| It is well for something to be known. | |
| The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known |
|
| NUMBER 1517. — May 1, 2002 |
ISSN
0882-3731
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Unknown Friends: We continue to serialize the great lecture Selves Are in Economics, which Eli Siegel gave in 1970. That was the year in which he explained, in his Goodbye Profit System talks, that we are at a crucial point in the history of economics and the human self. Now, after so many centuries, he showed, "an economy based on ill will cannot succeed." Even as people take part in the profit system, there is more conscious repugnance and resentment at being seen in terms of how much profit some boss or corporation can squeeze out of one. "The desire for profit has never had a good effect on humanity," Mr. Siegel wrote. " ... In recent years, the insufficient ethics of a specialization in profit has been noticeable; and also the inefficiency of that specialization."* Aesthetic Realism explains that the big fight raging within each individual is: Should I see the world and people with contempt or with respect, with good will or ill will? Mr. Siegel showed in 1970 that for an economy to work well, it can no longer be based on contempt, on the hope that another be weak so you can be strong, on the hope to beat a person out, on taking the wealth another’s labor produces while paying him as little as you can. The only way economics will now succeed is for it to be based on good will, which Mr. Siegel described as "the desire to have something else stronger and more beautiful, for this desire makes oneself stronger and more beautiful" (TRO 121). Economics has to be different from what has been in the world before. It has to be in keeping with the justice to people described in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In the present lecture — with a certain casualness, lightness, yet also passionate exactitude — Mr. Siegel is illustrating that which he showed to be the central matter in economics: how selves see other selves. Since he refers to Chaucer here, I am going to comment on some lines of Chaucer: passages that have to do with purposes in economic life, from the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. The date of The Canterbury Tales is about 1380; and at the end of the 14th century money was made in various ways. We meet some of them as Chaucer describes the people, of different walks of life, who are traveling together to Canterbury. And it has been clear for 600 years that the persons whom Chaucer respects are not those who want to grab, manipulate, make a lot of money, but those with good will. That is always true, for everyone. When we see the profit motive straight, it always looks sleazy: the motive to get as much as possible for oneself from somebody while giving that person as little as possible. In order to make acquisition look good, you have to pretend it’s something else; you have to make it look like good will. And that has been done all through history. Advocates of child labor argued that having small children work was kind because it developed character in them. Advocates of slavery tried to make it seem that slavery was kind to black persons — that it was a means of their being taken care of for life. "A Specialization in Profit"One does not come to terms with the world by owning certain phases of it. Owning does not satisfy the unconscious drives of the self. We can own the world only by knowing it. We can possess the world only by having it in our minds; that is, by having knowledge of it. [Self and World, p. 279]That, as we will see, was the deep feeling of Chaucer too. Doctors, Pharmaceuticals, & Profit
Mr. Siegel was passionately clear on the subject: No person worried about health, he said, should ever have to worry about paying for health care! And further, he explained, for someone to feel that the suffering of another is financial good fortune for oneself, is terrifically hurtful to the person making the profit. A doctor in the 14th century, who became rich because people were enduring the plague, tended to hope people got the plague. That is surmisable in Chaucer’s lines about a man of medicine. A Lively Line about DeceitReligion and ProfitChaucer’s Pardoner is funny, immortal, and terrible; and what Chaucer describes in him is the simple profit motive: the seeing of people in terms of how much money he can make from them. Chaucer has a line describing the Pardoner’s enthusiasm in that motive: he is "Bretful of pardoun, comen from Rome al hoot" — "Brimful of pardon, come from Rome all hot." That is a wonderful line: sizzling mercenary eagerness mingles with piety, as "bretful" and "al hoot" meet "pardoun" and "Rome." There is a description of the Pardoner’s "relics." This is an example: "For in his male he hadde a pilwe-beer, / Which that he seyde was Oure Lady veyl" — "For in his bag he had a pillowcase, / Which he said was Our Lady’s veil." I translate in prose the lines telling how the Pardoner used people; then I give them in the original Middle English, because they are beautiful as they express Chaucer’s compassion for people and toughness about the Pardoner’s motive:
They Are Respected
What Chaucer valued so much, Eli Siegel had with the greatest fulness: good will for people and love of knowledge.
The Greatest Power By Eli Siegel Note. Mr. Siegel is commenting on statements in The International Thesaurus of Quotations, comp. R.T. Tripp (1970). A further quotation has to do with good will. I said that good will is the greatest force in the world, greater than all electricity, all the atomic power, all power of steam. It is reality itself. That is my most unconfined statement. And because the present profit system is against good will, is fighting good will, and good will is the most powerful thing in the world, those people who are in the know will bet on good will as stronger. One form of good will is courtesy, which was made a great deal of in medieval times under the head of chivalry. Chaucer used the word courtesy as if it were something else than just manners. Emerson used it as quoted here: We must be as courteous to a man as we are to a picture, which we are willing to give the advantage of a good light. [Emerson, "Behavior," The Conduct of Life (1860)]This has in it the idea of good will: that one hopes to see something in the best way, and also hopes that there is something good to see. This is the greatest force in the world, or an aspect of it, because reality wants to be a success. And if reality wants to be a success, we should hope that the instances we meet go along with that — hope, not fool ourselves, hope. Goethe is quoted too: There is a courtesy of the heart. It is akin to love. Out of it arises the purest courtesy in the outward behavior. [Goethe, Elective Affinities (1809)]The statements of Emerson and Goethe are under the head of "Courtesy" in this book. And Tennyson is quoted: The greater man the greater courtesy. [Alfred, Lord Tennyson, "The Last Tournament," Idylls of the King (1871)]When this is understood and is not seen as something decorative, I think people will know who they are. Until then, they don’t know who they are. The greatest mistake that people make is to think that they are for themselves. They are for themselves as they see it, but the full meaning of it is not seen. A further quotation is from a criminologist or penologist, Robert Rice, from The Business of Crime: Crime is a logical extension of the sort of behavior that is often considered perfectly respectable in legitimate business.I say something like that in James and the Children. Two persons are quoted, very different, under the head of "Envy." It is interesting to see Aeschylus and Yevgeny Yevtushenko in the same section. The translation of Aeschylus is by Richmond Lattimore; this is from Agamemnon (458 BC):
It is to be seen that there is a continuity between Aeschylus, part of the Athenian city-state in the 5th century BC, and Yevtushenko. That is a notable thing. The purpose of the profit system is to make your envy look beautiful, and also to have people envy you and to have their envy of you look beautiful because you are more fortunate. If Yevtushenko and Aeschylus can agree, we should ask what they agree on.
*Goodbye Profit System: Update (NY: Definition Press, 1982), pp. 13, 167. |
||||||