the same paradigms that engineered the collapse in the first place, and continue to engineer a myriad of impending and predictable social and environmental catastrophes.

Let's start with instinct and evolution.

Perhaps it is human nature to want things, or to want money to give us power to buy those things? We purchase and consume in order to satisfy our needs, however we do not really understand from whence those needs arise, and quite often we have little insight into their real or relative validity. In the most simplistic analysis we may not really need many of the things we purse or desire, and as such we perhaps do not need much of the money we aspire to earn. Much of the time we spend at unsatisfying labour is possibly wasted, and much happiness and freedom is denied to ourselves. Consequently our national economy may not require much of the wealth it strives to generate, and global ecology need not disintegrate so rapidly. A deeper analysis would suggest that we do not understand the basis of most of the needs by which we are driven; as individuals, as societies and as nations. Our principle need is for a happiness that is of least dispute, however we are ill-equipped to recognise nor are we educated towards and understanding what exactly happiness is? And how it may be most easily acquired. Arguably much effort is expended upon instructing us away from the truth of this ideal and towards the folly of empty consumptive and emotive pursuits.

This is an important point that cannot be overstated . An intelligent re-evaluation of private and public 'need' would undoubtedly identify enormous material superfluity, to the extent that a contraction in individual and social 'material need' would provide the impetus for a near eternity of economic growth. Growth without the felling of a single tree, and with a likely increase in public and private happiness. Yet this simple truth finds no voice within the confines of market driven media institutions, for it is an anathema to market ideology and the 'operational-logic' that defines democratic capitalism. It is a truth that apparently escapes environmental organisations who choose to offer consumptive based solutions to consumptive driven problems windmills in the place of nuclear power plants, and so on. That economic growth is most effectively and environmentally sustainably driven by a contraction in material needs.

Presently society moves in the opposite direction, and rather than a contraction of our needs towards those that can be intellectually and philosophically validated, we live in an era where our needs continue to expand into the realm of the superfluous and the utterly ridiculous. So much so that we have reached a point in western civilisation where economic expansion and 'growth' have become dependent upon a simultaneous contraction in human intelligence, one that encourages individual 'needs' to be subjectively defined in increasingly infantile and ridiculous ways. Children and adults 'need' advanced technologies to be entertained, clothes and apparel 'need' renewing for the sake of fashion, countless millions 'need' to eat processed foods and fly to Frihilliana each year for a 'week in the sun' and so on and so forth. One need only look at the growth f the Chinese economy and the pressures that growth places upon global ecology to observe some of the real cost of our superfluous material need.

Doubtless it is possible within a philosophical dialogue such as this, to frame the outline of an improved or more evolved form of democratic governance. However given that our needs as such are reducible to inherent instinctual desire; the proposition of any sustainable political model is therefore entirely predicated upon a deeper understanding of human instinct and the psychology that arises out of that instinct. Whether there is sufficient time left for our species to witness the evolution of such a model,or whether that model can be attained or pursued following an imminent ecological and resource collapse; is a different matter entirely.

For the present, we must continue to endure the consequence of capitalism, consumption and market ideology, as these political and personal behaviours consistently fail in the satisfaction of their instinctual or emotive basis. We can be certain that future generations will judge us harshly for our failures and our ignorance or the instinct by which we are driven.

An interesting question for historians might be, whether various epochs in human history might be defined by the particular instinct that best reflects the mores and social priorities of the day? If this is true, the age of democratic capitalism is quite possibly an age where the acquisitive instinct, or the desire for material surplus, reigns supreme. This particular instinct has perhaps been existent throughout history, and as a consequence never before have so many people possessed so much private material wealth. However it is also doubtful that there has ever been a time when so many have endured such real and relative deprivation.

The modern era can perhaps be described as 'the century of the self', the era of 'what is in it for me?'. Literature and philosophy must titillate the senses or ingratiate the ego if it is to be persisted with, by and large, immediate gratification is the order of the day. That which requires a modicum of thought or effort remains as remote as the problems of Africa or the science of climate change. Yet as we become increasingly conditioned to the immediate pleasure of the here and now, as our patience and our capacity for deeper analysis are diminished, we become disjointed from the self. We become less self-aware, disconnected from the same capacity that differentiates us from other animals, the same capacity that is an essential ingredient to true and lasting happiness. As a consequence of this disconnectedness, we become increasingly primitive in our thought and our language, detached from our intellect more unhappy, and less likely to recognise the cause of our malaise.

A Cigar called Hamlet

Ultimately the aim of this book is happiness; individual happiness and consequently social happiness. Happiness can perhaps be described as an experience, a state of mind derived from a mode of living that is universally aspired to, even by those who derive it from the experience of pain. An initial assumption here is that the experience of happiness is the result of certain behaviours, leading to the satisfaction of certain desires. The quality or longevity of the happiness enjoyed is a product of understanding ones desires and engaging in behaviours that might satisfy those desires most efficiently and most effectively. To this end, before happiness comes an understanding of our desires, we must realise what it is that we are wont to want from life.

Outside of tragedy or misfortune unhappiness is more often the consequence of a mismatch between desire and behaviour. The desire or need that has not been properly understood will likely have an inappropriate behaviour applied to its satisfaction, with corresponding results. Therefore the experience of lasting happiness is dependent upon either the directed or serendipitous coupling of behaviours that sustainably satisfy ones real desires to a greater or lesser degree. We can often do this by simply following the apparently 'good example' of people who appear to be happy. However this approach is fraught with difficulty, for human beings are in many respects individuals, and the application of another's recipe for the 'good-life' is as likely to fit as snugly as his shoes or clothes.

Matters are made even more difficult by the reality that happiness is very easily pretended to. The outward appearance of happiness is valued as a social currency. As such there are many who appear to be happy, (who even believe themselves to be so), but who are dwelling in a fools paradise, an edifice that is tottering and awaiting a gust of cold reality before it comes collapsing on top of them. Imitation of these poor souls may be fruitful for a time but is certain to ultimately result in nothing short of abject misery.

It is of course almost impossible to pursue real happiness without first learning to define what it is, and to at least distinguish it from the immediate experience of pleasure in the here and now. In many respects the ability to define happiness in real terms is often referred to as 'wisdom'. By far the most productive pursuit of happiness begins and ends with an understanding of ones own desires, only then can they be satisfied in a manner that is conducive to the best and most sustainable experience of happiness.