Ideas about ideas

“How do I determine the true value of something regardless of how es- or ex- oteric it is? It seems to be time. If something is of lasting value it continues to keep its value over time. But what to do when a 'thing' isn't old enough yet?”

Good question. I have written two responses to this and then I have deleted both of them. Here are a couple of thoughts but they are by no means conclusive.

There are important, public, or political ideas such as freedom, representation under the law, the divine right of kings, manifest destiny. There intellectual ideas, philosophical ideas, historical, etc etc. These are the things that fill text books. But these seem to be ephemeral, passing. Then there are the “Great Ideas.” I won’t use the word “universal” but it is implied. These are the concepts dealing with relationships, values, God, the capacity of individual determination. I say “concepts” because they are not concrete ideas. The understanding of our relationship to the divine and our relationship with each other vary greatly across time and space, but every culture and every individual has dealt with the concepts.

A careful skimming of WEM gives me the impression that Wise-Bauer asserts two important points about the lasting value of an idea. Firstly, an idea has value if it is developed from understanding, evaluating, and responding to another good idea (which also meets these criteria). Secondly, she seems to support the idea that all human history inevitably evolves towards liberal democracy (187). So anything that bears relationship to this idea—supporting or contradicting—is going to have long-term value for her. I think that there is a certain category of important ideas that this applies to, but not the “Great Ideas.” Those require something more than grammar, logic, and rhetoric. They require experience.

Experience is a common theme in most of the major “wisdom traditions” (for those squeamish with “religion”). How do you arrive at what is most important in life? How do we know who we are as a individuals and as human beings? Ancient sages would say by living out the experience of a particular tradition, what Ken Wilbur refers to as a “yoga,” a spiritual practice. This provides us with the knowledge and wisdom that is truly important. Zen practitioners, for instance, spend a lifetime meditating, performing the various rites of Zen Buddhism, and practicing the everyday tenants of the teachings. If truthfully followed, then provides them with a unique insight into truth. This may be tested with an answer to a koan, that, if determined by those in the know to be accurate will be written down and will slip into the fabric of culture. However, if later practitioners find that the answer doesn’t further their own practice, then it might slip back out.

So where does that leave Wise-Bauer and the ideas of our well-educated minds? Well, it leaves them second in line. She says that those who engage in the cultural conversation with understanding, evaluating, and responding become “enlightened” whereas the practitioners of wisdom would say that “enlightenment” is revealed in practice and that Wise-Bauer’s learning is important, but only to the degree that the use of the intelligence follows from the guidance of the wisdom. Anyone, anywhere can be enlightened regardless of level of literacy or the environment of the lesser-but-important ideas they are in.

Getting back to your question. I would understand you to be asking, in part, “if I have an idea (that I might publish in a blog), how do I know that it is a good idea? How do I avoid following bad ideas?” Secondly, “will my idea be recorded and considered good by subsequent generations?” I suspect that the best ideas that you have will be those arrived at after a lifetime of practicing Wisdom. The second-best will be those that you arrive at after understanding the lasting ideas that have preceded you, and responding to them. As for what will be published and read later: that gets into vast complicated historical and political issues of lesser importance to the ideas themselves.

I think what sucks most about all of this is that none of it is an original thought and is much more eloquently and succinctly stated in other sources. But I have been struggling with it for three days now and am going to post just to stop thinking about it. I’ll come back and re-edit later.

WEM's order of genres / popularity

Maybe this is a moot question since we're not following the genre order and heading straight for chronological order, but I felt the need to post something even if it doesn't rival the Beatles filk below.

I wrote a question to myself about the order of genres in the book, why she chose the order (novel, autobiography, history, drama, poetry) and how it was determined which was the most accessible. The order seems accurate to me in terms of difficulty, but how did she come up with it?

I believe it's because the genres are in the order of their creation from the most recently conceived to the longest in existence. History and Drama could probably arm wrestle to determine the winner, but at least by Susan Wise Bauer's (SWB) lists Drama is 10 years older (and thus in the right order coming after Histories).

Age makes something less accessible because of information that is lost, making it esoteric. The more time between me and said thing (genre, poem, story, relic, etc.) means the less meaningful and more difficult for me to understand said thing without some research. Do modern 'things' require the same amount of knowledge but I've just been schooled in modern culture my whole life since I live in it. Whereas understanding ancient Greece takes a little more effort than rolling out of bed to an alarm clock, blending my morning protein shake, and driving to work.

Is each genre rooted in the period during which it was created, creating such differences of understanding? Is Allen Ginsberg's 'Howl' more closely related to the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' by Anonymous (large body of work that one) or Gabriel Garcia Marquez' One Hundred Years of Solitude? Or is there a three dimensional matrix of relationships (perhaps requires a family tree drawing) to fully map it?

This leads me into another point I've been thinking about and that is the idea that popular ideas become less valuable. Like when oil floods the market the price of gas drops; the 'Oprah effect' SWB called it. And if an idea becomes popular, known to the general public, then it is well-known enough that no translation is needed, no knowledge outside of common everyday modern life. Right now if I read an article on Britney Spears, I know she was in the Mousketeers with Christina Aguilera, I know she kissed Madonna (or was kissed by) Madonna at a concert, and of course I know she is a pop-star princess right now. There is no translation needed. I understand the context. In 50 years (probably less), I may have to describe what I mean if I write something that references Britney Spears. The topic will become more esoteric over time (we can only hope).

That's all well and good and seems to be a natural process like the half-life of radioactive material. The part that I have an issue with and haven't worked out for myself is that as some bit of information or knowledge becomes more esoteric it becomes seen as more valuable by the those in the know, who make up the es- of esoteric. How do I determine the true value of something regardless of how es- or ex- oteric it is? It seems to be time. If something is of lasting value it continues to keep its value over time. But what to do when a 'thing' isn't old enough yet?

Maybe I will do what we are doing with this blog - use it and enjoy it during it's rise in exotericism and then if it is not valuable, I will drop it later, no harm no foul. If it turns out to have true value, maybe I will be a part of a blog that will one day be on a reading list for classical education online. But then there are the 'things' that have the ability to cause more harm during their rise and fall than a blog. See this interesting article on the book lists of presidential candidates.

"Blogs, blogs, blogs" - Shakespeare (translated from the original Elizabethan English)