This text is a continuation from "What is AS?" offering a personal commentary on the principal character traits and attributes of Autism Spectrum Condition.
Singular, strange, whimsical
I like this one. I am unconventional. Wayward? Not really. I can seem quite erratic, making strange leaps and jumps in thought and dead, but there is a root, a cohering purpose, and a direction. I tend to be on the right path. I think. Possibly. The world has strayed from its original goodness, I’d say, as many others have said since Hesiod. Heretical? I embrace multiplicities. I joke about being a Quaker among the Catholics. The good thing about religion is that it creates heretics, wrote the marxist Ernst Bloch. Which sounds amusing until one remembers that few were more intolerant of deviant thinkers than marxists. I write on Gerrard Winstanley, an egalitarian communist on the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation. Yet I remain a Catholic and turn up for training every week. In fact, I would describe myself as a Pythagorean-Platonic-Aristotelian-Thomist-Rousseaun-Kantian-Hegelian-Marxist-anarchist-communalist-communist-green-traditionalist-futurist-mystic.Which is to say I believe that there is a world beyond the limitations and constraints of logic, reason, and evidence, and that whatever ideology and system you support and expound, it will never and can never capture the world in its wholeness and wholesomeness. There is an anarchic excess that is the core of being and which always evades enclosure and colonization by reason. I like order, routine, and stability – in fact, I insist on those things. But I do not make the mistake of seeing the whole world as this one fixed, definable, controllable entity. That is the neurotic's fantasy. I affirm a reality beyond naming and framing. I ground myself in such a way so as be able to venture out into the unknown, the world that is beyond naming and framing. It seems easier for me, given that the ordinary social world that is so known and familiar to most other people seems so unknowable to me. It requires no effort of intellect and imagination for me to make the jump from the impossibilities of driving a car and using a self-service machine to the metaphysics of infinite. I have different views on the unfathomable. In truth, I don't make that jump at all, I just ignore the everyday mechanics and go straight to the metaphysics. I live in a world in which the easy is difficult and the difficult easy, and impossible the easiest thing of all.
As for singular and strange, some time in the early 2000s I did some test to work out what Chinese astrological sign I am. I came out as ‘Wood Snake,’ which denoted 'sophisticated,' 'sensuous,' 'subversive,' and 'seductive.' Uncanny! That's me to a T, I thought (other opinions are available). I was most impressed by this finding! I was so impressed, in fact, that I started to use this word as a password. Any other meaning the word may have had never occurred to me. I first became aware that the word may have other connotations when I had some computer problem and had to have a full overhaul with the Tech Guys at PC World. I was asked for my password and my response was met with sniggers from the female members of staff. They tried to contain themselves at first but simply couldn't hold their amusement back. The same thing happened on another occasion, the staff member pausing a moment, before smiling slightly and raising eye brows whilst typing the word in. You probably meet all kinds of strange people doing this kind of job. But it did seem that people considered me to be unusually strange. A password like that seems an open invitation to investigate the contents of my computer. I’m hopeless at remembering passwords and was loathe to change it having got used to it. But I began to dread being asked my password and meeting with more sniggers and odd looks, and so undertook the immense task of coming up with new passwords in myriad places. I would swear that this was my Chinese astrological sign, but the more I protested, the less believable I became. You really can protest too much.
The good thing about the Internet is that I can now supply a link to back my protestations up!
"Those born between February 2, 1965 and January 20, 1966 are members of the Wood Snake Chinese Zodiac sign. Those born under the sign of the SNAKE are romantic, passionate, charming and well informed. Snakes are intellectuals, philosophers, and deep thinkers. They strive to succeed in all that they do. The are extremely self-critical. Snake personalities often make their way to the top. They ensure that they are in the right place at the right time, which means when the right people are there as well. Snake people should seek their fortunes as professors, writers, philosophers, or psychiatrists."
I always knew this to be true! I may go back to my old password. But that may not be a good idea seeing as I have now made it public. Not a wise thing for one so wise to do. Writer, philosopher, deep thinker, this sums me up. In 1992 I was also advised to study psychiatry. It was when I did psychometric profiling to identify the careers suited to my character. To be precise, the two areas which topped my list were occupational psychology and sexual psychology. Reading the results I could hear the voices of old family members - get a job! get a girl! That might have solved a few problems, and maybe created a few more besides.
Year of the Wood Snake
"Under the influence of the Wood Element, the Wood Snake becomes the most cooperative and creative of the Snake types. The Wood Snake has the special ability to see in a perspective beyond their personal gain, which it pairs nicely with an innovative spirit. The Wood Snake may also be the most socially apt of the Snake signs with their warm and kind personality. While most members of the Snake sign are focused on achieving positions of power, the Wood Snake displays a greater concern for humanity and the well being of others. The Wood Snakes uses this interest to pursue meaningful interest, where they can use their public speaking ability to win over others. The creative side of the Wood Snake often manifests in an appreciation for the arts, which may explain why the Wood Snake is the most inclined to surround themselves with the "finer things" in life."
I write on the need for both cooperation and collaboration, although I am not very good at practising either. My work on 'rational freedom' is all about identifying and establishing the conditions which secure the freedom and happiness of each and all in unity. I'm socially apt in word rather than deed. I tend to write about the things I struggle to do. I see my deficiency as a deficiency shared by the world at large. In putting the world to rights I am putting myself to rights. I have a concern for the well being of flesh and blood others, not an abstract 'humanity.' I've never liked public speaking, although I have done it and people have thought me interesting and persuasive. I have felt uncomfortable giving talks and delivering papers and have left with a bad feeling, only to discover at a later date people who were present quoting some of the things that I have said and being inspired by my arguments. So who knows?
"With humanitarian interests and innate creativity, there are a variety of career paths for the Wood Snake to explore. By embracing their need to help others, the Wood Snake can do well in politics, law or as an advocate for the non-profit sector. Similarly, the Wood Snake can take their skills for understanding into law enforcement or psychiatry. Those born under the Wood Snake sign have been known to use theircreative skills to capture large fan bases. This can be seen in the wide arching success of J.K. Rowling and guitarist Slash, who were both born in 1965."
I did dabble in politics for a decade and more. I'm not sure how well I did. I think the cause was just and one that is still with us. I think I did politics far better than the people who are the dominant voices in pressing that cause. And I think that the environmental cause is failing and being diverted into sterile and authoritarian channels on account of the rank bad 'anti-politics' of its leaders and followers. Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.
"While full of strength, the influence of the Wood Snake also has its own challenges. At times, the Wood Snake can have trouble letting go of the past, which manifest in the stubborn holding of grudges. Another struggle for the Wood Snake is the tendency to put too much value on what other people think. The Wood Snake can structure their interests and material desires around perceived symbols of success, instead of their genuine tastes. In this sense, the Wood Snake is encouraged to focus on being independent in their thinking."
I do seem able to function well in any company. I am all things to all people. A trickster as well as a snake. I get bad people to do good things. I do turn to the past often. Life as remembrance. I nurture grudges. It's an attempt to settle accounts and draw a line under still burning injustices. The past is never past. The same with respect to the good times now long gone, of which there were many. "There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery." (Dante).
Wood Snake in Relationships
Do we have to!? OK, here goes:
"Snakes are excellent seducers so they never have trouble attracting others. However, they’ll be the ones to decide when a relationship has potential and when it does not. Once they’ve chosen a partner, a Snake’s insecure side will begin to show through. Snakes guards their chosen partners much like a prized possessions, becoming jealous and even obsessive. Snakes prefer to keep their feelings to themselves. It’s important to never betray a Snake’s trust as a betrayed snake will make it a goal to get even some day!"
Sounds right. The point about being the one to decide whether a relationship has potential or not needs further qualification. It's true but, being cautious and in fear of rejection, I tend not to exercise that power of decision. I have a seductive manner and a way with words. I will record as a matter of fact that I have never had trouble attracting the interest of others. But when it comes to taking the initiative in making choices, I remain at the level of seduction. When contact is made, even if it is ostensibly and publicly only at the level of friendship, I like to keep people to myself. This must drive the odd other person mad. Why not make the obvious, natural, and necessary next move? Snakes like to keep their feelings to themselves. And so my prized possessions slip from my hands. Just don't ever get on my wrong side. I nurture grudges and will bide my time to pick my moment for settling scores. I'm not proud of the fact. If you pursue revenge then dig two graves, one for yourself as well as the other person. I know I harbour grudges and I keep it under control. It is wisest to move on, to forgive others as well as yourself. It is one of many reasons I found my way back to religion, re-learning the value of mercy and forgiveness to the good society. We are none of us perfect. I always liked the confession of sins in Catholicism, knowing the reality of sin.
"Kind and genuine, these Snakes enjoy building a solid foundation of friends and family whom they love deeply and whose company they enjoy immensely. But even with all this support, Wood Snakes rarely seek the advice of others."
This is a work in progress.
And this:
"Wood Snakes have a very friendly manner and also a great understanding of human nature which will help them out throughout their lives. The Wood Snake is very good at communicating with others which gains them many friends and colleagues."
I'm friendly enough, but have deficiencies in communicaton and interaction. One-to-one, though, I can sweep people off their feet. I just get lost in groups of three or more. I will definitely claim a great understanding of human nature, something which is sadly lacking among many of those with the biggest voices and greatest influence in contemporary push-button culture.
"They are witty intelligent and ambitious people with a large amount of interests who prefer to live in a quiet, stable environment where they can work without any interference."
Yes! Simply, yes. A secure, predictable, non-surprising, rich environment which allows me to concentrate, focus, and work.
"They enjoy art and love to collect paintings and antiques in their home. Their advice is always admired by friends and colleagues especially in social and domestic situations."
Francoise Hardy EPs?
"The Snake is an extremely intelligent and active person. They will always be planning and looking for ways that they put their substantial skills to use. They enjoy sitting back and thinking about everything that is going on around them, sometimes through meditation."
I have been accused of being an "idle intellectualizer," a "mere ponderer," and a "posturing do-nothing." This abuse came from activists under the sway of campaign imperatives, telling me "don't think, act!" I replied: "don't act, think!" Activism is the blight of the age. Acting without thought is a neuroticism. The active and the contemplative lives are complementary and not contradictory. I have been both active and contemplative, and thinking is itself a form of acting. Ideas change the world. Who do you think built the cathedrals?
"There will be many points in their life where they decide its time for a change and shed their old skin and take up a whole new range of activities or sometimes even a completely different area of work. Snakes rarely make mistakes as they are very well organized."
Hm ... I occasionally wash and change my clothes. I am comfortable in my skin. At the same time, my first academic referee did describe me as a range rider. I went from manual work to academic work and then back again, usually combining both. I leap across the academic disciplines too. I have studied a whole range of subjects in the humanities and social sciences. I have studied ICT, web design, business, and accountancy. I have excelled in all these different disciplines and have the certificates to wallpaper my study to prove it. I prefer to look at Francoise Hardy pictures, though.
"Most Snakes are financially secure in later life as long as they do not gamble; this is due to the fact that the Snake is known as the worst gambler in the Chinese zodiac."
I have gambled just the once in my life and won! It was part of some offer with Scotch video tapes in 1985, which entitled me to a free bet on a sporting event. I chose to select the four contenders in the semi-finals of the ladies' tennis at Wimbledon, considering myself something of an expert. I chose all four and won my bet and never bet again. It's a mug's game. You never see a poor bookie.
"The Snake is a calm and easy going person who prefers the quieter things in life. They hate it when somebody tries to rush them into making a decision and prefer to not be around a loud active environment. Snakes do not usually take other peoples advice and will not take kindly to anybody who tries to get involved in their affairs."
Bingo! I am wonderfully calm and self-contained when left alone. Life never leaves you alone and is always demanding sacrifices in one form or another. As for advice, I have learned that most people don't know nearly as much as they think they do. The worst mistakes I have made in life have come from following the advice of others in order to take my place in the world of others. It has cost me friends, close relationships, time, and money. And it has got me nowhere. Go your own way, do your own thing, have the confidence to trust your own instincts and knowledge, because the odds are that you are far smarter than you think, and you almost certainly know your own interests better than others do.
"The Snake can appear quite confined at times; they are quiet and reserved and can sometimes have difficulty in communicating with others. They do however have a great sense of humor which comes in very useful in times of crisis."
Humour is my default position. Which is handy given the amount of crises that have come my way. But, yes, self-contained, reserved, uncommunicative. It's really a long wait for the right people to come along. And then I can be incredibly talkative and entertaining. I can't make the running here. I suspect that more often than not others have been waiting for me to take the initiative. But it may not be wise to keep going through the list of lost opportunities. I'll just tell the story of the occasion when I got my words completely mixed up with one of my cardiac nurses and ended up saying something which was not what I intended to say and which sounded like a clear and bold attempt on my part to pick her up. The problem with having humour as your default position, whe you may be somewhat conversationally challenged in social situations, is that sometimes you can be too quick in delivery to have formed the words into the meaning you wish to convey.
I need to compose and express my thoughts well here, choosing my words carefully, lest this story invite misunderstanding. To issue the disclaimer bluntly, the point of my tale is not to encourage middle-aged men to make sexual advances to women who are half their age but to suggest that there are reasons why unconfident males could have more courage in making approaches when there is an even-match (however you may understand that evenness .. Search me).
The tale's context was the final assessment of my cardiac rehab classes, before moving onto the next stage of recovery. The classes had been taken by two nurses, one of whom was now assessing my progress and filling in the forms. We got on well and shared a long chat in her office. She then saw me to the door and bade me a fond farewell. I forget exactly what she said, but it was the kind of goodbye someone issues when people are exiting an unfortunate situation, as in ‘I don’t want to see you again’ at the Job Centre when you have found a new job. She qualified her goodbye along the lines that, of course, she would love to see me fit and healthy outside of the rehab context. It was a clumsy goodbye in which the appropriate words were lacking, hence the qualification. The fact is, though, that humour is based at least as much on rhythm and timing as it is on words and their meaning. Immediately I tuned into the rhythm and, with perfect timing, responded with words that were similarly clumsy. The meaning of her words had been along the lines that she wants to see me fit and healthy and hence not back in rehab again, which entailed that we would never see each other again, although, she added, she would be happy to see me. I responded with equal clumsiness to state that I would be more than happy to see her again. The words didn’t come out quite the way I intended, which was inevitable given the clumsiness of the original goodbye – a repetition that was ‘in tune’ and ‘on time,’ as with all great humour, meant that I said something I had not intended at. Basically, I had done something that I had never done in my life and would never do – made an approach to a woman with a view to seeing her again! Good grief. The prospect of ever making such an approach to a woman would have me dying a death in weeks and months of preparation, never ever building the courage to carry the plan out. But on this occasion I did it, however unwittingly. She smiled, then the smile froze on her face, and without response returned to her room as I scurried away realizing that my words had come out all wrong and that I had put her on the spot. Neither of us showed much inclination to deal with it at the time, although I think it was me who turned to leave first, not knowing what to say next in a social situation that seemed to be frozen.
[Let me emphasise from the first that I am well aware of the tendency of people with AS who, having long experienced difficulties in making and maintaining friendly relations with others, can tend to interpret any successful contact with others as being more friendly than it actually was. That may be particularly the case when those others are members of the opposite sex. I can well remember the day when the girls in the economics class in the sixth form spoke to me. They were very nice ad seemed to like me. My imagination added to the basic details, which involved a mere exchange of economics text books. The person with AS may blur the distinction between friendliness and attraction, and thus imagine that any exchange that went well was an indication of romantic or sexual attraction. Neurotypical people indulge in wishful thinking, too. The difference is that people with AS can have so few social exchanges as to be so thrilled as to imagine that there is more to them than there actually was. I do know.]
How did I get myself into that mess? It was a combination of my tendency to look for humour and engage in witty exchanges with people and my conversational and social clumsiness. In her book Thinking in Pictures, Temple Grandin says something pertinent here about how conversation between people proceeds. She refers to the ‘kind of electricity that goes on between people.’ ‘I have observed that when several people are together and having a good time, their speech and laughter follow a rhythm. They will all laugh together and then talk quietly until the next laughing cycle.’ (Grandin 1995, pp.91-2). She admits that she has a hard time following and fitting inwith this rhythm. I have always been aware of rhythm and timing, especially in relation to comedy. I quickly turn to humour when I am with people and simply can’t resist attempting to respond when the words of another beg a response. That is precisely what motivated my speedy response here, like batting a ball back over the net in a tennis match. The problem is that the nurse struggled to express her precise meaning with her words, meaning that the words I sent back over to her were even more imprecise. That’s my excuse, anyhow. What other reason could there have been? I have never made bold approaches to females I may admire, even worship and admire. Thisepisode left me wondering how radically my past would have been different if I had.
Bear in mind that this was an attractive young woman in her mid-twenties, someone you would consider to be well out of range for a middle-aged man emerging from cardiac rehab. My point concerns finding the courage it takes to pluck up the courage to ask someone they like out. When it comes to taking the initiative in (potential) relationships, people with AS tend to remain passive and silent and wait for others to make the move for fear of rejection. I've let too many possible relationships slip out of my grasp that is comfortable to count. There is pain in recollection, rehearsing different scenarios in your head to give you the happy ending you deserve. You end up torturing yourself by imagining lives lived happily ever after with any number of former acquaintances. It's an optical illusion. You could never have married them all. But you could have managed at least one, certainly, and most probably a few more. Males have to take the initiative, expose themselves, and risk rejection; females wait, watch, select. I opted out of that game and left others waiting and watching and going away. For fear of the rejection of the few, you miss the very possible acceptance of the many.
Never in a billion years would I have consciously made the approach I made to this nurse. My witty response to her had come out all wrong – whilst accurately reproducing the clumsiness of her initial words - and sounded like an approach. And the fact is that this nurse neither accepted nor rejected my unwitting advance – we both turned away in a no-score draw, the result dependent on a replay scheduled for no time and place. As it happened, I did speak to her again in a situation outside of a medical context. It turned out that she had two jobs. I was making a phone call regarding certain books for my written work. I didn't recognize her voice, but she recognized me and remembered my name. She not only revealed herself to me, she did so most excitedly, chuckling as she spoke. We chatted a long while, laughing and joking along the way. She had had a couple of months to ponder my words on leaving rehab and her manner towards me was most cheery and, frankly, receptive as we engaged in conversation. Had she found my approach repellent, I would imagine that she would have kept her identity on the phone secret. Or, if she revealed herself, merely kept the exchange professional. She was most friendly. She may be friendly by nature, of course. I was too relieved to learn that my initial and unwitting approach had not been rebuffed so as to sour relations between us to consider whether I was being invited to make another, this time witting, approach as the conversation went on well past books into libraries, personal interests and history (family members who were librarians, shared interests etc). I was glad that any confusions arising from that last encounter had been cleared up. Or had seemed to be. All of this left me wondering what I was supposed to say with respect to my unwitting approach a couple of months earlier, now that she was openly engaging me in conversation. She was pleased to hear from me. Why? Maybe we just got on, and she had a friendly nature. Maybe. My point is this, that unwittingly bold approach on my part hadn’t brought about doom and disaster. That’s putting things in their most negative light. Looking back at past encounters with possibly interested others, there is a danger of indulging fantasy and illusion. But, equally, there is also a danger of an undue pessimism. The fact is that if this most unlikely of relationships was within the realms of possibility, even as a fantasy entertained at a distance (in the least, I think she was flattered by what she perceived to be my interest), based on the success of an unwitting approach, then most anything is possible. And when it isn't, so what? For fear of the odd rejection you end up never making a move, thus losing everything, including very real possibilities. But we should know that ‘shy bairns get nowt.’ The odds are that I was a lot closer to others than I imagined in my wildest dreams and that a more proactive approach on my part would almost certainly have yielded results and opened up the road to a possible happy ending. The boldest approach I ever made to a female - open and direct to her face in a corridor - was utterly unintended and came by way of words coming out wrong. It was a complete mismatch - and there was no rejection. Had someone ever told me to make such an approach to a woman, I would have died in fear in anticipation at certain rejection and refused; I would have done so even had there been an appropriateness in the potential future relation, without any age disparity. The point is that the fearful are capable of achieving so much more than they ever know. That is something rather sad to contemplate, as I rake over a life of lost opportunities for love and happiness. Things could so easily have gone better. Or moved on to the next level of complexity, where the same old obstacles are encountered at a higher level of difficulty. Things get much harder after success in first ec
Back to snakes.
"They are not afraid to work hard and will always make sure all their work is carried out thoroughly. One thing that Snakes must be careful of is high blood pressure and diabetes; this is because they burn off so much nervous energy after any physical activity and demands rest for some time afterwards."
Good grief. Throw in a chronic heart condition while you are at it. I wasn't careful. “Always do what will cost you the most.” (Simone Weil). I am high maintenance when it comes to both mental and physical activity.
"It is believed that Snakes are late starters in life due to the fact that it may often take them a while to find a job that they are truly happy doing; they will usually do well in any position that involves research and writing and where they are given freedom to develop their own ideas and plans. Snakes can make good teachers, politicians, personnel manager and social advisers."
That's where I ended up after a slow start. I am independent and like my own space. I give good advice. People are not good at taking good advice.
"The Snake chooses their friends carefully and although they keep a tight control over their finances, they can be quite generous to those they are fond of. They will have no hesitation to shower their friends and loved ones with lavish gifts or expensive meals but will expect their friends to stay loyal to them. If the Snakes trust is broken they can be very hurt by this; Snakes are very jealous and possessive by nature."
I am careful, cautious, and frugal by nature, but treat myself, and any others who may be close, to little delights and wonders as I go. It helps that I have simple tastes that can be indulged inexpensively. I have a trusting nature. But if people take advantage of me or betray that trust I turn cold. I don't like to be messed about. And I don't like half-service at weekends only.
https://www.fengshuiweb.co.uk/animals/woodsnake.htm
I do hope this is true, most of it, anyway. It's too late to go back to my old password now that I have made it public. I am a Wood Snake. People can make of it what they will. I’ll never change, I know that much. I wonder if people in general really change. They may develop and grow into being who and what they are, if they are lucky. But change? The real change will come when you stop trying to conform and fit in by doing what others do, or what you think they do. The real change comes with self-knowledge and the acceptance that you are what you are and cannot be otherwise. You just get good at being who and what you are, instead of being bad in your attempts at becoming what you are not. The real growth comes with that self-understanding and self-acceptance. You don’t grow out of being yourself, you learn to be yourself. Which is to say that you don’t grow out of AS, you grow into it. You learn the hard way that your attempts to be other than you are is the source of misery, frustration, and disappointment. But you learn all the same; you learn from a lifetime of frustrating experiences what you can and can’t do, what is good for you and what isn’t, what you need from life and what you don’t, what kinds of environments you thrive in and what kinds you wither and die in. You can grow simply by ceasing to make impossible demands on yourself. Instead of trying to fit yourself to the external requirements of ‘the system’ or the expectations of others, you work out the environments and people that are compatible with your quirks, complementary even, or may even enhance and facilitate your qualities. In the process, you grow into a profound and self-conscious acceptance of who you are, developing a way of life that suits your needs.
Maybe this explains why I’ve always been drawn to ancient Greece and the precepts or maxims of the Delphic oracle. Bear with me as I undertake what may appear to be yet another erratic shift in topic (it makes complete sense to me, although of course such detours are typical of AS. I say it is for others to see the connections AS people see).
Most people will know the precept ‘know thyself.’ It’s that self-knowledge, the coming to know oneself, that is the height of Socratic wisdom. ‘The unexamined life is not worth living,’ said Socrates. My word, no wonder I ended up in philosophy! AS folk have no option but to examine themselves and their lives. Every day of their lives. AS folk tend to talk about themselves and their interests a lot, obsessively even. If you do it with a degree of self-awareness, then you gain a degree of self-knowledge. You may even gain a lot of it. I would only add that the over-examined life is unliveable. I’d make that point about an analytical approach which demands evidence and proof for everything, even, and seemingly especially, for those things for which evidence and proof will always be lacking. The things that make life rich, invigorating, and meaningful are beyond evidence and proof. What we do have and can be sure of is the ever resurgent insurgency of life:
“The life-maintaining functions tend toward autonomy or self-direction. Nature's injunction to every organism, speaking mythically, is: ‘Be yourself. Fulfill yourself! Follow your destiny!’” (Mumford 1952: 31).
And the evidence and proof in support of that proposition is? You can waste your life in vain pursuit of such shallow demands.
So many who spend their lives trying to fit themselves to prevailing social systems, institutions, and structures succeed only by becoming their place, job, or function, maybe adding something that is their unique personality, at best, if they are lucky. But they fit and fall in line; they succeed, and society is thereby reproduced. It is called social reproduction, a counterpart of sexual reproduction. And it all has to be done by enough people if society is to survive. That requires that individuals become agents of processes and powers that lie outside of them. If it wasn’t done, society – and the species - would dissolve from within. But those who find it most difficult to fit in and be successful are forced into ever greater self-examination and introspection. There is a danger here of becoming curved in on oneself, to take a phrase from St Augustine. I warn of that danger a lot. I also emphasize the creation of the happy habitus which fosters the learning, the acquisition, and the exercise of the virtues, definining the virtues as qualities for successful living. And I am left pondering whether I emphasize all these things so much in my philosophy because they are the things that have never come easily for me. In my deficiency, I see their importance. I am a socialist and communitarian who emphasizes public life and the unity of each and all within an authoritative framework. And yet, on a personal level, I have had immense struggles trying to fit in to actually have much of a public or social life, and these struggles continue. I argue for connection as against disconnection, and yet struggle to connect; I argue for a communicative ethic based on a universal common moral reason, and yet avoid argument and debate. I argue for the Greater Love that enfolds, nourishes, moves, and sustains all – it’s a cosmic longing for meaning, belonging, and communion:
“There is an almost sensual longing for communion with others with a larger vision. The immense fulfilment of the friendship between those engaged in furthering the evolution of consciousness, has a quality impossible to describe.”
- PierreTeilhard de Chardin
We have to make the attempt to describe, merely to communicate with others the sense of this greater being, and the clever souls never fail to point out that this is inadmissible. The clever souls doing this miss what's going on here - it's not the inadequacies and impossibilities of description and definition that matter here but the communication and commonality that draw us out of a world of silence and solipsism. I have lost count of the number of times people have told me, after I have written at length on some complicated topic, that silence is the greatest wisdom. That being so, I ask why they don't practice more of it.
Recognizing the paradoxes, I have in my philosophical work attempted to describe the indescribable. There are philosophers who will argue that the personal character of a philosopher is distinct from the quality of that philosopher’s thought. There is, indeed, a philosophical distinction between the proposer and the proposed and, as all pedants know, you cannot legitimately play the man, only the ball. You can see the reason for that convention. Does Martin Heidegger’s dubious politics have a bearing on his philosophy? Are the two unrelated?
Iris Murdoch remarked that "It is always a significant question to ask of any philosopher: what is he afraid of?" (Murdoch The Sovereignty of Good 1985: 72). No one but no one just writes out of some pure, disinterested, impersonal motivation towards truth, there is always a reason why, a point, a purpose, a problem or an issue to be resolved, something we want, something we are afraid of, something that bothers us. The character of a philosopher matters. Spinoza learned and wrote in Latin to ensure that his argument was as dispassionate and logical as possible, totally effacing or concealing his character. I think that effort at self-effacement actually revealed his character. Spinoza evidently didn’t like conflict and sought to avoid the endless and ever-contestable yes’s and no’s of politics by putting politics on ice in order to deliver a world of logical certainty that all contending parties could only say ‘yes’ to. If only human beings were rational beings and no more, then Spinoza’s dream could be real. Human beings are indeed rational beings. They are also rationalizing beings, offering reasons for acts and behaviour undertaken on other grounds and out of other motives. Human beings are more than rational and less than rational. But non-rational isn’t necessarily irrational, it may just be arational, applying to those many essential things in life that are beyond reason. Human beings do not live by reason alone, and do not live mainly by reason, either. When we over-think and over-analyze the things we do, we stumble and fall. It’s like walking downstairs by thinking each step consciously. Sooner or later the brain tires and gets confused and you stumble and fall. There is a paralysis through analysis, an attempt to substitute an external conscious reason for things we ought to have internalized. That’s what people who struggle with spontaneous connection and communication do. Even though I have a formidable memory, I could never function in the academic world without a mass of written notes to refer to before speaking. Even though I would know the point I needed to make, I would always check my notes and read and read again just to make sure. Then get so tongue tied and hesitant that it would sound like I didn’t know what I was saying at all. So I’d make sure and talk endlessly, with one simple point branching out into a whole series of related points. The spontaneity and interaction in the group would be lost. I would be so comprehensive that there would be nothing more for anyone to say, I’d covered it all, and anything contentious was not contended by anyone, for fear it may set me off again. Move that approach out of academia and into society, and you have the basis for serious disconnection and communication breakdown.
This is an example of an over-developed rational mind supplanting spontaneous and innate instincts and organic reflexes, of a conscious intelligence hardening in place of what are often dismissed as dumb, often errant feelings but which is, in fact, a sophisticated emotional intelligence which is capable of guiding reason to better ends. I love the work of Martha Nussbaum, the philosopher of feelings. I rate all of the following things most highly in my work – community, connection, communication, communion with others, order, stability, familiarity, routine, social proximity and practice, emotional intelligence, virtues as qualities for successful living: and I have learned to appreciate their importance through lack, their lack in wider society but, most of all, my own personal struggles through deficiency in all these areas. Their absence heightens their importance for me. In answer to Iris Murdoch’s question I reply that I am afraid of the absence of all these things. And I affirm the wisdom of Plato, the philosopher of reason who was wise enough to know that reason does not rule alone. Plato affirmed the unity of the true, the good, and the beautiful – he put fact, logic, ethics, and aesthetics together. When we attempt to rule by conscious intelligence alone, we falter, stumble, and fall. With every step we take we check whether we are heading in the right direction. Instead of walking forwards, one step at a time, mind and body in unison, we use the conscious mind to tell us to put one foot before the other. We slow down, stall, and even fall. We become frozen and inert through performance anxiety. We cease to function as social beings, and society as a whole ceases to function as a human organism. If the unexamined life is not worth living, then the over-examined life is unliveable. If we ask for reasons for everything we do, then in time we will cease to do anything. Our reason will frequently tell us that the facts of life are against us, yet we carry on living into mystery anyway.
"Reason often has told man he was defeated: why should the prisoner, the slave, the corrupted and the deformed and the ailing all go on with so few exceptions to their dismal end?"
Mumford 1952: 30-31
After‘know thyself,’ the second precept of the Delphic oracle was ‘nothing to excess.’ I write to excess, I think to excess, I push things far too far. I have no brakes and no internal constraints to stop me pursuing my obsessions to the nth degree. That’s why they are called obsessions. That’s why I know the meaning and value of the maxim ‘nothing to excess.’ I know the value of self-limitation through my own personal struggles to limit my own tendencies to excess. I like these first two Delphic precepts because they are not so much imperatives that resolve a question by neat pronouncement as koans that invite reflection and introspection on the part of those who read them. I like the virtue of temperance — the lesson that we take nothing too far. The ancient Greeks, like myself, possessed a real talent to take things far too far. So, too, does modern society. Society is now organised around an economic system that sees limits only as fetters on endless monetary expansion. It is the road to self-destruction, to personal, social, and ecological ruination. I, as one without internal brakes, teach a philosophy of self- and social restraint, of conscious recognition of limits and of internal constraints, leading to a democratic society capable of supplying and living in accordance with a self-limiting principle. Self-knowledge is intimately connected with an appreciation of limits - personal, social and ecological. I therefore argue for a natural and social dependency, and for the interdependence between both realms. I also argue for the human gift of relative moral autonomy that, in separation from greater dependencies, could easily be a curse. We can come to recognize limits, or we can continue to ignore them. Real growth is not an expansion incontravention of limits. Such a thing is a violation that diminishes us. Real growth is an awareness and acceptance of limits. And, as Plato states in Charmides, self-knowledge as self-limitation is a pre-requisite of balance and self control. How does society do that? That’s a good question that I have sought to answer in my philosophical work and which, at the same time, I have had to answer on a personal level my entire life. If the personal is political, as they say, then so too is it philosophical.
The second Delphic principle, ‘nothing to excess,’ is the advice that a civilization with a tendency to push things too far is compelled to give itself. The worry is that such precepts are really written as cautions and warnings rather than as celebrations of the things that are. As an excessive personality, I know the need to exercise self-control. But reason alone is insufficient to achieve this self-control. Hence my interest in the world that is beyond reason, logic, and evidence – the world of anarchic excess which I have inhabited my entire life. Pushed too far, reason undermines life at its source. And it takes more than an awareness and acceptance of limitations to touch that anarchic surplus that exists beyond reason’s naming and framing.
Conscious intelligence can be gift or curse, depending on how we see it in relation to the greater whole. If we rely on this intelligence alone, it paralyzes and petrifies life and prevents its creative unfolding. The ultimate gift of our conscious intelligence lies not in enclosing the whole world in reason but in allying it with our emotional intelligence to become alive to the sense of the mystery that encompasses all we know and can know. It is the positive embrace of the mystery that is beyond the compass of reason that preserves human life from devaluation and human beings from becoming dispirited by the reports on the facts of an often recalcitrant reality. Human beings are meaning-seeking creatures who ask ultimate questions about themselves and the universe – questions about who we are, where we are, and why we are. They may be stupid questions. Which is fine. Human beings might well be stupid. Those who think logic and evidence constitute the limits of knowledge will certainly dismiss such questions as non-questions, on account of the fact that they cannot be answered. That won’t stop human beings asking them, though. And here the realms of logic and evidence must remain silent, on account of having nothing to say. There is a deep cosmic longing for meaning, and there is real value in asking unanswerable questions. Because in the very attempt to answer them we discover important things about our lives and our selves. Unanswerable questions are far from meaningless, since the quest for a meaning that evades our rational mind is integral to a human life. Whilst we cannot have a rational knowledge beyond logic and fact, there is a world of mystery, of anarchic surplus, that is beyond the enclosure of reason, and it is in our existential explorations in this world where the questions we ask, in our determination to keep on questioning, acquire a meaning and a value that is far more important than any answers we may obtain, given the limits of our knowledge. It is in the world beyond rational knowledge and certainty that conscious intelligence and emotional intellgence unite to access the ultimate mystery which encompasses all things. This is there where you will find the meaning of life, and it can only be a personal discovery. That’s why, like God, meaning can never be found by the cognitive tools of science and philosophy, because it isn’t an objective truth inherent in things as a physical property, it is an experiential truth, something that is apprehended in the subject-object interrelation. Those sticking to cognitive tools and methods will continue to proclaim the meaningless of life. In their own terms, they are right, hence every attempt to find the meaning of life by these means is destined to end in disappointment. To those who are disappointed, I say search with other equipment, equipment more appropriate to the subject matter. To those who take some pleasure in the devaluation of life and the dispiriting of human beings, I merely ask: why? If life is objectively pointless, then nothing is more pointless than the science and philosophy which says it is so. Viktor Frankl writes of ‘the secret of life’s unconditional meaningfulness.’ His work is based on a ‘conviction that life is unconditionally meaningful,’ affirming ‘the possibility of finding meaning in life even in suffering and death’ (Frankl 1978: 40). That affirms the possibility of finding meaning of life in the teeth of the harshest and most incontrovertible facts of life. There is no ‘winning at life’ in physical erms. The flesh is corruptible, it decays and it dies. Any victory you pursue in those terms is certain to end in defeat. Reductionism as the reduction of life to mere physical means is a nihilism that brings about the loss of ends. I am interested in the obsessive concern to analyse, dissect, unmask, and debunk, which to me expresses the cosmic longing for meaning in reverse. Frankl notes the perverted pleasure that some take in reducing life to ‘nothing but’ the basics:
‘It seems to me that at least someof the people to whom debunking is so appealing take a masochistic pleasure in the nothing-but-ness that is preached by reductionism.’
Frankl 1978: 89
Such pleasure in reductionism and negation strikes me as neurotic. I don’t see anything brave or heroic about it, either; it takes the easiest line of all – it is far easier to despair than it is to hope. It takes real courage, and a genuine faith, to hope in the face of the hard facts that seem to contradict all hope. I know this to be true as a person with AS, that is, as someone who knows the fear of the unknown and who is inclined to retreat and withdraw and accept a life that is much less than it could be.
Lewis Mumford writes well here:
‘If human life has no purpose and meaning, then the philosophy that proclaims this fact is even emptier than the situation it describes. If, on the other hand, there is more to man's fate and history than meets the eye, if the process as a whole has significance, then even the humblest life and the most insignificant organic function will participate in that ultimate meaning.’
Mumford 1952: 61/62
We participate in an ultimate reality and an ultimate meaning, one that our unanswerable questions may bring us closer to, but which we can never capture for ourselves by our reason and labour. There is a wisdom in knowing that there is a world beyond our comprehension and beyond our control. From the beginning, human beings have pondered life with a mixture of curiosity and wonder, sometimes with a humility that expresses a thankfulness for the gift of it all, sometimes with an ambition that inspires a desire for possession and control. The humility in face of something greater than we are, I say, is wise and proper; the ambition to possess, control, and reorder, I say, is an expression of neurosis and anxiety. Whether we shall be healthy, happy, and at ease or neurotic, destructive and dis-eased depends on whether and how we relate to the Unknown and the Unknowable, whether in that relation we come to understand that the human condition is actually ‘beyond’ human reason, understanding, and control and that our destiny is not entirely in our own hands. A strict humanism turns us in on ourselves and quickly demoralizes us. Instead of expanding our being outwards, we curve in ourselves. That breeds not health but neurosis since, as social and natural beings, we know that there is a world outside of us that is greater than we are. Instead of a neurotic obsession with a control of that world to impose an order of our invention, there is health and sanity in coming into that world, letting go of our need to possess and control, and surrendering to the world around us. That’s a life lived in communion. I’m not sure that ‘destiny’ or ‘fate’ are words that I like. I like the notion of ‘lot,’ as in ‘man’s lot,’ even less. I like ‘purpose’ and ‘end.’ And growth and flourishing. The idea that I am trying to convey is that we are embarked on a journey and that that journey has a proper destination. The reductionists who deny a meaning and value to life fail to understand the impossibilities of living by disinfectants. At some point, human beings stop travelling once they come to think they are embarked on a destinationless journey. Somehow we are heading somewhere.
We are going, heaven knows wherewe are going
We'll know we're there
We will get there, heaven knowshow we will get there
We know we will
It will be hard we know
And the road will be muddy andrough
But we'll get there, heaven knowshow we will get there
We know we will
Art Garfunkel Woyaya
How do I know all this? Because, having lived a life of disconnection and miscommunication, cut off from the normal routes into communion with others and with the world, I know what it takes to live into mystery. I know there is meaning and purpose, I know there is a destination.
In Reinventing the Sacred, theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman argues that since we live in a ceaselessly creative universe, which we partly create in participation within it, we must learn to live into mystery. The world and our future in it will always be in some way unknown and unknowable:
'If we only partially understand our surroundings, if we often truly do not know what will happen, but must live and act anyway, then we must reexamine our full humanity and how we manage to persevere in the face of not knowing. Reexamining ourselves as evolved living beings in nature is thus both a cultural task, with implications for the roles of the arts and humanities, legal reasoning, business activities, and practical action, and part of reinventing the sacred—living with the creativity in the universe that we partially cocreate. Because we cannot know, but must live our lives anyway, we live forward into mystery. Our deep need is to better understand how we do so, and to learn from this deep feature of life how to live our lives well. Plato said we seek the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Plato points us in the right direction.'
Kauffman 2008 ch 14
This is precisely what I have argued at length in my philosophical work, under the heading of 'rational freedom.' Every word that Kauffman writes here, and every word of philosophy I have written in search of 'rational freedom,' applies to my own struggles for connection, communication, and communion in the world. The mystery that the likes of Kauffman and Mumford describe in terms of an ultimate reality beyond human reason and control is precisely how I experience the social world that normal people know well enough and fit in with and function within every day of the week. Kauffman calls upon humanity to live into mystery with faith and courage. I have approached the world outside of my study with faith and courage every day of my life.
AS people talk about themselves and their interests a lot. I have produced an immense body of work in philosophy that extends to more than eighty books and contains more than fifteen million words. That’s a substantial body of work, indicating a certain obsessive interest pursued in endless dialogue with unknown others. I write on a wide variety of subjects and thinkers, but there are certain key themes which indicate a unified purpose which serves to connect the body of work as a whole: the quest for meaning and community, recovering the sense of belonging, the well-tempered order, social self-regulation, a rational freedom that achieves the unity of each and all as against an atomistic freedom, virtues as qualities for successful living, the happy habitus, connection, the communicative ethic and communication community, the democracy of place, person, and purpose.
My philosophy goes to the heart of disconnection and miscommunication in the socio-political world, and identifies what needs to be done to achieve the restoration of communion. And in producing this vast body of work on Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Dante, Spinoza, Blake, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Morris, Mumford, Tolkien, Habermas … I have actually been writing about myself and my own struggles with the world. I have inhabited the thoughts and words of other thinkers and turned them in a particular direction. The deficiency and absence I notice at the heart of the social world are things I know to be amiss in my own world. I see it all clearly and feel it all keenly.
My dear friend Helene Domon wrote this to me:
“I have noticed that you write precisely on the things that are missing in our world, but also that are difficult for you, such as connection. On the other hand, I concluded that your relationship with your parents has taught you about connection. You had a happy and supportive childhood in spite of major traumas at school. You have that primitive social cell in you from your family. Loving, simple, very smart family.”
I have noticed this very thing myself, hence I have been constantly worried about accusations of hypocrisy that could come to be levelled in my direction. It hasn't happened often but it has happened, most specifically when someone who was seeking participation in a joint endeavour took umbrage at my continuing to work on my own, in contradistinction to my constant praise of the virtues of cooperation. This is crass in the extreme. I am an individualist by nature and necessity. I tend to be always at cross-purposes with people. As a person with AS I suffer with impairments in interaction and communication. I may argue for social connection and cooperation but it is a step too far to demand that I engage in cooperation. Apart from anything else, my work emerges creatively according to organic process. I leave team writing for bureaucrats. In fine, I argue for the things I lack, the things I crave, the things I need, the things which forever prove elusive and exceed my grasp. Those very things - connection, cooperation, communion - are also the things which the world lacks and stands in need of.
The third of the three precepts carved into the temple at Delphi is one that intrigues me a great deal in light of the above: ‘make a pledge and mischief is nigh.’ (Plato, Charmides 164d–165a). I’ve seen precept expressed in other ways: ‘Making a legally binding promise comes from madness.’ I argue for a rational freedom which, historically, has taken the form of a lawful freedom. I argue against a legal fetishism which makes law the condition of civil order; I see good social relations as the condition of good law, with law often serving as the rationalization of bad relations. That said, I do agree with St Thomas Aquinas’ definition of law as an ‘ordinance of reason for the promulgation of the common good.’ But I develop rational freedom as at base a relational social freedom, so that individuals come to owe obligations to one another, practising the principle, rather than to a fetishised abstract symbol outside of them.
So I read this third maxim as a caution against over-committing yourself, making unlimited commitments to unknown others. Be careful in what you promise or pledge. Another translation puts the maxim this way: ‘Surety, then ruin’ (Εγγύαπαρά δ' άττα).
I take that to mean that you make a mistake if you try to establish freedom, happiness, or the good life by a law, a code, or a constitution alone, in bureaucratic and regulative abstraction from social relations and practices and from moral character. I take this maxim to be a criticism of the ossification and hypostatisation of conscious reason I wrote of earlier; when we substitute rationalization for organic life, then we petrify it and fall. I would compare it to closing our eyes in an attempt to descend the stairs using the conscious mind, thinking through each step as we place onefoot before the other. As some point we start to hesitate, stumble, and maybe even fall.
I am not a contractarian in political philosophy and instead argue for social proximity, small-scale practical reasoning, and trust relations between individuals. I seek a solidarity that is established by more than a contract between discrete individuals. Plato argued that ‘good people don’t need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws.’ In fine, good character in a healthy habitus matters more than the promulgation of good laws. Plato is very far from arguing against the importance of law: he identifies law as sacred, as our salvation. His point is that law cannot do this alone, that we need good character and good relations, which is my view.
Either way, these views emphasize the ideal of balance and the golden mean. It’s all very ancient Greek, and all very me. Living a life of excess and obsession, without filters and self-limitation, without the check that comes from connection with the community of others, I see precisely the acute importance of limit, constraint, order, connection, balance, symmetry, proportion, harmony. I know personally the damage that their absence or deficiency can do.
In Being at One, I wrote that there are three precepts inscribed on the temple at Delphi. In fact, there are four. The fourth one is a large ‘E,’ the meaning of which is unclear, and has been so at least since the time of Plutarch. In addition to these four there are the 145 sayings of the Seven Sages of Greece. These are also inscribed around the temple. The ‘short list’ of important Delphic sayings is often put at seven, associated with the semi-legendary “Seven Sages of Greece“. These are:
Solon of Athens - "Nothing to excess"
Chilon of Sparta - "Know thyself"
Thales of Miletus - "A pledge comes from madness"
Bias of Priene - "Most men are bad"
Cleobulus of Lindos - "Moderation is the chief good"
Pittacus of Mitylene - "Know thine opportunity"
Periander of Corinth - "Forethought in all things"
Peter of St Helens: “Grow into being.”
