Hello From an Old Friend

 

I have missed the voice of Jeff Deist ever since he left the Mises Institute a couple of years ago.  He has popped up publicly a couple of times since then, most recently at Hans Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society annual conference.

At this conference, he gave a talk entitled A New Approach to Hoppe’s “Open Border” Critics.  It is consistent with Jeff’s comments on this and similar topics in the past, as I would fully expect.  Even knowing this, I watched, as it is always nice to hear Jeff speak on any topic.

I have encouraged Jeff to find an outlet to once again bring his voice to the public – a blog, podcast, whatever.  To my knowledge, he has not yet done so.  So, I am left, as with this talk at PFS, with finding tidbits wherever Jeff chooses to leave them!

The Road Ahead

My “ask”: is it worthwhile that I continue to post at this blog my work through these two books, or is it way too far afield?  I am not sure I will follow whatever responses I receive to this, but I do want a sense of this community on this question.

Regarding the following two books:

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

I have heard you loud and clear, and am overwhelmed by your response. 

I knew that by writing on what I found meaningful about the two books on the Sermon on the Mount, I would gain much more insight than I would by merely reading it.  And I could have done this writing and just kept a running word document or some such.  But I felt without the objective of publishing at the blog, I might not stick to the writing part of the work.  And my learning would be the lesser for it.  So I asked the question, and I will publish at the blog.

These books are rather long, so the work will continue for quite some time.  To try to remain efficient at this, I am going to try to limit my focus to just a handful of other books, as follows:

These first two are rather short: I am mostly through On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius, and will soon finish this work.  In the same field, I will follow this with Why God Became Man, by St. Anselm.  While I have for quite some time come to conclude that Christ’s work on the cross would not be complete or sufficient unless he was both God and man, I have some people close to me who are quite comfortable that His being man was enough. 

For this reason, I wanted a better grounding by reading those who are far more qualified than I am on this topic – not for my faith, but so I can be a better apologist.

I will also continue through The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, by Matthew Barrett.  This is also an extremely long book.  My interest in this book is due to finding myself falling into the pit of believing that much of what the Reformers gave us theologically was new, with little grounding in early Christianity. 

Sure, they could present good Biblical arguments for their positions, but these were ideas not found in the early Church fathers.  Concerned about my drift and that it was guided by ignorance, I decided this book would be a good vehicle through which I would gain a better-informed view.

I am sure once in a while a topic will come up on which I feel I have something of value to add.  What I will try to do is stay disciplined and focused on the books listed here without adding a few more to the active file.

Conclusion

At the same time, I am buried in some personal projects, and am trying to find a way to better organize my time to be more productive such that I can attend to those and pick up the pace of my writing for the blog to at least two, if not three, posts per week.  I think I will have to do this if I am ever to get through the three long books on this list in any reasonable amount of time.

Yet, returning to the present subject: I really do appreciate the positive response regarding my ask.

 

Jordan Peterson on the Difficulty of Breaking Habits

 From Peterson’s Exodus series, episode 5, beginning here:

When you make a habit, what happens…there is a neuro-physiological process.  When you first encounter something novel, so you don’t have habits in that domain, a large part of your brain is metabolically active. 

I have never seen this before.  I have to figure out what to do.

It’s because you’re not very good at it and there is no specialized system developed to deal with that anomalous occurrence.  Then as you practice, less and less of your brain is involved; it moves from the right to the left, then from the left frontal backwards until you build a machine – but it’s not a machine – in the back that automatizes that. 

It becomes a habit.  The interesting thing is that we must do this if we are to function at all in society.  We cannot function by approaching every event or episode as if we had never encountered it before.  In other words, without habits, we couldn’t survive.

So, if you practice a sin, let’s say, you build a machine. 

And this is the point.  Not all habits are good habits (thank you, Captain Obvious mosquito).

But it’s not a machine, because it’s alive.  It’s more like a sub-personality.  And then when you want to take that thing out, it’s not particularly happy.  It will respond in many ways.  The habit couldn’t animate you and shape your perceptions if it wasn’t a spirit.

Our habits allow us to function, so why wouldn’t they fight back if attacked?  Our habits have protected us from harm; our habits have made it easier to manage life.  Our habits believe they are doing us good, and therefore will not go away very peacefully. 

And you build in those habits and you allow the spirit that constitutes those habits to not only inhabit you – its more than that.  Because that little neuro-physiological mechanism, in order for it to grip control of your perception and action, has to shut down all the rest of your brain. 

How often do we not remember what we just did?  An easy example is something like a regular drive to the office.  We arrive, and suddenly realize we remember nothing at all about the drive.

Because otherwise you would do something else.

Well, you might do something else.  But if the habit has been found to be beneficial, you might not.  In other words, if the habit serves its purpose (even if it occasionally causes harm), why would you do something else?

Atomistic Individual Curation

 

I have received a few replies to my post, Where is Murray Rothbard?   I will interact with a summary of these, but first a short summary of the purpose of that post: Rothbard wrote about and integrated several disciplines in order to come to a complete understanding of liberty.  Beyond even economics and political philosophy, he would write about natural law, revisionist (honest) history, the corruption inherent in the modern state, an appreciation of the western civilization that gave birth to our notions of liberty, and entrepreneurship. 

The purpose behind my question was to search for anyone or any group continuing this work:

While I admittedly am not familiar with everyone doing any work along the lines that Rothbard describes in this work, I am not familiar with any meaningful individual, group, or institution that is carrying it out.

This, other than Hans Hoppe, who stands singularly tall in this work…in my opinion.

As to the comments, several individual names were mentioned.  Of course, Hans Hoppe, but in addition: David Gordon, Gerard Casey, Ryan McMaken, Jorge Guido Hulsmann, Jeff Deist, Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Lew Rockwell, Dave Smith, CJ Engel, Pete Quinones, and Gary North. 

This listing points to the reason for the title of this post.  Are we left individually to curate our own content?  This is no way to sustain and build a movement.  Individuals create, but it is institutions that sustain and build.

Yes, I did ask for individuals as well as groups or institutions.  I received many of the former, but only a couple of the latter.  As far as institutions, the Mises Institute was offered; as far as groups, “the Mises Caucus guys.” 

As for the individuals, there are some fine names offered.  There are also some that, for one reason or another, I have stayed away from.  For example, one of these, a few years ago, physically demonstrated the highest hypocrisy on an issue he loudly spoke against.  Another I have found unsteady, unwilling or unable to follow through on commitments.  No, I won't name names.

As for the institution and the group, I know little about the Mises Caucus.  For the Mises Institute, it will be nice seeing who replaces Jeff Deist.  Under Deist’s leadership, many of these various disciplines were pursued.  From where I stand, it is only this Institute that has the potential, currently, to continue this work. I don’t know if this will continue, and have seen some evidence via an article posted at the site and also some oddities about a couple of upcoming conferences that this may not be the case going forward. 

Conclusion

Having said this, there is enough from the list to do something with.  A conference with a few of those mentioned as speakers, focusing on the integration of two or more of these topics, or a listing of relevant work – some form of site that brings together the writing and podcasts from a few of these individuals that also address specifically the integration of two or more of these disciplines.

It is quite unfortunate.  Rothbard’s multi-discipline legacy is everywhere in all of these names.  But it is to be seen if it will be found under any institutional umbrella.