George Bernard Shaw on Reasonable-ness

August 5, 2010

- George Bernard Shaw on Reasonable-ness -

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

(from here)

quotes —

Very sad definition of progress if you ask me. But I suppose that’s the Victorians for ya.

Comment by speedbird — August 5, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

Yeah, I agree. Even within the frame of his argument, what about the man who adjusts himself to meet the world, and comes up with such a great way of doing it that everyone copies him, thus changing society?

But I liked the juxtaposition of progress and unreason. Thought that was rather nice. :)

Comment by Ian — August 5, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

I rather like it. Very Emerson very Nietzsche. I feel like why blow in the wind, or follow the tide around? What is it to be an individual and to be an original ?

Comment by Ted — August 5, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

thought you’d like this one, Ted. :)

Comment by Ian — August 5, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

Probably what should be noted is that this refers to a Man’s higher self. If you are connected to your higher self you can make unreasonable demands on the World and seelk to adapt it to your higher self.

Comment by Ted — August 5, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

what about the man who adjusts himself to meet the world, and comes up with such a great way of doing it that everyone copies him, thus changing society?

Like this: “Wow, that guy is such a tool! I want to be conformist like him!”

Just kidding! Kidding!

Seriously though, I think “the world” in this context is kind of how the New testament talks about it being a negative force.

Comment by Ted — August 5, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

Wikipedia paints him as a Socialist with lots of Philanthropic ideas like equal rights for women. So in the Victorian Age maybe the “reasonable” thing to do was to go along with the Classist staus quo.

I think a lot of times people say things in a bombastic way to make a point and that is easily misunderstood. I mentioned Emerson and Nietzsche because I just read a book about how influential Emerson was to Nietzsche. Nietzsche was much more bombastic than Emerson, but both had very similar ideas.

Comment by Ted — August 5, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

Actually I think it’s pretty hard to tell if he’s speaking ironically or not. You’d have to know the historical context. Either way, you’re right, ‘unreasonable progress’ is a cool concept.

It depends also what he means by ‘the world’. You’re right that he might mean ‘this false world that man has pasted over the Truth’, as in ‘do not love the world’. In fact I think that fits his photograph best :)

Comment by speedbird — August 6, 2010 @ 5:55 am

>> his photograph

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1721

:)

Comment by speedbird — August 6, 2010 @ 5:58 am

>> the historical context

The Last Days of the Enlightenment Church of Reason, I guess…

Comment by speedbird — August 6, 2010 @ 6:00 am

I also wonder what GBS considers “progress.” I would venture to say that all regress depends on the unreasonable man also. Nevertheless, it made me think of this quote by Charles M. Schwab of all people:
“The man who trims himself to suit everybody will soon whittle himself away.”

Comment by Donn — August 6, 2010 @ 10:19 am

Progress is difficult to define… an approach to the good? An escape from the bad? Now define ‘good’… :)

From GBS’s words (darn those folks wot can rite!) … I guess he’s (cynically?) defining ‘progress’ as what unreasonable people /do/…

Comment by speedbird — August 6, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Not everyone believes in progress. The existence of it is open to debate. I do believe in it myself. I am reading a book called “The War of Art” by Lee Pressfield who refers to progress as “Humankind’s return to God”

I like that whittling quote!

Comment by Ted — August 6, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

The Guy was a bad ass. That’s all I can say. A World beater.

Comment by Ted — August 6, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

>> Not everyone believes in progress.

True. Currently we have the ‘zero-summers’ who just want a bigger slice of whatever the pie is, and the ‘doomers’ who accept peak oil but maintain that oil=wealth, so we’re all going back to a violent stone age.

Ah well. I guess it was pretty much the same in Medieval times. ;)

Comment by speedbird — August 7, 2010 @ 1:33 am

>> oil=wealth

This is of course a monumental lie spread by the zero-summers, so actually I hold them responsible for everything ;)

I guess in this the golden age of the bean counters, zero-sum is the only ‘reasonable’ solution. So GBS is right on the money.

Not a sad definition of ‘progress’, a terrible indictment of ‘reason’!

Comment by speedbird — August 7, 2010 @ 2:21 am

I mean, there’s only two things in this world with no intrinsic value: money and information. Or maybe they’re the same thing. And yet the world seems obsessed with both of them…

Comment by speedbird — August 7, 2010 @ 2:31 am

I think the big problem at the heart of this quote is the idea that the world and the man (reasonable or unreasonable) need any kind of adjustment in order to come together. Or maybe just that they are somehow separate beings. There’s this false sense of opposition, that either the world must give or the man must. But really, there’s nothing outside of the event of now, which contains both man and world. Looked at that way, everything finds its place and Tao moves on. :)

How I got from “The Last Days of the Enlightenment Church of Reason” to the Tao, I have no idea.

Another way to put it is that in order to be forced upon the world, a desire must spring up “somewhere else” and be brought into play. But I don’t know if that’s how it really works.

Any way, I like that “whittling” quote too, something I try to remember all the time. And I too believe in progress, though I don’t think its linear, I think its kind of wave-like, growing up on one side, then another, back and forth, slightly higher and higher overall, as if the back and forth movement creates the energy used to grow.

I like that War of Art book too, here’s some quotes i found, if anyone’s interested. :)

the ‘doomers’ who accept peak oil but maintain that oil=wealth, so we’re all going back to a violent stone age.

This is a hilariously accurate description of why I have never understood the doomers. That kind of attitude gives more power to the thing you recognize as killing you.

I mean, there’s only two things in this world with no intrinsic value: money and information. Or maybe they’re the same thing.

Money exists as transportable/exchangeable potential, intrinsically empty. But it’s liquid possibility, essentially, as long as you find someone else who agrees to value the money in relatively the same manner as you do. So it does stand for something on its own, as long as you have at least one other person who agrees to consider it valuable along with you.

Information is has no intrinsic value because it must have a context within which to be understood, or at least related too. Knowing that its raining outside means nothing if you don’t know whether or not you like rain.

So I wouldn’t necessarily say they’re the same thing, though there’s definitely something similar there. In both cases, you need to relate the thing to something else (or with someone else) in order for it to have any value.

Hmm, perhaps there’s a general theme here…

Comment by Ian — August 7, 2010 @ 11:09 am

To me it seems like there is such a thing as opposition to things that threaten the status quo.

Comment by Ted — August 7, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

> false sense of opposition

Yes, I guess you’re right. Pretty cool, that.

> money and information

Man, that just popped in there, I have no idea. But it felt so right I had to leave it.

Comment by speedbird — August 8, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

Fook, I just had my head expanded…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWXDjiKVs2U

Comment by speedbird — August 8, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

(Sorry, don’t mean to get so off topic. But who’da thunk a quote from GBS would be so stimulating?)

Comment by speedbird — August 11, 2010 @ 5:10 am

He certainly had a way with words.

Comment by Ian — August 11, 2010 @ 11:57 am

I am not really following the side conversations but look at it this way:

So, let’s take an artist for example. Should an artist adapt herself to the world? Look and see what’s out there first and then give people what she thinks they want?

What should a revolutionary do? Try to to just adapt himself to apartheid?

What should an inventer do? Just try to get along without electric light?

The above people have something inside them that needs to come out. The world says “keep it to yourself.”

What is the world? Is it Indigenous? Is it “supposed to” be there? Is it ancient like the sun?

Or is it just a bunch of stuff other people made collected over time? Can it be changed?

I think, though, this subject is related to the earlier one on the ego. I think seeking to adapt the world to ones ego would be ill advised and a source of problems, but what if this is speaking of “the self” in a Jungian sense?

Arguably this unreasonable attitude towards the world is only justified in carrying out actions related to manifesting a higher inspiration. Who has higher inspirations? How would one know if one was having one? Are some people more prone to higher inspirations?

Are there “higher” people?

Is there an order of rank? Should some people adopt different attitudes toward the world than others? How would a person gauge this in relation negotiating the proper attitude between oneself and the world?

Comment by Ted — August 11, 2010 @ 7:18 pm

Ian,

If all opposition a man can face in the world is only a “false sense of opposition” than what is “opposition?” Is it simply a nonsense word? Why do we have that word?

Ok, so you are saying “We are all one.” So all opposition is illusory.

So you are saying everyone should adapt, therefore instead. Wouldn’t that adaption be illusory too?

It sounds like what you are saying is that there is only one will. There being only one will implies only one being. Therefore there is no conflict- so be passive, adapt.

If we are all one, then why not take the active role and adapt oneself to this One Universal will actively? Why not assume everything you want is right and that everyone else’s seeming opposition to your will is illusory?

If we are all one than why is only the reverse of this right?

Comment by Ted — August 11, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

The world says “keep it to yourself.”

The world doesn’t. People do. My point, although I come at it from a passive standpoint, is very much in line with this:

If we are all one, then why not take the active role and adapt oneself to this One Universal will actively? Why not assume everything you want is right

However, it doesn’t automatically follow that:

and that everyone else’s seeming opposition to your will is illusory?

Everyone else’s will is just as real and valid as your own. Our needs are best meet when we can convince (not trick, truly convince) other people that our needs coincide with theirs. Having either your will or other’s wills on a higher level is bound to lead to trouble. Its only when we see them as coming from the same place that we can work out a truly beneficial solution.

I think we’re in agreement on this, actually. Apartheid is not the world, its other people’s wills, equal to your own. The invention of electric light isn’t changing the world, its adapting yourself (as in working out the laws of electricity, doing the experimental work, inconveniencing yourself in order to figure out HOW the world actually works) to work with the world in a better way.

As for:

Arguably this unreasonable attitude towards the world is only justified in carrying out actions related to manifesting a higher inspiration. Who has higher inspirations? How would one know if one was having one? Are some people more prone to higher inspirations?

I have no idea. Saying higher inspirations prove themselves through attempting to manifest them ends up justifying might-makes-right, which is obviously not so sucessfull as a long term planet-wide survival strategy. Maybe we have to factor in “conscience” in the objective Gurdjieffian sense, in that there is a way to sense when something we’re doing is just plain wrong. To work to develop that and listen to it, so that we can know for sure. Allowing what is higher to guide us in this way might be the best way to find out whether we’re acting from a “higher” inspiration or not…

As for the “false sense of opposition” what’s false is when its “the world” that’s against us. It’s never “the world” that opposes us, its either just other people’s wills, or its that we don’t understand the world well enough. The true world always compromises with us as much as it can.

Comment by Ian — August 12, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

I’m such a damn taoist it makes me sick sometimes. :)

Comment by Ian — August 12, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

Well,
The conclusion that certian writers have come to, Like Emerson and Nietzsche, and also others, seems to be that on the main, humankind is composed predominantly of, not only rather dull witted, but also mean spirited people.

I think they actually reached this conclusion, not from being jaded or intellectually arrogant but actually from being intellgent, sensitive, even noble people and having to live in this muddy millieu of ordinary, mean, ingnorant people day to day and suffering from this situation.

The judgement to me, seems pretty sound. In nature there is a lot variation between different species. Like for example a carp, can live in a polluted sewer and thrive, wheras a trout, needs to live in clear mountain streams.

So I think it’s some type of misguided egalitarianism, to think you can throw a rainbow trout into a city sewer and assume it will thrive there because its good enough for a common carp, so it should be good enough for any type of fish.

This is what we are talking about here, of people realizing they are a trout among carp. When you reach that realization there is a tendency to seek out kindred spirits.

Comment by Ted — August 13, 2010 @ 7:02 pm

humankind is composed predominantly of, not only rather dull witted, but also mean spirited people.

Ok, assuming you’re right, why are they that way and what can be done to help them see that they are capable of better?

That’s the only useful conclusion to be drawn from that statement. Everything else is putting yourself up on a pedestal and jerking off in front of everybody. Nobody needs to deal with that.

Comment by Ian — August 13, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

Ok, even though you are a Buddhist, aren’t you kind of into Jesus, still?

What would Jesus Do Ian? Would he adapt himself to the World?

Plus doesn’t his story pretty much turn out as you would expect if most people were jerks? You never have misanthropic thoughts?

I really think people that have a motivation to help others and to make a positive contribution, get disillusioned. All I’m saying.

I really don’t buy people saying they think everything is hunky dory. What does it mean to help humankind Ian?

Comment by Ted — August 15, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

What are you trying to get at with these questions Ted? You seem to be trying “rip the wool off my eyes” or something, but you only offer depressing descriptions of people and a view of the world as a depressing place. If that motivates you to get up in the morning and do something with yourself, then great, it works for you.

That kind of viewpoint would leave endlessly hitting the snooze button and pulling the shades down. But you could very well be affected differently by that viewpoint, in fact, I’d bet you probably are. If it works for you, then great!

Anyway, “people” are not “the world” that’s all I’m saying.

Comment by Ian — August 16, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

In a world of six billion, the reasonable man believes his actions cannot improve things.

Comment by speedbird — August 16, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

Well, think of it this way. What if you were a nutritious gourmet plate of food. Walking amongst starving people. You were only enough food for a couple people.

So you can sacrifice yourself to only a couple people and then you will be all used up. Then your mission in life will be over.

You also have eyes and ears and a brain, and a pair of wings that enable you to quickly fly away. You are very observant about all these people. So do you randomly offer yourself to the first to people to come along?

Or would you be more discerning? How discerning would you be? What if someone pushed a bunch of people out of the way to get to you and crushed them under his feet? Would you offer yourself to him?

Comment by Ted Heistman — August 17, 2010 @ 8:52 am

You are not the food. Looking at it that way is only going to cause trouble and failure, because then when you run out, it’s your fault. When the actual nutrition never has anything to do with “you” in the first place.

The nutrition comes through you, and flows out to those in need, in an almost chemical kind of way. Trying to control that flow without understanding it is only going to lead to problems. Its knows best where its needed, its your job to sense the world in such a way that the nutrition understands where to flow. You can also choose to work on the connection with that nutrition and keep the channel open as much as possible, but you don’t have to. Its all about clearing the channels, not some kind of ego-trip, “I am the provider for all peoples and I must decide who is worthy” kind of thing. True power isn’t just to be collected and then dispersed, it is to be cultivated and maintained for the good of all. Anything else just causes the same problems we’re facing as a society today.

Comment by Ian — August 17, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

I doubt you are consistently 100% egalitarian.

I doubt that you give all your spending cash to starving children in Africa. Yet you appear to argue from that position.

What is it to help another person from a position of total equality? If you were 100% equal to somebody why would they need your help? What would you have to give them?

If you were 100% equal but by sheer luck had ended up in position of advantage, you could readily distribute some advantage to them by way of money, until it was soon exhausted. Then you would be in a position to benefit others no longer.

What would it mean then to consistently be in a position to help others? To be in a position to consistently produce wealth and distribute it to others in need? Not necessarily money, but something of value that you were able to produce and others were in need of but inadequate to produce themselves?

Would that feel awkward to you? How could that be possible to be in that position if everyone is 100% equal? Are you unable to conceive of such a thing as being a person, that is exceptional? Is it just too damaging to your egalitarian sentiments?

Assuming it is possible to be in a position to benefit others, is it ever possible for other people to drag you down, abuse you and injure you and render you unable to benefit others?

These are the dangers exceptional people wrestle with. The danger of being polluted and degraded and dragged down to the lowest common denominator of society until they are in a position of not being able to offer their fellow man anything of benefit.

Its a real danger. There is a tension here, between being altruistic and having a need for self protection. Familiarity breeds contempt.

There is such a thing as empathy, the ability to achieve rapport with others, that sensitive people can be prone to. It can go too far.

Its good to have a proper sense of yourself and what you have to offer and what dangers there are in being injured, degraded and abused by people functioning at a lower level of existence.

That’s all I’m saying.

I work a menial job at a Garden center. Yesterday We found a banana slug that had probably come in on a plant from the state of Oregon. It was huge, probably 6 or more inches long. I looked at it as a fascinating creature, my co-workers wanted to to torture it to death in order to amuse themselves. So I threw it in the woods, where they couldn’t find it to give it a chance to live. This put me in conflict with my co-workers and caused them to ridicule me.

I’m at the bottom echelon of society here. Its hard to work among them while being a sensitive and intelligent person.

This kind of shit happens to me all the time. So anyway this garden Center is owned by millionaires and it pays its employees shit. Capitalism has a lot of drawbacks. So in a way the workers there are being taken advantage of. Does that mean they are wonderful people?

Should I adapt myself to being a low level wage worker? Take up drinking heavily on the weekends, start listening to country music and go to monster truck shows? To avoid being a snob? Should I take up gossiping and ridiculing the the co-workers that are at the bottom of the pecking order, below me?

Comment by Ted — August 18, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

No Ted, you should not do those things, and I commend you for what you did with the banana slug. I’d have done the same thing. I see where you’re coming from now. All those things in the beginning where you talk about my position, that is not really my position, and I’m sorry for not being able to write clearly enough to explain myself.

No, i cannot help children in Africa. I have little money. I would say that what you did with the banana slug was an example of what I’m talking about. You, by your existence, took a position that was contrary to the way “people” (not “the world”) are. By taking that position, you showed another possibility to those people, that the slug should not be tortured for their amusement, and could be appreciated for being awesome and alive.

If you hadn’t have been there, to “feed” them in this way, they would not have been nourished. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t change them, that’s not the point. Hell, its not your fault if they don’t “eat”. You did do something good for the slug, at least. I bet that slug appreciates the hell out of what you did. It was certainly nourished by your actions.

Of course, the evil twin of this is to become some kind of high-and-mighty person who goes around trying to lead by example. That’s no good either of course, cause you just come off looking like an asshole. Hence the point of view that the spirit manifests itself through you, you don’t make the spirit manifest. You become the channel that it flows down.

There’s a saying in Buddhism that the medicine must meet the disease, or, that you can speak the best dharma in the world all day long, but if no one really hears and absorbs it, it’s no different than idle talk.

People who are sensitive, who are aware of things on maybe a different kind of level, its our responsibility to manifest that in a way that people can take it in. We manifest the “nourishment” in our daily lives so that people can “eat”. We don’t give them money to buy food, its like the old “give a man a fish versus teaching a man to fish”.

The problem is, most people don’t even know that they have a fishing pole, let alone an ocean to fish in. Its not easy doing what you’re talking about, I agree, but it sounds like your trying real damn hard. And spirit will respect that, in some way, some time. Who’s to say how or when, but karma works itself out, if we let it.

Anyway, I think we’re on the same page on this but coming at it from really different viewpoints. Good luck Ted, sounds like you could use some.

Comment by Ian — August 18, 2010 @ 5:53 pm

Well Thanks Ian.

I think what it is is that I need to achieve some type of break through and be more independent and focus on being creative, which is where my gifts lie, but for now it kind of sucks because I haven’t reached that point yet. So I have to work menial jobs that frustrate me and use up my energy and then with the energy I have left I devote myself to my creative interests.

I don’t really get to associate myself with idealistic, sensitive, intellectually oriented or spiritually minded people. When I do we usually hit it off and they wonder why I am where I am in life and usually recommend I go back to school, then graduate school.

I haven’t had a lot of luck with academia in the past, I have 5 years of college, no degree, less than a 2.0 on my transcripts and $20,000 of student loan debt.

So I feel like life is a struggle right now, yet I sense I really do have something to offer. Ideally I will eventually be in a position to make a living doing what I enjoy. Thinking/Writing and creating Art.

I think though that it takes a certain amount of audacity to think you have something to offer the world and that you have ideas that may work better than what’s out there now. Its easy to let go of that and just follow inertia. Its easy to have a misplaced idea of humility and just keep things to yourself. I find its hard to be my true self around others.

Comment by Ted — August 18, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

Yeah, I hear you. I could say a lot of those same things myself. Just keep on at it, I’m sure things will clear up at some point.

Comment by Ian — August 19, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

Reclusland

August 5, 2010

- George Bernard Shaw on Reasonable-ness -

Leave a comment»

Leave a comment