HI

... this is an expanding selection of pics and of some of my shorter pieces of writing ... and other bits and pieces ... in German and mainly English ... and other strange languages ... COME BACK AND CHECK IT OUT ... COMMENTS WELCOME

wolfgangsperlich@gmail.com


Wednesday, September 25, 2019

A REVIEW OF INSURRECTO (2018) BY GINA APOSTOL

A REVIEW OF INSURRECTO (2018) BY GINA APOSTOL


There is a line, I like, in the Moody Blues song Lovely to see you:

            Tells us what you've seen in faraway forgotten lands
Where empires have turned back to sand

Will the American empire turn back to sand? What about a precursor, like the Spanish one, who colonized The Philippines and then handed them over to the Americans? The linguistic consequences of transitioning from Austronesian to Spanish and finally to (American) English are beginning to play out on the English literary scene, no doubt ending in a Booker Prize or what have you. Is the Filipina writer the next big thing, out-writing the English-English/American-American (the latter is a bit more complex), as done by the likes of Arundhati Roy (her being the ultimate author who writes in English without ever having lived/worked in the core countries where English is the native – excuse the pun - tongue). Gina Apostol looks like to be an example of that one step before: the expatriate making a career in writing, sitting uncomfortably on the fence (or Trump’s wall) that divides the first world from the second (or even third, more likely). Just like the English-speaking expatriates from Africa, the West-Indies and the Indian subcontinent flock to the UK, the English educated Filipinos migrate to the USA, the home of their last colonizer. Moving from the tropical heat of Tacloban to the miserable chills of New York but, anyhow (as Gina Apostol is fond of saying), never mind the weather, who would be as stupid as not wanting to live in the Big Apple (it’s great for shopping)? Americans are crazy people, mostly, but they have the power and the money, mostly. Or as Gina is fond of mimicking Filipino English, “usually”, so let’s substitute my ‘mostly’ with ‘usually’. 

Caveat:  I commiserate with Gina Apostol in that I, too, am an expatriate who writes in English (but usually I do not mimic German English).

Since many a colonizer subdued the natives by way of military violence followed by missionary forgiveness, it comes as no surprise that in 1901 American occupation forces slaughtered some 30,000 Filipinos (historians disagree about exact numbers, ranging from 2,000 to 50,000) in retaliation for 45 killed of their own.

Having already been missionized by the Spanish conquistadores, the Americans as good Christians slaughtered the good Christians of Samar. Of course one cannot blame the Americans as they were attacked first, or can one? On researching this history, one comes across photographs taken at the time, of the massacre – the photographer having been an American society woman who nevertheless testified – or so the story goes – against the American army. These stereographic photographs fascinate Gina Apostol. How haunting is it to see your ancestors in ditches, mass graves, like the Nazis dug for the Jews? The advent of photography, and later film, is to history what Henry Ford was to the industrial revolution: the facts of the matter, as captured by the camera, they don’t lie. History as a moving documentary has arrived. No need to write about it. Just watch it again and again.

When I was in high school in Germany in the late 60s, our history teacher claimed to know nothing about the Holocaust. Some of us rebellious students wrote to the Wiesenthal Center and they sent us a package with photographs taken at the concentration camps. We showed them to our history teacher. He went to the Principal and complained that we were harassing him. The Principal was as guilty as the history teacher. He too knew nothing, saw nothing, heard nothing.

Still, you cannot really deny history when it stares you in the eyes. Of course, now in 2019, one can argue that photographs are as fake as any digital snapshot, with an App that inserted your face into/onto the one of a porn star in action, sexted to all and sundry in a post-modern Twitter world that in the USA and The Philippines has given rise to best mates, Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte. Anyhow, (to mimic Gina) let’s turn this whole quagmire, from 1901 to 2018 into a novel entitled Insurrecto. Let us use photography and film as a vehicle to tell the story, and what a story it is!

Let us do the literary Russian Doll thing – perhaps as taught in the Creative Writing class Gina attended in Iowa but mocked in her novel – namely that the two main contemporary characters are connected to a film maker who wanted to make a film about the 1901 massacre, kind of turning the stereographic photographs into moving pictures, connecting all the protagonists to each other through time. It gets a bit convoluted at times, what with cinematic flashbacks and voiceover, and the author thinly disguised as the contemporary Filipina revisiting her homeland. 

Mixing up history and fiction is of course a common literary contrivance. Letting fictional characters discuss famous and not so famous writers, artists, philosophers and their works, adds to the bewilderment of the reader, not knowing who is and who isn’t the real McCoy. If the English reader is not familiar with what happened in 1901 in Samar, it gets quite difficult to figure out who is real and who is not in this novel but maybe that isn’t the point anyhow. Gina Apostol never mentions Duterte by name, only by the moniker ‘the dictator’, maybe as an insurance policy against being hounded by Duterte’s mad dogs when she visits her homeland and gets awarded literary prizes. Nor does she mention Trump by name but there are other American presidents that are named: McKinley and Roosevelt. One could Google all the names of the Americans and Filipinos that pop up, especially as she seems to be an aficionado of the Internet, both inside and outside the novel. She has her own website dedicated to her novel, with links to her other novels, etc., something one has to do as an aspiring writer these online days. So, never mind if all the American soldiers’ names are real or not, or if the Filipinos’ names are in the history books or not: the novelist has license to mix and match as she pleases. She does a very good job of bringing to life those who died and letting the contemporaries wander in and out of the scripts (there are supposed to be two competing ones but they are not really well developed), concocting a rich tapestry of sorts, cinematic in scope, tragic in its subject matter. 

Her language – she calls it witchcraft – is very post-modern, very writerly at times, sometimes unnecessarily upfront with sex (fuck, fuck – in literature I prefer Ovid’s clever innuendo), showing off obscure English vocabulary, interspersed with Tagalog (and other indigenous languages) and Filipino-Spanish, creating a rich linguistic tapestry that befits the tropical heat in Manila and Samar. Excursions and allusions to the rest of the world, from New York to Venice to Hong Kong, promote the image of an author who is world-wise and world-weary, nothing like the cliché of the Filipino hospitality workers and nurses that are exploited as cheap labour all around the world. As such I am not sure why she exploits the cliché of The Thrilla in Manilla as much as the purported love for Elvis’ songs amongst her relatives in The Philippines. Sure, Ali was a great boxer and social activist but why Elvis? When in the last chapter Chiara and Magsalin sing and dance to an Elvis tune, it looks like bad taste to me. She mentions that her Elvis-mad uncles voted for the dictator (Duterte): how can the intellectually enlightened if not revolutionary Magsalin stay and dance and sing with them? If any of my German relatives now voted for the reactionary AfD, I would disown them (some of the dead ones may well have voted for Hitler). 

The main point of Insurrecto, as I understand it, is to point to the indomitable revolutionary spirit of the many Filipino people who have fought the Spanish and the Americans for their freedom, and are now engaged in a fight against Duterte’s dictatorship, like Marcos’ before. Filipino expatriates like Gina Apostol can play an important role in this fight for a socialist future, as perhaps envisaged by the likes of Casiana Nacionales. It is interesting that in an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer of September 28, 2018, Nacionales gets treated as a ‘pious heroine and freedom fighter of Balangiga’ and as a woman of ‘uncommon courage and patriotism’ which makes her out as being politically naïve, apolitical – a stance favoured by the mainstream press in the Philippines as much as in the USA when it comes to acknowledging former freedom fighters. At least Apostol raises the stakes by portraying Nacionales’ brother as a ‘communist rebel’ – the likes of whom ‘bedevil’ the current dictator who equates the Filipino communists with Islamist terrorists who lay waste to the Philippines and need to be exterminated by ‘patriots’ like Duterte and Trump. 

Having travelled in The Philippines myself a little bit, one cannot help but notice the vast differences between the haves and have-nots, what with luxury resorts dotted along the many beautiful beaches, frequented by old American/European men with very young Filipinas in tow.

The Philippines will soon catch up with Thailand as a retirement haven for Western pensioners and sex tourists who want to live out their last hurrahs as colonial masters of the universe. 

When I was an adolescent in Germany, the celebrity magazines were full of the German playboy Gunter Sachs doing his thing with Brigitte Bardot in Manila and environs, alerting the German readers to the fact that high society flourishes best – especially for Paparazzi – in the far-away tropics. Today, as a resident of New Zealand, The Philippines are practically a neighboring country, and indeed there is a big influx of Filipinos in New Zealand, either as temporary workers or as intellectual and political exiles from Duterte’s brutal war on his opponents. New Zealand may not be the first choice for such migrants – presumably the USA is still number one – but at least here they experience a bit less of the anti-migrant terror that currently exists in many other Western countries - notwithstanding the recent Christchurch massacre of mainly Muslim migrants. 

Sooner or later a Filipino-New Zealander will hit the literary scene, like Gina Apostol perhaps, and write that novel that will be an instant sensation, and then a Filipina who has never left The Philippines, like ‘Geronima’ Nacionales, will set literature alight, starting a revolution for the readers of English. In the meantime I have come across only one other NZ-Filipino author, namely J.R. Nakao, whose Fire Dragon (2017) is a real political action thriller, set mainly in The Philippines. Compared to Insurrecto it is like chalk to cheese but then again who is to say which genres make the cut and which don’t. Anyhow, Gina Apostolo is the one to watch and read now!






Friday, July 26, 2019

POLITICS AS CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT

POLITICS AS CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT

Now we have two hairstylists as political ‘world’ leaders, what with any number of fading stars from sports, movies and social media as supporting actors – all ‘elected’ by people who think the joke is not on them. This theatre of the absurd is financed and manipulated by a few rich listers who know how to ‘influence’ the ‘influencers’. Maybe it has always been like that but then again, planet earth used to be able to contain this madness – not anymore. With vast stretches of the earth becoming uninhabitable for billions of people, such a political merry-go-round only hastens the demise of humankind, all in the name of a vast fortune to be made in the next five minutes. The toxic by-products like pollution, disease, abject poverty and modern slavery are all swept under the red carpet on which celebrities dance the night away. The middle classes – and lower classes with false ambition – lap it all up as great entertainment, for what else could they possibly do? Reading and watching the daily news is a fantastic diversion from the drudgery of work, delighting in the latest gaffes from buffoons like Trump and Johnson. It’s like an ancient Greek tragic comedy, only that the real consequences are not confined to the amphitheater anymore but to the world at large. Proxy wars are started at the drop of a hat, vicious oppression by absolutist rulers goes unanswered, and the high and mighty taunt each other until ‘the laughter grows too loud’. Career politicians of the sort seen in Germany and New Zealand eagerly follow suit, making sure that any meaningful politics is derided as mad and bad socialism or greenie claptrap. Even then there is any number of politicians in the making, riding any bandwagon as long as it furthers their ambitions. If it suits to be ‘green’ so be it. If it suits to advocate for the ‘poor’, so be it. All talk, no action. 

When even mainstream commentators like the Guardian’s George Monbiot decry the current state of affairs, echoing sentiments expressed by the more enlightened voices of Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy, we have to assume the worst. The slippery slide down the hill may go unnoticed by the population at large, occupied as they are, by the daily grind of work and consumption. The human capacity for suffering is such, that just about any oppressive power can move in and decimate those who show the slightest signs of dissent. Popular uprisings are squashed without mercy, with an obedient armed force that relishes brutality and destruction. A Nazi mentality is being fostered and made ready for deployment. Red-baiting moderate conservatives will have the desired effect, as it did in Germany: when the center gives way, the fascist hordes move in and take over. History will repeat, sadly for the last time: there will be delirious joy amongst the followers as they shoot themselves, first in the foot, then in the head. 

Can all this still be prevented? Perhaps, but the time bomb is ticking away. The point of no return is ever getting closer. Can anybody turn the ship around? Can the crew throw the captain overboard or is the captain part of the crew? We seem to know what the problems are but nobody seems to know what the solution is. Is our fate as writers, as Arundhati Roy suggests, to simply document all this as a fait accompli? To leave a story to tell for a post-modern world, with nobody to listen? There is an eerie silence already: when so-called revolutionaries like Michael Albert take to podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, they acknowledge that they have no idea who they are talking to. Well, let me tell you: in New Zealand, the joke is that the only government department listening to the people, is the secret service. All these social media are obviously just a Big Brother plot to keep tabs on Michael Albert, who in his idealism somehow hopes, hope against hope, that someone is actually listening to him and understands what he is saying. Like me, here I am talking to myself, which by the way is not so bad, because it helps me to translate my thoughts into written language. So, if by a remote chance you are reading this, I can recommend such a mental exercise, that might even lead to some sort of communication, that beats cheap politics as entertainment. If, on the other hand, you are an AI algorithm to keep me silent: good luck, because you will need it when the chips are down.








Thursday, June 27, 2019

AN EXTENSIVE AND PERSONAL REVIEW OF LOST CONNECTIONS BY JOHANN HARI (2018)

AN EXTENSIVE AND PERSONAL REVIEW OF LOST CONNECTIONS BY JOHANN HARI (2018)


Since the subtitle cover page reads ‘why you’re depressed and how to find hope’, addressing the reader, one is immediately drawn to the cruel joke of ‘if you cannot read this sign, join a reading class’, the tragic point being, that if you are depressed, you are unlikely to read this book, especially if you come from a socio-economic class that has left you educationally challenged, i.e. not being literate enough to help yourself this way. 

As such the book is of profound importance for those literate enough – and commonsensical enough – to come to understand that depression is essentially a social and political phenomenon. So-called mental health professionals and their funders and employers all have varying conflicts of interests, from the adherents of the savage bio-pharmacological model down to the noble ‘better world’ model advocated by Johann (I adopt his endearing habit of calling people by their first name – as opposed to academic treatises where surnames rule the roost). 

The current neo-liberal government of New Zealand (in the guise of a coalition of Laborites, Greens and weird populists of the NZ First Party) has just released a ‘well-being’ budget that allocates billions of dollars to ‘mental health’, in a move to reduce the dreadful toll those conditions like ‘depression’ imposes on the overall health budget and economy at large. 

The government had commissioned a report – as a convenient way to disavow all responsibility – that came out in November of last year (2018) entitled He Ara Oranga and subtitled Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction.  It is considered ‘progressive’ to use the indigenous Maori language as a token while in actual fact the underlying message is that Maori suffer more under ‘mental health conditions’ than any other ethnic community in New Zealand, thus in a perverse way indicating to the WASPish upper classes of NZ, that all is well. 

As usual in such commissioned government reports, the people so commissioned are the usual suspects, like senior academics, doctors, community leaders (Sirs and Dames) and the token ‘consumer’ representative. A mental health nurse at the coalface critiqued the report in a Nursing Journal as ‘liberal fascism’ in a brave attempt to provide a counterpoint, no doubt doomed to oblivion (much as Johann’s attempt, I dare say). In support of my wife who is also a mental health nurse, I wrote a letter to said Nursing Journal supporting the critique, and predicting that the writers of the report will have their number one recommendation actioned, namely to establish a Mental Health Commission to which the senior members of the report writers will no doubt be appointed – so far the government has indeed announced that such a Commission will be established. One can only guess at what cost, given the fat honoraria these people get! 

The report itself does, of course, note the underlying causes of NZ’s dire mental health crisis (p.42):  

People saw poor mental health and addiction as symptoms of poverty, social exclusion, trauma, and disconnection.

Well, doesn’t this look like something out of the contents list of Johann’s book, namely Part II: Disconnection: Nine Causes of Depression and Anxiety? So shouldn’t we congratulate the report writers for their insights? This always reminds me of education reports (I am a teacher) whereby the statistics are always the same: the deprived socio-economic classes lack in educational attainment. Shame, shame! But what this really says, is that those who are not so burdened with poverty and social exclusion are doing really well. Congratulations! If poverty would NOT cause crime and mental health disorders, one would have to worry, lest these poor people get the wrong idea and start organizing themselves and start a revolution. 

The only problem for the upper classes is that these poor people are an economic burden, using up taxpayer money that could be much better spent on supporting entrepreneurs who ensure growth in GDP and prosperity for ‘the nation’. It is therefore paramount that government solves this problem so that poor people fulfill the role destiny provides for them: fodder for the labour market. 

Johann’s Cause One: Disconnection from Meaningful Work is echoed by David Graeber’s recent book entitled Bullshit Jobs: A Theory (which I have also reviewed on my blog). David’s many case studies sound suspiciously similar to those cited by Johann – by this I do not mean that Johann is plagiarizing David, and even if he did I would not hold it against him like some do because I do believe that ‘plagiarism’ is yet another myth dreamt up by clever capitalists (see also my blog entry on the Language Paradox), the point being, that David and Johann are on the same wavelength. What Johann does, however, in addition to his commonsense observations, is to provide scientific evidence of sorts. I am not sure what the purpose always is, especially if the research cited only confirms what every sensible person should have known in the first place. Johann often portrays such scientists and academics as somewhat misguided characters who are surprised by their own data, like the guy who researched the Whitehall civil servants, expecting to find that the top of the heap will be most stressed (and possibly depressed) because they carry all the responsibility and pay to make them go insane with worry (like how to spend their salaries and bonuses). As every normal person would have known, this is not the case, and it is the many civil servants (in the true meaning of the word) who are at the bottom of the hierarchy, being subjected to what is known as ‘wage slavery’, and thus suffering from depression and anxiety. 

What is more problematic then are Johann’s Causes Three and Five, which essentially deal with the upper classes, the well-off materialists and consumers who are said to be very unhappy with their lot. The presidential alpha-male is always anxiously on the lookout for his competitors while the baboon on the lowest rung bows his head in defeat, being bullied by everyone along the way, as various biologists (e.g. Lorenz who advocated ‘aggression’ as normal) have described - and as repeated by Johann as if this is an insight of great importance. Animal behaviour is, of course, a convenient metaphor, none better than Pavlov’s Dog that spawned the evil notion of how to manipulate human behaviour. Along that line, Johann is of course quite correct in pointing to the vast advertising industry that compels everyone to consume and consume, needing the money earned from bullshit jobs. Chomsky saved linguistics from this bullshit behaviourism that otherwise took over economics (marketing and advertising) giving rise ultimately to fascist manipulation of politics - in its worst manifestation by the Nazis, as so well described in Wilhelm Reich’s Mass psychology of Fascism but finding contemporary expression in many parts of the world, as pointed out by Arundhati Roy in a recent speech:

As the ice caps melt, as oceans heat up, and water tables plunge, as we rip through the delicate web of interdependence that sustains life on earth, as our formidable intelligence leads us to breach the boundaries between humans and machines, and our even more formidable hubris undermines our ability to connect the survival of our planet to our survival as a species, as we replace art with algorithms and stare into a future in which most human beings may not be needed to participate in (or be remunerated for) economic activity – at just such a time we have the steady hands of white supremacists in the White House, new imperialists in China, neo-Nazis once again massing on the streets of Europe, Hindu nationalists in India, and a host of butcher-princes and lesser dictators in other countries to guide us into the Unknown.

Some might wish that these miserable people (the 1%) alluded to are in fact very unhappy and so depressed that they will all commit suicide – as a pacifist I actually wish death on no one. Not sure if anyone has done any research on the mental and emotional states of the 1% but lets face it, the following quote attributed to Genghis Khan (who BTW is classed amongst the above together with Hitler, by Bertrand Russell), says it all:

The Greatest Happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.

To attain the highest status as a dictator, or just one rung above someone else on the ladder, are the ambitions of many, be they low class or high class. Of course, the latter has much better chances to achieve their goal. I have long argued that such purported disconnections from status and respect – as elaborated by Johann – lead to what I call neo-feudalism, a primitive, Machiavellian scramble up the ladder and down the ladder, heads off, if it must be, off to retirement (ála Theresa May) if willing, being voted in by rigging the system with clever algorithms, and whatever means justify the end. These people, as brilliantly portrayed by Heathcote Williams in his Royal Babylon for the Brits, enjoy their golden toilets (sorry, thrones) as much as the peasant having a good crap. Prince Charles who wants to be a tampon no doubt enjoys deviant sex. President Trump likes to grab pussies. These people are NOT unhappy or depressed! They enjoy their untold privileges with such depraved gusto that the 99% of onlookers get even more depressed – or else get ever more determined to climb to the top whatever the cost, so as to be able to join in the fun.  

What I am trying to say to Johann, is that the capitalist system has not followed Marx’ recommendation that it will hang by its own rope – far from it. The allure of the 1% versus the 99% is too great in the face of even a mild egalitarian (socialist) system of society. Be it Bernie Sanders or Jacinda Adern, or the fine people endorsing your book (like Hillary Clinton and Elton John), they are all wedded to the capitalist system. Yes, they will tinker around the edges, tricking us with empty advertising slogans like putting a human face on capitalism but they will never have to do an honest day of work, enjoying endless holidays in the sun, visiting the Queen or hanging out with Richard Branson on his private island (as does our friend Barack Obama). My guess is that only when we have totally regressed to neo-feudalism, will we see a renewed vigor amongst the precariat, ready for that last revolution that will not eat its children and bring us all that true liberté, égalité and fraternité that the French Revolution never delivered.

As Noam (Chomsky) keeps pointing out, the immediate threats in this scenario are a nuclear war and the climate crisis; twin causes to make even the most optimistic people depressed. Johann’s Cause Six: Disconnection from the natural world, unfortunately, does not come to grips with this. He merely trudges along on a mountain path and listens to scientific evidence that nature cures depression, something that animals in captivity acquire. He cites a somewhat bizarre scientific ‘discovery’ that in this context is ridiculous, if not tragic: prison inmates that had cells that looked out onto fields and meadows were less likely to be depressed than those looking onto brick walls. Zoos these days create mini-environments for their captive animals and they still get depressed. Never mind the animal evidence, let's all go ‘forest bathing’, a fashionable trend noted in the Guardian with the headline ‘Getting back to nature: how forest bathing can make us feel better’, explaining as if we did not know the Japanese connection:

Once a month Li spends three days in forests near Tokyo, using all five senses to connect with the environment and clear his mind. This practice of shinrin-yoku – literally, forest bath – has the power to counter illnesses including cancer, strokes, gastric ulcers, depression, anxiety and stress, he says. It boosts the immune system, lowers blood pressure and aids sleep. And soon it could be prescribed by British doctors.

In New Zealand, the land of ‘100% pristine nature’ (= fake advertising), Aucklanders trudging off into the last remaining Kauri forests near Auckland have caused what has become known as ‘Kauri dieback disease’, by way of carrying spores (on their shoes) into the forests. Now various city agencies want to ban access to these forests. When we lived in Malaysia thousands of city dwellers would escape to the ‘nature parks’ over the weekend and leave behind the most disgusting rubbish piles known to mankind. The trail up to Mt Everest – foolishly first climbed by a New Zealander by the name of Edmund Hilary – is now a garbage dump (corpses included). Doesn’t science tell us that humans have impacted on nature to such a degree that ‘mother nature’ cannot sustain, and will in all likelihood die a miserable death? So, as Johann keeps citing Isabel the biological evolutionist: “Fuck captivity” let me cite Bertrand (Russell) for Isabel:

After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution progressed to the point at which it generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.

Aldous Huxley in Brave New World foresaw this scenario, at least in part, when he describes ‘savage reservations’ that are human hippie zoos, the AI city dwellers can visit for a laugh. So why are we so disconnected from Nature? Because we exploit Mother Nature like some whore? Because idiot scientists and engineers have invented the combustion engine, polluting the world with CO2and other toxins? Because Monsanto kills weeds and bees and aquatic life with a man-made chemical called glyphosate? Don’t lead me up to the mountain and down the garden path, Isabel and Johann, to show me nature that has already disappeared from the scenery, and yes, Johann, reduced to a screen saver. This is the main cause of human depression from which no one will ever recover!

Fittingly perhaps, Johann’s next chapter Cause Seven: Disconnection from a Hopeful or Secure Future begins with the story of a native American Indian who sort of says that history for him ended when the colonizers forced his folk to live on ‘reservations’ which obviously have no future, hence no history. Given the endless contradictions in the human condition, one might point to the reverse idea of ‘history having come to an end’ (via the right-wing philosopher Fukuyama) because the world with its great American idealism cannot get any better – i.e. we have arrived at perfection. While this is obvious nonsense, it just goes to show that for every genuine expression of distress there is one perversely opposite one. Johann’s next anecdote comes straight out of Bullshit Jobs (David, ibid.), demonstrating that a hopeless job at a call center will drive you insane. BTW there is a better way to look at this ‘future’ business: while time is a complicated scientific concept (e.g. Einstein’s 4-dimensional time & space warp), there is not just one way in terms of folk-science, i.e. the progression from past and present to future – popularized by the insurance industry that wants us to ‘insure against the future’. Polynesians, for example, used to have a different concept: you are walking backward into the future (since nobody knows what will happen tomorrow) and what opens in front of you is the vista of your past. In that sense, for me, as an old geezer, my future (whatever it might be) is getting shorter and shorter while my glorious past is expanding. If, as for the poor American Indian, the past is the story of living on a reservation, the past is as forgettable as much as the future might bring. 

The last chapter of Part II combines two causes: The real role of genes and brain changes, which is really one and the same topic, namely discussing (again) the purported biological causes of depression and anxiety, and refuting for once and for all that depression is purely a disease of the brain. So, after much ado about nothing, Johann asks why any of these conclusions should have been ‘controversial or new to anyone’. Exactly! And when asking yet another ‘leading’ psychiatrist why the more common-sense bio-psycho-social model hasn’t got any traction, the answer is equally uncontroversial: because it is ‘more politically challenging’. Well, who would have known! In our fine neo-liberal societies the pharmaceutical companies push the purely biological model because it earns untold profits. My wife, who works as a ‘psychiatric’ nurse in ED, where the most severe cases end up – and upon reading Johann’s book – she can now ask the psychiatrists in attendance if they would take the anti-depressants they prescribe, and they might say 'no'. But NOT to prescribe such medication at the bottom of the cliff would be ‘politically challenging’. As the police bring in more patients – it is illegal to try to commit suicide – the single nurse has to triage, decide what to do, write notes, find resources, and be told by the ED Charge Nurse to get moving because these patients are clogging up the system. When the psychiatric registrar arrives there is no time for therapeutic talk about social and psychological causes: take this pill and be gone. This is ‘really disturbing’ says the head of the department of social psychiatry at McGill University. It bloody well is, and what is he going to do about it? Draw his huge salary (compared to the nurse) and take a holiday? At my wife’s ED there is a shared office with ‘hot desks’ over which the nurses and ancillary staff compete for computers to write up their notes, while the psychiatric registrars and consultants have their spacious offices all to themselves, with a window to their own car park, where they can admire their Porsches. As Krishnamurti would say, they are ‘well-adjusted to a sick society’. I am not saying that all psychiatrists are hypocrites – there are no doubt some good guys amongst the multitudes of the bad variety, and maybe even the bad guys are innocent because it is the ‘system’ that made them, or at least allowed them to behave in this way. As Noam (Chomsky) famously said, if he were elected president of the USA, the first thing he would do is to send himself to jail – because it is the office of president itself that is criminal. So, maybe the position of a psychiatric consultant is criminal too, for it allows him (rarely her) to treat people with depression as a sickness in the head – CAUSE unknown or at least irrelevant. 

After high school in Germany, I wanted to become a psychiatrist. I had good matriculation grades and was admitted to LMU to first study psychology (and medicine later). My motivation was partially based on having read Freud, Jung, Hesse and lately people like Fritz Perls (of Gestalt psychology and the Esalen Institute in California) and Timothy Leary, and partially on sorting out my love life, and generally engaging in the anarchistic student movement of 1969. Not that I expected the professors of the LMU to be leaders of the new wave but, boy oh boy, I did not expect to be taught US-style behaviourism. After one semester I left for India and became a sort of Sadhu. Not that India had all the answers either: my travel mate was into TM and desired to meet the Maharishi at his Rishikesh Ashram. Unfortunately, his holiness was not there, possibly being on tour with the Beatles and the Beach Boys, so we were welcomed by his deputy, a German. This was a bit of letdown but then again what’s wrong with a German guru? What I noticed, however, at the ashram, was that the white-robed Brahmins were served yummy rice dishes while the workers, mainly dark-skinned and skinny Tamils, were left the leftovers. The German guru did not want to discuss socialism, and I was turned out. My German friend became quite depressed about it all – we parted ways and I ended up in New Zealand many years later. I tried again at Otago University to do pre-med (with the renewed aim to become a psychiatrist) but I did not manage to get one of the 25 places on offer for medical school – out of the 300 students competing. I became a linguist instead but always with an eye on psychiatry. In fact, I had nearly become a psychiatric nurse instead – before my Otago University adventure. While in Auckland and having failed to become a bus driver (I kept driving over the curb) I applied for a trainee psychiatric nurse position at the main city lunatic asylum. To my surprise, they took me on – given that I had studied psychology for one semester at LMU – and all I had to get was an all-white uniform (shoes, socks, shorts, shirt) and report to work in a male geriatric unit. The main task was to hand out cigarettes and to hose down the patients when they soiled themselves. After a while, I was also told to help with administering ECT. This barbaric treatment was well and alive in those days (and it making a come-back, I understand), so I volunteered to do a bit of research on ECT – the ancient Victorian consultant psychiatrist encouraging me to do so, presumably in the expectation that as a German fascist I would find all the evidence that ECT is a valuable weapon against mental disorders and any other ailment in the heads of the old patients – despite me sporting a ponytail (in those days a give-away as a radical hippie). I was given access to all the medical records and the statistics were incredible: some 80% of ECT ‘treatments’ were for ‘depression’ including mention of ‘uncooperative behaviour’. In other words, ECT was used as punishment for ‘difficult’ patients. Nobody paid any attention to my write-up and I left the profession soon after, running after my future wife who had gone on her OE to Paris (and after a few years ended up in Berlin – one of Johann’s main features in his Part III).

So, in Part III we are promised seven solutions – as opposed to nine causes of depression. By simple mathematics, this looks like a losing game. A well-known Maori scholar, Bruce Biggs, wrote a famous (in NZ) article entitled The Humpty-Dumpty Principle, pointing out that the Treaty of Waitangi documents, written in Maori and in English, were so different, that any attempts to somehow reconcile them was impossible, i.e. the egg is broken and all the King’s men cannot put it back together again. Take the climate crisis: some scientists maintain that we have already passed the point of no return. In that vein, Bertrand Russell’s dire prediction may well be to the point too. Maybe our planet is so screwed up that nothing can save it. That’s a very depressing thought. My grandson and I recently attended a presentation by Brian Cox (the rock star of British science) where he pointed out that the universe is now in a ‘structural’ phase (the first phase being after the Big Bang, i.e. one of great homogeneity) and that we then move into the last phase, which is one of chaos. While this plays out billions of years for the universe, maybe we can borrow the metaphor for human evolution: are we entering the last phase? Brian’s sidekick the comedian Robin Ince kept talking about his son and how their adventures in a forest (was that a case of forest bathing?) opened their eyes to beautiful nature, resulting in otherworldly happiness. Presumably, his point was, that as long as we humans are still here, there is still beauty, serenity, joy and ‘connections’ to be had. Maybe we can work it all out, just like the guys in Kotti (short for the Kreuzberg district in Berlin). 

When I, and my girlfriend, traveled in the Caribbean in 1977, she became pregnant, so the question was where to have the child. Having exhausted all our travel funds, we were basically broke, so we hit on the idea to go to West-Berlin, because you get all sorts of cash benefits having a child there, i.e. West-Berlin was desperate to stop the drain of young families – I mean, who wants to live in a divided city with one half situated in a foreign country? In addition, West-German draft evaders (I was one of them) were not prosecuted in West Berlin, so ironically, many of the young people left in West-Berlin were left-wing radicals. We arrived in freezing temperatures (-21C) and set about to prepare for family life. We managed to rent a small flat in a tenement building in Wedding, and I got a job in a miserable factory. This was the time of the Bader-Meinhoff (RAF) hysteria, and on my way to work every morning, I was confronted by cops with sub-machine guns, given my suspicious looks. We did not know any RAF, so we just kept to ourselves, practicing for delivery of the baby. What with my pregnant girlfriend not being German, we experienced the kind of treatment dished out to the Turkish migrants when having to deal with the West-Berlin bureaucrats, who administered the supposedly ‘family-friendly’ benefits system. Having to fill out millions of forms, being stamped by alcoholics in dark offices was not exactly our dream come true. Still, all the medical pre- and postnatal services were for free and delivery at the famous Virchow hospital was in the style of an assembly-line, what with many birthing cubicles in line, Turkish women howling and German obstetricians issuing orders “push harder”. I duly fainted and recovered consciousness when our baby daughter had arrived. Out tenement block was mainly occupied by grumpy, old Berliners, who did not like babies. Only a young couple on the floor below us did invite us for dinner once or twice. Baby and us went for long walks in the nearby Humboldt Park and waited for the day we could escape to London and then further afield to New Zealand. All this was financed with the cash payment received for having a baby in West Berlin. I have been back to Berlin after it was reunited: a surreal experience, as the conference I attended was in the former East Berlin, still showing the scars from World War II. In fact I had been to East-Berlin once before too: as a high school kid from West-Germany doing a school trip to West-Berlin, which included a day trip to East-Berlin, where our class saw a Berthold Brecht theatre piece in the then famous Berliner Ensemble, namely the The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui (Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui). For most of us Westerners this did not make much sense but a few of us saw the deep irony if not tragedy involved (especially now in retrospect): Brecht was taught in West-German high schools as the master of progressive theatre but why did Brecht himself return to the DDR (East-Germany) when the DDR was vilified in West-Germany as an evil, communist state under the control of cold war arch-enemy, the Soviet Union? 

Anyway, I am glad that Johann found part of his salvation in Berlin – after all this is the city where Rosa Luxemburg advocated participatory democracy, something that surely appeals to Johann. Thankfully, Johann also added an afterthought to his solution of ‘Reconnection One: Other People’, namely the Amish community in the US which on the surface of it seem to have found a solution by living in the past. However, their oppressive theology and abusive, collective system negate all that. Reconnecting to ‘other people’ in my view only works if it is in the context of proletarian struggle, as witnessed on a small scale by Johann in Kotti. 

Johann’s second solution ‘Social Prescribing’ is, unfortunately, immediately subverted, as reported in the Guardian:

Doctors and nurses should routinely tell patients to take part in sports and social activities rather than prescribing them drugs, the new health secretary has recommended. Matt Hancock backed a dramatic expansion of “social prescribing” as a way of relieving the pressure on the NHS as well as improving patients’ chances of recovering from their illness.


The sub-text seems to be that a third-rate NHS can further be demoted by cutting funding for expensive drugs, by substituting them with ‘sports and social activities’, that cost the NHS nothing. In NZ the state controls prescription drugs through a specialized agency that ascertains ‘cost-effectiveness’ before such drugs can be prescribed more or less freely for patients, who doctors believe need them. If the statistics show that a drug only saves 1 in a 100, the 1 in 100 will have to pay for it himself. One might think then that anti-depressants should not be funded because they do not work but of course far from it. Why? As Johann and many other critics point out, the pharmaceutical corporations that make these sort of drugs ensure that the statistics are skewed in their favour. What Matt Hancock above is advocating is that, for example, expensive cancer drugs – anti-depressants are very cheap in comparison because they are made from freely available materials – are not cost-effective for a labour force that relies on the NHS, i.e. let them join a table tennis club instead, and as we know, cheap labour in England is plentiful. Such an analysis might sound overly cynical but then again look at all the documented consequences of the austerity politics pursued by many governments around the world, growing the gap between the 1% and the 99% as if this wasn’t yet good enough (like selling cheap rubbish food and drugs to the poor is good business that must be pursued to the bitter end).
Johann’s take on ‘social prescribing’ is of course the exemplification of what it is supposed to be: people are driven to despair – like the mental health nurse – reconnect with people in similar situations and together they get out of their despair, depression and anxieties, all with the help of enlightened doctors who organize the recovery. The social activity so prominently prescribed is, of course, one of the most archetypal activities known to mankind: gardening. We too have a friend who has been on anti-depressants for years and years and his only out-door activity is working in a communal garden project. It keeps him alive. The mental health facility where my wife works has a dedicated garden for patients. I am a keen gardener too. Now consider the recent ‘social housing’ projects promoted by the current government in NZ: ‘affordable’ semi-detached homes are being built on 300 sqm sections, boasting concrete driveways and lots of fencing so you cannot see the neighbours. In the 1950s a somewhat better Labour government had the idea to build social housing on quarter-acre sections, so that a family occupying the house could have a garden around it, with a few fruit trees, growing vegetables, and some pretty flowers. This became known as the Kiwi Pavlova Paradise. Soon real estate companies ‘realized’ that quarter-acre properties should be sub-divided and many local councils introduced new building permits, so as to allow for a more ‘efficient’ use of the land. No more Paradise now! Of course, if you are well connected with the affluent classes you can still get your ‘real estate’ with landscaped garden and swimming pool, possibly with a gardener who ála D.H. Lawrence will provide some earthy delights for the lady of the stately house. The upper classes have always been obsessed with gardens, lately eschewing the Versailles models with Japanese Zen gardens, so no wonder the lords and ladies only fake their depressions so as to convince the poor that they too suffer from such illnesses. 

The restoration of ‘human nature’ as advocated by Johann’s exemplary good doctors is, of course, predicated on the idea that humans are part of nature and should act accordingly. Unfortunately, anyone wanting to make a fast buck will inevitably act against nature, to subdue nature or to elevate it as a status symbol. It is all quite depressing but perhaps, like Johann’ I am trying to get over it by writing about it, in the forlorn hope that a kindred soul will agree with me and thereby make a first step to the revolution that is required, in order to reconnect to nature and the Garden of Eden, that mythical place from which a cruel God banished us (or thanks to the stupid story that Eve is to blame). BTW another reason that run-of-the-mill GPs will not ‘talk’ to their patients, is the way they get paid: they can claim their ‘fees’ per patient after a 15-minute consultation, so why would they waste their money on ‘talking’ beyond the 15 minutes? Extended psychotherapy sessions could easily be delivered by ordinary doctors (which takes time and some dedication, as described by Johann) but would the NHS pay for it? No way!

Johann’s next solution ‘Reconnecting to meaningful work’ is again as elusive as can be, even though it should be obvious to everyone: ‘elect your boss’ says Johann. I currently work as a teacher in a Polytechnic Institute – a ‘public’ education facility – and there is a merry-go-round of ‘senior management’ with appointment procedures that are as secretive and elitist as can be. No wonder Oxford University some years ago selected a New Zealand university vice-chancellor, John Hood, who tried his best to ‘modernize’ Oxford by way of doing away with the archaic tradition whereby ordinary university academics ‘elect’ their senior management. To his credit, he more or less failed to make Oxford even more elitist. The democratization of the workplace, as advocated by Johann, and as exemplified by his Baltimore Bicycle Works, is a noble aim. Sure, there are isolated workplaces where workers own and run the company, some more prominent than others. The Brazilian Ricardo Semler achieved fame with his workers’ participation scheme but look where Brazil is today: with an autocratic ‘leader’ of the worst kind, there is no hope that Brazil will lead the way in terms of democratic workplaces. The by now ancient cry of ‘Workers Unite’ is now as vilified as any workers union, be it in the West or in ‘communist’ China. It wasn’t always so, as Noam (Chomsky) keeps reminding us: in the US in the 19thand early 20thcentury, labour unions and workers cooperatives were influential in everyday life in the US until a vicious, corporate model of capitalism first marginalized and then silenced workers and workers’ rights, leading to today’s system of wage slavery and denial of ‘meaningful work’. As mentioned before, my wife’s workplace is in an ED department, where doctors and nurses operate at the bottom of the cliff, publicly funded, and yet managed by a cabal of corporate mercenaries who screw the workers until they wince and submit. Voting for the boss? It is well known that the oppressed will vote for the oppressor. This is really depressing!

So, can I save myself by reconnecting to ‘meaningful values’ (chapter 19)? Johann again trots out the well-worn adage that advertising is ‘mental pollution’ and that we should find ways to detoxify ourselves. As I mentioned before, the advertising industry is the corporate version of behaviourism, which Noam long ago characterized as a neo-fascist enterprise. This is getting worse, not better. Through data mining and subsequent application of algorithms targeted advertising now taps into your individual preferences and desires, hitting you with that rhythm stick, until you surrender and buy that garden shed you have looked at on the Internet trading site with mild interest. Sure, if you select a group of people for a social science experiment, i.e. engaging them about their consumer values over a period of time, they will change their values for the better, at least for the time being. As the saying goes, people lack the information to make informed choices. We also know that the ordinary punter is excluded from any such useful information, again as explained by Hermann & Chomsky in their seminal Manufacturing Consent. And again, this is getting worse, not better: the social media avalanche manufactured by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google and what have you, relies on content that encourages mindless consumerism, fake news, bigotry, and misinformation. Sure, if we could only peel away these layers of fake values and ‘reconnect’ to what in Johann’s story a 14-year old pronounced as ‘love’? Some people argue that in the 1960s and early 70s there was a brief window, where youth culture nearly succeeded in a revolution based on ‘all we need is love’, and I as a product of that time, can attest to a certain euphoria that still occupies parts of my brain. As this threat to the establishment escalated, the empire struck back with what Johann has written about himself: the war on drugs. The most terrifying thought for the establishment was not drugs per se (as there was already a booming business with ‘legal’ drugs) but the realization that these counter-culture youngsters grow their own drugs, cutting out the businessman. Ironically, in recent years the corporate world finally succeeded in commercializing all those drugs for which you were busted in the 1960s, and now you can buy them over the counter in Canada and various states in the US. In fact, I have just sunk all my savings in buying shares for a proposed Cannabis company in New Zealand, in anticipation that in 2020 a referendum will legalize recreational cannabis, and I will ride the boom and finally become a rich old man. If ‘love’ were to make a comeback, I am sure that sooner or later it will be commercialized and sold in plastic bottles. Still, I totally agree: make love, not war! And BTW, there is no better anti-war song than Country Joe & Fish’s Vietnam Song! I miss the 1960s!

So we are counting down now: only three ‘reconnections’ to go. Number Five is really all about meditation and psilocybin, as part of a psychic reconnection to nature and human nature. There is no doubt that meditation in its many forms can be a beneficial method to do just that. As I mentioned before, I went to Rishikesh with my friend who was into TM, hoping to meet the Yogi Maharishi himself. To meditate on a given mantra, like ‘Om Mani Padme Hum’, or to meditate on a Zen koan, or to meditate on Arundhati Roy’s latest novel (see my review on this blog, entitled ‘A meditation on ….’), all such exercises of the mind do, however, need extensive background knowledge, so as to be able to derive the correct values. Johann also mentions CBT as having some potential (CBT is popular in the NZ Mental Health community). I do have some problems with that: in the first place, this is a misnomer because ‘cognition’ and ‘behaviour’ are quite unrelated (but of course heavily promoted in the behavioural sciences, including ‘advertising’). Cognition refers to the ability to think (cogito, ergo sum, the Cartesian pronouncement – I think, therefore I am – that Noam likes as a Cartesian linguist) while behaviour is how we act. We all know the parental phrase of ‘think of what you have done’ when we acted badly and bullied the kid next door. You hardly ever hear this in a positive context, like ‘think what you have done’ when you have made someone happy. So, since depression and anxiety lead to negative behaviour, like self-harm and committing suicide, we teach these people via CBT to ‘think’ about the consequences of their bad behaviour and hope they will change. Such behaviour manipulation can be quite dangerous, as Noam has pointed out in his example of the concentration camp guard: this guy may have been quite a normal person before, but given the legal opportunity to torture and kill people, who he was told by the authorities are not really human – he will do it. Fascists also have problems with gay people, so they advocate ‘conversion therapy’ because being gay is just bad behaviour. 

So returning to harmless meditation and now psilocybin (and a bit of LSD), Johann gives a lengthy description of Mark, who underwent a course of psilocybin under clinical supervision. It changed his life for the better. Having taken LSD and psilocybin myself in my younger years, I can attest to both good and bad (but not terrible) trips, of course, all done without any supervision or guidance (but never alone). I can attest to this awakening of being one with the universe, to lose one’s ego, to be enveloped in love and affection for all and sundry, to listen to Pink Floyd and Deep Purple and the like (but, alas not to Elton John who so enthusiastically endorses Johann on his book cover) and sail away across the soundscape of the cosmic web, the Moody Blues elevating Timothy Leary, and so on. A bad trip I remember with psilocybin, was in the Himalayas, me clinging onto the grass on a beautiful meadow, being convinced I would float away if I let go. Another one was in Bali in 1970 (where we had ‘magic mushrooms’ as a dinner option) when my travelling companion freaked out about the mangy dogs that were all around, kicking them, throwing things at them as if they were the devil incarnate – which was a very uncool thing to do in an illustrious circle of super-cool, spaced-out dudes and chicks, who then looked at me in disgust, as if I was in some way responsible for my traveling mate’s weird behaviour (mangy dogs are after all God Head’s creation too, so be cool, man). I tried very hard to become invisible but it didn’t work. Sure, I mean in India, the Jains are said to sweep the ground before they walk on, lest they kill any living creature on it. I am a pacifist but when I see a cockroach in my house, I will kill it. I try to be a vegetarian but I do not condemn people who eat meat – what about all the beautiful predators like lions and tigers, weren’t they also created by the God Head (remember those really cool dudes in the 60s were called ‘heads’)? So, it is no surprise that some people who come out of psychedelic drug use are more confused than enlightened. Johann’s point is, that psychedelics are a very promising treatment for depression and anxiety disorders, of course under ‘controlled’ conditions whatever that might mean. I think the best way for a positive psychedelic experience, is to have lots of information in your head before you do so: e.g. before I ever took any drugs I had read all the works about Zen-Buddhism, read Baudelaire, Huxley’s Doors of Perception, Leary and a dozen more, so I was more than ready to try the real thing. As Johann’s medical pals point out, psychedelics do not offer an ‘experience’ as much as a ‘lesson’ from which one can learn or not. I certainly learned a lot but now in old age, I think I don’t have to learn anymore. What amazes me though, is how fast commerce jumps onto any bandwagon just in case there is a fast buck to be made, as indicated by this Guardian headline:

'It makes me enjoy playing with the kids': is microdosing mushrooms going mainstream?

Singing along with Mick Jagger to the tunes of ‘…I went down to the Chelsea drugstore to get your prescription filled …’ and ‘… mother’s little helper …’.

Another caveat for psychedelics is that they seem overly associated with ‘spirituality’ and ‘mysticism’ as if there were something to be discovered beyond the physical world, like gods and angels and fairies that live down the garden path. If pursued as a rational means to gain a better understanding of what love, life, and the universe are all about, then go for it. 

The next chapter is about childhood trauma. This should have been a really crucial topic that deserves much more space than what Johann provides (a mere four pages). This goes back to Freud’s assertion that suppressed memories of traumatic childhood events have a significant and detrimental effect on adult life, such as depression and anxiety. Talking about it, especially via psychotherapy, can release the shame associated with it, and such trauma can be worked through and some resolution can be achieved. Johann’s expert in this field, unfortunately, compares this to ‘confession’ in the Catholic Church, when everybody knows that the Catholic Church is the main contributor to childhood trauma, what with priests abusing children, and the church authorities putting a blind eye to it. Sexual abuse of children is one of the darkest places in the human condition, and yet it is never talked about in terms of prevention or bringing it into the light. Perpetrators – sexual predators – go unpunished because they rely on the shame children feel, and even if they confide (‘confess’ seems a very odd term here) in an adult, more often than not, they are not believed or their ordeal is belittled and swept under the carpet. When American presidents voice their misogynistic diatribes and get applauded for it, is there any wonder that men (and some women) feel free to abuse the most vulnerable, children, in the knowledge that they have no voice and no one to speak for them? The statistics are horrendous: one in three women say they have experienced some form of sexual abuse. We don’t need scientific evidence: we need action to confront this fascistic behaviour. Wilhelm Reich in his Mass Psychology of Fascismnotes sexual oppression as a dominant factor that gives rise to abuse of power against women and children, perpetrated by institutions of the state, church, and media. 

Johann is brave enough to tell his readers that he too was a victim of abuse as a child. One feels a terrible rage when such abuse comes to light: one cannot forgive the unforgivable (says Derrida)! Criminal statues tell us perpetrators cannot be prosecuted after so many years: it’s all part of the denial that abuse of children happens every day of the week. Child abuse is often associated with family violence – the statistics in NZ are horrible – which in turn is associated with all the biological, social and psychological ills that Johann chronicles in his book. When reported (as Boris Johnson’s neighbours apparently did) the police take the offender(s) to ED (in Johnson’s case they obviously do nothing of the sort) where my wife as a mental health nurse has to deal with the situation, what with the offender threatening suicide because he feels wrongly accused. He has to wait for hours for a psychiatric triage and then wait many hours again for a psychiatrist to turn up to make a decision about what to do next. The chemical solution plus application of the Mental Health Act are the preferred options. Child and youth services are contacted to look into the children’s situation at the home of the offender. It can take weeks and the children suffer, in silence. When society is broken to such an extent, it is very hard to show any signs of optimism, and move on to Johann’s last solution: Restoring the future.

The first discovery noted by yet another of Johann’s scientists was, that poverty correlates with depression and anxiety. Really? Isn’t that obvious? In the German news magazine Der Spiegel there was a recent article that cited ‘research’ that poor pensioners died up to 15 years earlier than rich pensioners. Really? Isn’t that obvious? A recent Guardian article noted that the difference in life expectancy between the poorest part of Chicago and the richest part is some 30 years. Really? Isn’t that obvious? Why is this presented as amazing news? It allows everybody who is not poor to say, oh how amazing, well that’s what happens when you are poor. Then comes Johann with the solution to alleviate poverty: UBI. Finland’s latest trial in that matter was abandoned after two years. The so-called liberal UK media organization, The Guardian, had earlier posed the question:

Money for nothing: is Finland's universal basic income trial too good to be true?

Yes, what a joke! ‘Money for nothing, chicks for free’ as Dire Straits (sic) intoned. OMG, it’s immoral, giving poor people money just like that. Why did Obama advocate for some form of UBI ‘late in his presidency’? Because this way he wouldn’t actually have to do it. Johann’s expert in these matters, Rutger Bregman – who since has achieved fame through his disruptive talk at the World Economic Forum in Davos – advocates for UBI in a much more convincing way than Obama ever did, and I kind of agree as an interim solution to fight poverty. Ultimately, UBI is like a band-aid, treating the symptoms rather than the root cause of poverty, namely the vicious fight for private property, along the lines of extreme capitalist greed, where the winner takes all (there is no point in coming second, as the American corporate mantra says). 

The simple solution has been known forever: a socialist society without private property. So, let’s be optimistic, as is Johann in his evocation that change for a better world is possible, citing gay marriage as a result of a campaign started by an individual, Andrew Sullivan, a campaign that at its inception in the 1990s seemed an impossible dream. Recently Taiwan became the first Asian country to allow gay marriage. A better world is possible, say many people, including the great social activist and novelist, Arundhati Roy, but the obstacles, she says, are immense. The Communist Party USA recently held its 100thAnniversary Convention, to prove it has not yet died, repeating Marx’ prediction that Capitalism will manufacture the rope to hang itself with. While I don’t like the metaphor, I do believe that the future will merge with a socialist utopia, a ‘better world’ we can only imagine now. Noam, the eternal optimist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, also believes in the notion that progress is possible, and while at the moment we may be taking one step forward, and two steps backward, humans as social beings will co-operate and organize to make the world a much better place than it is now. I am more circumspect, evoking the paradox of the human condition, that Noam also acknowledges by juxtaposing what he calls Plato’s versus Orwell’s problem (and which I will slightly change to suit ‘my problem’): Plato: how come we know so much but have achieved so little for the wellbeing of humankind? Orwell: How come we know so little but have achieved so much that we can land a space probe on a small comet and take a picture of a black hole?

Johann’s post-script, as it were, is entitled ‘homecoming’. It is a summary of all he has talked/written about. It is what he would say to himself as a teenager, when he first was prescribed anti-depressants. Imagine you were the kid who is brought to ED by police because you stood on a bridge, and a passerby thought you might jump, and alerted the police. You have to wait for four hours to be seen by the psychiatric nurse, who has recently read Johann’s book, and is now determined to at least take time out to talk to the kid. What’s wrong in your life, and in the world, that makes you feel so down? He says his parents say he is a troublemaker, and don’t want him back. He says he dropped out of school when he was 15. He says he never had a job, living on social security money, buying drugs and shit. The kid is surprised that the nurse is interested in the story of his life. Miss, he says, how come you want to know about me, nobody else is interested? I thought you are giving me some pills? Nurse says, no, but I’ll make an appointment for you with Youthtown, where they will help you. Been there, Miss, they are assholes. Well, kid, do you want to see a doctor then? Nah, Miss, I just want to go home. Where is home? There are some bros who live in a garage and they let me sleep there. Well, that’s at least something. But, Miss, I have no money to get back. I’ll try to get you a taxi chit. Nurse walks off to the charge nurse and asks for a taxi chit. Sorry, no more taxi chits. Why, not, it’s an emergency? Then call the police. What, the police brought the kid here, do you think they will take him back, of course not. Sorry, it’s a management directive received yesterday, I can email you the text. Thanks. Nurse tells kid to go home. She gives him five dollars from her own pocket. As an afterthought, she tells him to read Johann’s book. Kid smiles, can’t read, Miss.

Well, at least the kid is not on anti-depressants. Had he seen a psychiatrist, he would be. Johann says this is an insult that needs to be thrown back at the face of the psychiatrist. Sure, next time nurse sees the psychiatrist, she will tell him that he is insulting his patients. Nurse will lose her job and become very depressed. To break this cycle of pain and suffering we need collective action, says Johann. Sure we do! We even know what to do – just ask the doctor in Vietnam!

So, I want to end with a silly little line that somehow sticks in my mind from a silly TED Talk I have to use to teach ESOL, namely some Canadian guy who lived in Bali, selling jewelry to tourists, and one day saw Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and decided then and there to build a ‘green school’ in Bali, to save Bali and perhaps the rest of the world. So his bye-line was: thank you Mr. Gore, you have ruined my life but you have given me a great future. My wife says the same about Johann’s book. So, thank you, Mr. Hari.


Some links I have used:

















Sunday, May 12, 2019

THE LANGUAGE PARADOX









THE LANGUAGE PARADOX

As the story goes, the German organic chemist August Kekulé described the eureka moment when he realized the structure of benzene, after he saw a vision of Ouroboros, the snake that bites its own tail. None of this would have been possible without the use of language. While there is no doubt that the world, like benzene, exists without language, there is equally no doubt that all we, as humans, know about the world, benzene included, is mediated by language. The question is not so much ‘why only us’ as elaborated by Berwick and Chomsky (2016) but what language is. While there have been innumerable attempts to answer the latter, be it by Chomsky (ibid.) or Christiansen and Chater (2018), there cannot be an outcome similar to Kekulé’s discovery. The reason being, as will be argued here briefly, is that language is the only natural phenomenon that has no meta-language, like chemistry has, to describe itself. So, when language describes herself, we have the proverbial snake biting its tail. Sure, one can discern and extrapolate all sorts of rules and conventions that describe language and then try to explain – as elegantly as possible – how such constructs arise from human brains; brains that in all other ways subscribe to the natural sciences as we know them, hence one attempt is appropriately called bio-linguistics. Still, here lurks the mainly philosophical doubt that biology and evolution are mere stories, destined to never come to an end, never to discover the formula that gave rise to language. Traversing dictums by Panini, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Humboldt, Russell, Wittgenstein and Orwell, to name but a few, one cannot dismiss Nietzsche’s contention that science too is but a language construct through which we see the world, telling a vitally important story, it seems but not necessarily the only one. Given the present human condition, one must admit that the language of science is losing out to the language of fakery, pointing to the fact that language use is only one aspect of language per se and that language is not only a scientific distillation of human biology. Indeed one can blame science for many of the ills besetting the world today, from climate change to species extinction – all caused by scientific and technological advances dreamt up by latter-day Frankensteins. One commentator recently suggested that anti-vaccers should go back to the Middle Ages – well, at least in the Middle Ages our planet’s ecology was still OK even though human conditions could be quite brutal compared to medical advances of today.

Be this as it may, one thing is for sure, language must be the end all and be all of the human condition. Perhaps the only biological, if not mathematical underpinning, would be, that there is no end of it, that infinite thought, as expressed through language alone, equates with what we assume the universe to be – a convolution of space and time, difficult to imagine even for people who have no limits in their imagination. Contrast this with the other reality of the human condition, one of very limited time and space, a humdrum existence that lowers language to statistical probabilities, matching every utterance to the one recorded before, betraying every thought process as an algorithm to be exploited by the fascists in the know. The everyday struggle to survive - to make a living as the metaphor goes (Lakoff and Johnsen, 2003) – reduces language to the same level, and even then there are escape clauses, like the lyrics of the blues and the songs of Auschwitz. 

The current obsession with the evolution of language thereby misses the point, namely that whatever gave rise to language, there is simply no way to explain what language is today by what it was yesterday and eons before. Even the very tenets of biological evolution fail to explain what is going on today: there are no more finches to adapt to new environments because the spring is silent (Carson, 1962). There is something endearingly naive in Christiansen and Chater (2018:43) when they say that language is something like a ‘beneficial parasite’ – when otherwise they are wedded to the theory of cultural transmission and bits of biology – perhaps subconsciously indicating that metaphors are all we have to describe the un-describable. If language were a parasite one would have to conclude that by and large it is not of the beneficial but of the pathological kind. Given the extreme ends to which language is put to, one can only conclude that language, as a cognitive tool, is as neutral as the adze in our hand: it can kill as much as it can create art. Sure, the more we kill the more we will refine the adze. Same with language. To claim then that language arose because we like to kill (Lorenz, 1963) is patently absurd. The current great communicator (the one before him was Ronald Reagan), Donald Trump, uses language that is a great delight to late night show comedians because twittered chunks of gobbledygook masterfully disguise a neo-feudal enterprise. If natural selection is a predictor of evolutionary changes, how come the instinct of the proverbial cave man has survived to this very day, making language useless? 

The endless contradictions (Mao Zedong, 1937) that are served up in politics as much as in philosophy and linguistics (Harris, 1993) are testimony to humans putting their thoughts into words, never knowing where both their thoughts and words came from but nevertheless being convinced of their intelligence that somehow resides inside their brains. The possibility that Mao was right and Harris is wrong is the next step that a truly sentient being can contemplate, and even then we may end up with what Shakespeare called ‘signifying nothing’. Really, the best we can do for language is, according to Chomsky (Barsky, 1997), along the lines of the old joke that the drunk looks for his lost keys under the streetlamp because that’s where the light is. And this from a man who does not usually tell jokes. There is a sense that despite all the progress that science and technology has brought us, via language – a progress that evolution cannot explain – the basic contradictions remain: we can send man to the moon and take pictures of a black hole 55m light years from earth but we cannot solve the devastating human problems on earth. As those clever climate change protesters say on their posters: there is no planet B. Language used like this is truly enlightened and enlightening, so that even the drunk can see the key that unlocks Pandora’s box. 

So why is all this scientific gravitas employed when arguing who is right and who is wrong, as for example Christiansen and Chater (ibid.) do when trying hard to push Chomsky to the sidelines? Are the cave men fighting for academic territory – àla Lorenz (ibid.)?  Neuro-linguistic research may well have progressed to seeing a black hole but, like astro-physicists, they have no idea what is inside. Anumanchipalli, Chartier & Chang (2019) were able to demonstrate neural decoding of spoken sentences, which is no mean feat, but essentially it is reverse engineering. I read a sentence which I cannot speak (due a pathology) and a brain scan at that time can be decoded to produce speech artificially. All of AI is predicated on reverse engineering: matching new data with existing data (constantly updated by new data) by way of clever algorithms allows for fairly reliable translation machines if the data bases for individual languages is sufficiently large – if not, gobbledygook results, or shall we say Double Dutch so as not to implicate Trump in this equation. Corpus linguistics has brought us many new insights about the use of language as well as statistical analyses of syntactic structures but again, like the black hole metaphor, we do not learn anything about language itself. Language, like a black hole, swallows all data, reducing all to a singularity, and if we may speculate a bit, let us employ Chomsky’s (1995) singularity in the form of MERGE, the big bang of linguistics. However, if one insists on the absolute equivalence of language and thought, as I do, the question remains how MERGE relates to the biological construction of thought. If one assumes, in simplistic terms that some linguistic item X merges with another item Y and then further simplifies this idea by substituting X and Y with lexical items like ‘John died’, one can envisage that a thought was created: but how can ‘John’ and ‘die’ be created as atomic thoughts in the first place? If we support the supremacy of syntax, i.e. in the beginning was MERGE, we could propose (as does Fujita, 2016) that the lexicon evolved by virtue of syntax creating categories that trigger the creation and subsequent insertion of lexical items. This seems like an elegant explanation of an intractable problem, i.e. a sort of double big bang for thinking (MERGE) and what to think about (LEXICON). Whilst critics may argue that this is putting the cart before the horse, one can equally put the metaphor on its head – as it were – and argue that once it had been discovered that the horse has a pulling ability/capacity, an immediate/concurrent consequence was the question as what can be usefully be pulled along, like a cart. Hence the capacity for language and thought in terms of MERGE (or framed as the earlier Chomskyian Language Acquisition Device) goes in tandem with the development of the lexicon. Another metaphor employed in this thought experiment is that for building a house we first need a structural plan (SYNTAX) and accordingly we select the bricks and mortar (LEXICON) to actually build the house (SENTENCE). In this vein we can also revisit the other great issue in linguistics: the Saussurian distinction between language (langue) and language use (parole), similar to Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance. Perhaps we can solve this dichotomy in line with Fujita’s (ibid.) proposal: syntax = competence and lexicon = performance. As such the question of what we are thinking about when we are thinking becomes more interesting to answer: while the lexicon is limited, the creation of sentences seems unlimited, largely due to the iterative qualities of MERGE. Whether or not such potential output is really infinite or just an astronomical number may be an interesting question for AI, as it is clearly banking on the latter. When language is compared to the chess game (as does Saussure and Wittgenstein) then AI is laughing all the way to the bank because, as with chess, huge data bases and deep learning based on statistical matching allow AI to win games against most grandmasters of chess – and imagine if and when this comes true for language. Luckily perhaps, language and thought may be infinite in scope and as such defeat AI in any creative field of endeavour. Of course, functional linguistics provides a platform for AI as long as we can guarantee that language arises from its purported function, i.e. communication. Moreover, if we can strictly limit this function for 99% of the human population, we have the perfect fascist state. Again the good news seems to be that, in theory at least, language and thought cannot be constrained by language and thought – exactly because language cannot explain itself, lest it bites its own tail. 

Even so, this freedom of unlimited language of thought, apart from iteration, must have some computational processing constraints, such as the Chomskyian principles and parameters, and government and binding. Descriptive thoughts/sentences invariably revolve around some categorical action (VERB) and actor (NOUN), giving rise to complex rules of verb and noun phrases where the relationships between lexical categories in space and time are elaborated. If it is true that narrow neurological pathways become major cyber highways due to frequent use, then one can imagine that a main (perhaps egocentric) protagonist (NOUN) need not be spelled out all the time once we know who he/she/it in gendered English is. In other words we have invented PRONOUNS (also known as anaphors and cataphors in terms of reference). Invariably pronouns increase the processing speed and thus facilitate thoughts around a main subject or object. Obviously pronouns need to be bound to a particular noun, either within or outside a sentence (the latter is called context). This becomes even more interesting when we consider the binding rules for reflexive pronouns, which must be bound within a sentence. Different languages handle this in different ways. English mainly follows the local binding syntax rule while Mandarin follows both local and distant binding rules, depending on the pragmatics of the semantic content. Some linguists (Levinson, 1983, Huang, 2000) interpret this as proof of linguistic relativism, like consigning some languages to being ruled by syntax and others by pragmatics. This can be further extended to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that different language shape different world-views and cognition. Since I advocate the equation of language = cognition (as far as cognition refers to Descartes’ famous cogito, ergo sum) I have to say that linguistic relativism is a fabrication, simply because all natural languages operate on the same principle of MERGE and subsequent rule-based processing. That languages differ in surface features is of course well known. What should also be well known is that all languages can be learned and translated amongst each other, which makes linguistic relativism a non sequitur, for when taken to its logical conclusion, we end up with the Tower of Babel story, which in terms of linguistics makes no sense at all. At this stage I also usually trot out another extreme version, actually put forth by a modern linguist (Kramsch, 2009):

The more people speak English around the world the less people understand one another. So it’s this irony that we’re moving into an era where more and more people speak English and yet less and less do they understand one another because through English they are thinking, they speak English but they think French, or they speak English and they think Hindi. And so it becomes an invisible multilingualism behind the English that they speak and I think applied linguistics has a lot to contribute to that understanding of what it means to have a multilingual mentality, a multilingual competence.

I am fond of then saying that, therefore, what I am writing here in English is a weird translation from my German thinking (my native language), hence can be dismissed as Double Dutch (one cannot resist of also trotting out the silly joke of the German coast-guard intern responding to a mayday call “we are sinking” by saying in a heavy German accent “what are you thinking about?” – purported linguistic relativism makes for great comedic entertainment, as also put to great effect in Fawlty Towers what with Manuel’s ‘I come from Barcelona’ antics). On a more literary note – and whilst I do not want to compare myself to Joseph Conrad or Vladimir Nabokov - one may therefore dismiss Kramsch’ argument (and linguistic relativism generally) as ludicrous. Quite obviously the lexica of different languages are shaped by various environmental contingencies and cultural practices but language per seis not. In fact I am only reasserting what Lenneberg made abundantly clear in his seminal book, famously entitled Biological Foundations of Language(1967) - and whom Chomsky credits with the erstwhile foundation of biolinguistics. 

What is also interesting, is Wittgensteins’s erstwhile idea that language ought to be described in ways that thought is often defined, namely that thinking is, or at least ought be, based on logic. As such we have to applaud Wittgenstein as more or less proposing the equation of language = thought but with the additional thought = logic. As we know, try as he might, Wittgenstein could then not square the circle of language = logic. This seems odd if we assume that language/thought arises from a biological brain that is totally constrained by the very logical laws of nature, or is it? So why is language NOT a purely logical construct, even though in pure science it can be, and sometimes is (cf. Einstein’s scientific treatises)? This in turn can be linked to the dual problems often cited by Chomsky, namely Plato’s problem and Orwell’s problem. How come that in the face of so much logic (as in the natural sciences) we know so little in terms of organising our lives around peace and prosperity for all – and not just for the 1%? And how come we know and create so much without any logical thinking? The latter is often couched in terms of other intelligences, like emotional or kinaesthetic intelligences, which can dispense with logic – artistic expression often seems like that. Wittgenstein’s escape clause – to the disappointment of Russell – was that language is a game (like chess perhaps) in which there are some initial rules (often based on fuzzy logic) on how to play the game but there is no telling on what happens next. Well, at least we got game theory, which is yet another metaphor some people live by, i.e. winner takes all. Russell on the other hand stuck to his axiomatic mathematics and logic, and conducted himself as a bit of a progressive political activist on the sidelines (one cannot resist to tell a much better joke at this stage: when Russell and his wife had their little Beacon Hill School, what with children running around naked, and the vicar knocking on the door, and the naked kids opening it, causing the vicar to shriek “Oh my God”, and the kids responding “but there is no God!”). 

One other thing that Wittgenstein deserves credit for is his refusal to cite references, whilst acknowledging that he too stands on the shoulders of giants. Most teachers these days will be aware, painfully or otherwise, of the obsessive instructions for assessment tasks that students MUST use their OWN words, lest evil plagiarism condemns them to academic oblivion. So who ‘owns’ the words? Surely nobody or everybody! Barthes (find the reference yourself, if you insist) famously intoned ‘language is the author’. The assumption, that the words I write now are somehow my own, has only grown in economic strength since intellectual property- and copy-rights were invented by capitalist corporations. If I look up a word in a dictionary published by so and so, should I have to pay a royalty? Obviously it is the ultimate dream of the corporate sector that language becomes copyright: let’s take Microsoft as an example: when I buy my Microsoft Office software package (or more likely my on-line license) which comes bundled with dictionaries and grammar checking applications, I actually pay for the words I use. Since the competitors still have free access to dictionaries and grammar handbooks that are not subject to copyright anymore, the playing field is still level to a certain degree but watch for the monopoly move that will spell the end of free language use. While what I write on my MS-Word application is still my ‘own’ intellectual property, similar writing applications on various on-line social media platforms use all the data as fodder for further large data analysis, like functional grammar patterns. Whenever you use on-line Google Translate, the translated items are fed back to their databases, providing ever expanding grounds for statistical matching algorithms. In the meantime, please go ahead and copy my words, my text, my thoughts, and make them your very own without having to reference me at all. Actually, please do not make my thoughts your own lest you also pass them on to the next person who wants them. Remember that authorship is only a recent invention – before that, all language and thought was a free and shared commodity. Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is a fine academic text without a single reference – contrast that to the vast ‘publish or perish’ academe of today where every 10-page article has at least 15 pages of references to make the cut (my apologies for my references below). 

Languages and their speakers are therefore in some ways analogous to societies and their respective individual members, inasmuch no individual has a claim to represent the whole of society. Even capitalists like Kennedy intoned that ‘do not ask what society can do for you but ask what you can do for society’, so the collective good ought to rule over the individual good. Marx and Engels pushed this idea to the next level by suggesting the ‘leap from quantity to quality’ whereby a universal socialist society is the embodiment of a just quality of life. The interesting question is how language intersects with these ideas, i.e. how does language facilitate such thoughts in the first place, and why is it that some individuals come up with these ideas but not others? Obviously the human species is not pre-programmed like ants or other animal societies, where the biological aims of the ‘colony of ants’ propel the individuals to only perform tasks that serve the colony. This is not a triumph of quality over quantity but it is, when we consider the human species. Here, paradoxically perhaps, it is the individual who leapt from quantity to quality by way of a biological transformation in the brain, via MERGE perhaps, and voilà, language and thought is created. Now, while all humans have this Language Acquisition Device (Chomsky’s famous LAD), we can readily account for the considerable differences on how individuals operate this uniquely human device. The rest of human biology is more or less the same across all individuals – although there are individuals who, to make a point in language and thought alone, argue for fundamental differences according to race, gender and what-have-you. These very differences in the output of language and thought propel us into actions, that range from the sane to the insane. 

So, why has language and thought not elevated individuals to a societal quality that socialists advocate, given that language itself is the biological outcome of a leap from quantity (e.g. the neurons of the brain) to quality (e.g. the LAD)? Why are we not collectively operating like some sort of enlightened ant colony? Has this leap from individual quantity to quality actually been an evolutionary disaster that will lead to the extinction of the human species? Current evidence seems to support such a scenario rather than the ever-optimistic Marxist idea that a socialist paradise will be the inevitable outcome of human history. The idea that this individual language and thought capacity will eventually lead to yet another leap in human quality is of course a very beguiling one, precisely because the biological foundation of our collective language and thought capacity will override the many pathologies that were associated with the early stages – until now – of language and thought. By ‘pathology’ I mean incorrect thinking, thinking that violates the laws of nature that gave rise to thinking in the first place. This includes a wide range of pathologies, from thoughts that are translated into actions like genocide down to accusing students of plagiarism. How laws of nature can shoot themselves in the foot is of course the great paradox that we are discussing here. Not that we can claim, that all we know about the universe and its laws of nature, is somehow predicated on yet another law of nature that says that all of creation is of mutual benefit to all who live in it. Natural disasters – although increasingly aided by human folly - seem to be inexplicable in that sense. If ultimately there is no rhyme and reason and that the human species with its languages and thoughts is a random phenomenon dreamt up by evolution, then of course we can pronounce the language paradox as the highest form of this phenomenon. 

However, it seems that language and thought has elevated us above the laws of nature inasmuch we can imagine all sorts of things that contravene them, like gods, ghosts and the proverbial science fiction. The latter is doubly interesting because language and thought have also propelled us to the heights of science and technology, from space exploration to smart phone technology. Why is it that we can leave science and technology behind, and imagine robotic humanoids like the homunculi of old? Why metaphysics, alchemy, astrology, religion and superstition? Did Engels not consider what this ‘quality’ really is that leap-frogged quantity? One paradox – that language can conceive of a paradox is a paradox in itself – is of course, as mentioned before, that language as a totally new and still unique phenomenon lacks the meta-language to describe itself, like all other systems that cannot describe themselves lest there is a meta-language. Therefore language may well have conferred the type of human freedom we always seem to celebrate in contrast to the biological determinism we seem to observe in all non-human domains. That we are still prisoners to many aspects of biological determinism is of course viewed as yet another paradox we would dearly like to resolve, like achieving immortality and almighty power. In the past this has been called the mind-body problem, having elevated the mind above the biology of the body, but as Chomsky keeps pointing out, there cannot be such a problem because the mind, whatever it is, must arise from the brain and as such cannot escape its biology. So, while one cannot argue with such devastating logical thinking, language as a biological device in the brains of humans remains as inaccessible as finding out what is inside a black hole: it is a self-defeating exercise. Sure, neuro-linguistics is making all sorts of advances like telling us where language operates in the brain by observing brain activity when engaged in language and thought. Finding out where something happens does not tell us how and what is happening. From the scientific point of view this is yet another paradox, especially if we subscribe to Feynman’s famous dictum ‘if I cannot create it I cannot understand it’, for Feynman, like everyone else, creates language and thoughts every other minute. Of course one might argue that a super-scientist like Feynman, especially in the form of one Noam Chomsky, does fully understand language and thought, Q.E.D., and as such is at liberty to create whatever he wants. There may well be some truth in it, even though Chomsky proclaims that even he is only at the level of a Galileo when it comes to understanding language and thought but at least there is a scientific principle operating here that says that eventually we – or at least a future Einstein of linguistics – will crack the code. In the meantime we can only hope that common sense prevails, putting to shame and oblivion all those who use language and thought outside the norms of civilized behaviour. 





Some references:


Chomsky N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Fujita, K. (2016). On the parallel evolution of syntax and lexicon: A Merge-only view. Journal of Neurolinguistics43 · June 2016.  


Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.