Quote of the Day: On the Eternal Verities and Squaring the Circle

 

File:01-Quadratur des Kreises E-15-1.svgOur society is changing so rapidly that none of us can know what it is or where it is going. All of us who are mature feel that there are historic principles of behavior and morality, of things that we all believe in that are being lost, not because young people couldn’t believe in them, but because there is no language for translating them into contemporary terms.

The search for that language, the search for the ways to tell young people what we know as we grow older — the permanent and wonderful things about life — will be one of the great functions of this system. We are losing this generation. We all know that. We need a way to get them back.–Edwin H. Land, 1967

Edwin H. Land, was born on May 7 1909 in Bridgeport, Connecticut. After graduating high school from the Norwich Free Academy, he entered Harvard to study, leaving after his freshman year to go to New York City to invent things. Which he did. Without any financial backing or other substantive encouragement, Land scoured the resources of the New York Public Library system, “borrowed” Columbia University’s laboratory facilities late at night, and came up with a new and inexpensive polarizing light filter. (Originally conceived as a solution for automobile headlight glare, Land was more successful in selling his idea as a refinement for sunglasses and windows, particularly, to start with, those in passenger railcars.)

He returned to Harvard but formal education held little interest for him, so he left again before graduating, despite the best efforts of his wife, who would compel Land to work out the solutions to assigned problems in his head and tell her what they were, so she could write them down and turn in his homework for him.

Harvard University gave up the unequal struggle in 1957, and awarded Edwin Herbert Land, inventor, patriot, philanthropist, businessman and eccentric genius, an honorary doctorate in recognition of his contributions to science. By that time, Land had, among other things, invented “instant” photography, continued to refine his polarizing light filter research (from which the name of his company, Polaroid, was taken), worked with the federal government, throughout World War II and after, to improve photo reconnaissance and intelligence gathering techniques, and served as a consultant to President Eisenhower on science and what we’d probably call (brace yourself) “spying.” In later years, he developed a massive camera which he made freely available, in return for some of their prints, to professional photographers and artists, the likes of Ansel Adams, Robert Frank and Andy Warhol. The collection amassed in this process grew to some 20,000 prints, and was kept intact until 2010, when it was sold in lots. Land also founded the Rowland Institute at Harvard, a nonprofit, privately endowed research organization dedicated to experimental science.

There’s a fascinating biography of Land, and much other information as well, on the American Chemical Society website. It explains in terms even I can understand (but am not sure I can restate in my own words) the science behind some of his research, and the impact of his inventions.

Edwin H. Land died in 1991, and is buried in the Mount Auburn Cemetery, in Cambridge Massachusetts. (On a personal note, I don’t usually put cemeteries on my “must see” list when I’m vacationing or visiting, but if you’re not familiar with this one or its history, it’s well worth a look.)

Today’s quote of the day comes from Land’s testimony before the session of Congress which was on its way to its passing the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The “system” he’s talking about, the one that will find the language to “tell young people what we know as we grow older–the permanent and wonderful things about life,” was later formed into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (CPB).

I’m pretty sure most of us would agree that a federally-funded communications behemoth (the mother ship for, among others, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service), might not be, and hasn’t been, the best vehicle for promoting the eternal verities and passing along “historic principles of behavior and morality,” but I am very struck by Land’s message, fifty years on.

What is the “language” that can “translate . . . the historic principles of behavior and morality” into “contemporary terms” that young people can “believe in?” And once we find it (there have been some posts and comments here on Riochet, even quite recently, that have come close, I think), how do we get the word out?

I think that’s the circle we need to square. And soon.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 12 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    “No language for translating them into contemporary terms”

    The words that seem to be dropping out of the language seem to be weightier than those being added in. I know that it goes deeper than this @she , but a proper answer will take more time than I have to give right now. Thank you for this post.

     

    • #1
  2. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Communication is the main problem of our day. That was probably said by Cæsar Augustus and Napoleon alike. Humans may be one of the best species on Earth when it comes to communication, but we’re still really, really bad at it.

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I’ve been thinking quite a bit about morality lately. The difficulties in communicating to the current generation are, for one, they don’t care about morality. They don’t think it’s important or valuable. Second, although most of us would like to think there is an objective morality, values we can mostly agree on, but moral relativism quashes that notion. So I have no answers, but it was a great question for Land to pose. Thanks, @she.

    • #3
  4. Misthiocracy secretly Member
    Misthiocracy secretly
    @Misthiocracy

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    The “young people” to whom he was referring in 1967 are now in their 60s and 70s.  Do we consider today’s senior citizens to be a “lost generation”?

    The smarter members of The Left™ understand demographics.  They understand that the urge for activism, rebellion, and revolution wanes as one grows up and assumes the responsibilities of adult life.  That’s precisely why they are so keen on getting as many of their measures passed now while there is a temporary surge in the college-aged population cohort.  They know that this cohort’s sympathy for revolutionary worldviews will wane with every passing year.

    People do eventually grow up, even in hyper-secular Western societies.  However, as Charles Murray has pointed out, folk have tended to be less likely to preach what they practice.  Our duty is to keep conservative worldviews alive in the meantime, so that this cohort gets at least some exposure to messages that are contrary to the orthodoxies of The Left.  The popularity of the so-called “intellectual dark web” suggests to me that a substantial proportion of the current college-aged cohort is thirsty for a more conservative intellectualism.

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    • #4
  5. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    She: The search for that language, the search for the ways to tell young people what we know as we grow older — the permanent and wonderful things about life — will be one of the great functions of this system. We are losing this generation. We all know that. We need a way to get them back.–Edwin H. Land, 1967

    It’s interesting that Mr. Land wrote this in 1967. If we assume that the Baby Boom generation was responsible for this lament, the oldest members would have been ~20 years old at that time. Barely out of high school, and probably not out of college either. Yet the Vietnam war was already becoming a hot button issue, probably due to Communist influence inside and outside of the United States. And the males of that generation were naturally concerned about losing their life or getting maimed for what? 

    I think the real reason for losing that generation is the same reason today. Except for Vietnam, it’s easy to be lazy and not worry about starvation, disease, or death. And without a purpose, many Baby Boomers drifted away from morality.


    The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. We have only 4 days left on the May Signup SheetWe even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!

     

    • #5
  6. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    She:

    What is the “language” that can “translate . . . the historic principles of behavior and morality” into “contemporary terms” that young people can “believe in?” And once we find it (there have been some posts and comments here on Riochet, even quite recently, that have come close, I think), how do we get the word out?

    I think that’s the circle we need to square. And soon. 

    The language is active living by parenting and example, as much as we are able.  There have been several interesting studies in the last couple of years on the decline in church attendance, the seeming sudden rise of the so-called “nones”, and related issues, and some of the conclusions are telling:

    • In households where church attendance was irregular, the children cease going to church at all when adults.
    • In households where church attendance was regular and normal, the children are retained at higher rates.
    • In households where church attendance was regular and normal, and the parents actively lived out their faith in front of and with their children, retention was higher still.

    In other words, many of the “nones” come from families that treated church as an obligation or seasonal duty – people who themselves might have been “nones” too were church not seen as a social duty.

    Now this is all statistical averaging, and individual stories can of course vary widely from these trendlines.  Other studies have teased out other factors though:

    • How do families and churches handle the hard questions?  Households and churches where inquiry and doubt were repressed, or where an attitude of “Just do it” prevailed, retention was poor by comparison to households that let kids and young adults struggle.
    • How do churches in particular handle the transition from childhood to adulthood?  Is the church life geared towards one age group of adults over another, or does it embrace and draw in all?  This turned out to be less about programs (singles groups, bible studies, outreach, etc.) than it did about personal connection – did the young adults find friends and mentors, or were they pigeon-holed?

    And as goes a family’s attitude to church, so goes a family’s attitude towards other issues of morality, ethics, behavior, and society.  To translate the historic principles, one must also live them out.  To live them out, however, often involves making sacrifices, and maintaining vigilance, for the children learn from their peers, their teachers, and the internet or TV or the movies.  

    We made the decision early on that we would avoid public schools, and so sent our children to a private Christian school.  Others homeschool.  Of course that’s not at all feasible for many, so we all do what we can.  But we have to want to pass on our historic principles, and work to do it.

    The Left very often sees those historic principles are archaic and repressive, so they will work to thwart such passing along.  We have to stand guard there.

    • #6
  7. She Member
    She
    @She

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Oh, good!  I’m glad he showed up!

    The “young people” to whom he was referring in 1967 are now in their 60s and 70s. Do we consider today’s senior citizens to be a “lost generation”?

    I was, and am, one of them.  (I was 13 when Land made his comments).  Would I say I’m part of a “lost generation?”  In one important sense, I think I would.

    I don’t see any way around the fact that it’s the “young people” of whom Land was speaking, who have, over the intervening fifty years, been largely responsible for turning this country, and other great Western democracies/republics into what they are today.  That’s where the voters, the businessmen, the teachers, the judges, the parents, the workers, and the citizens who’ve had the most influence and who’ve been steering the ship, have come from.

    And that ship has been listing inexorably, more and more, to port over those years as that group gave up, moved over and let go.  It’s hard to believe, given how many of those “historic principles of behavior and morality” Land talks about have been scuttled over that half-century, that anything other than that a substantial portion of my generation is still quite happy about the way things have gone.  Sure, some have been fighting rearguard actions and trying to grab the wheel and turn it the other way.  On occasion, there have been some heartening, but apparently only temporary, successes, because, sooner or later, whoops, it lets go and spins back again.

    The smarter members of The Left™ understand demographics. They understand that the urge for activism, rebellion, and revolution wanes as one grows up and assumes the responsibilities of adult life. That’s precisely why they are so keen on getting as many of their measures passed now while there is a temporary surge in the college-aged population cohort. They know that this cohort’s sympathy for revolutionary worldviews will wane with every passing year.

    I’d like to believe this is still true.  As the benchmark/centerpoint moves, faster and faster, lefter and lefter, I don’t know how much it will matter, though.

    People do eventually grow up, even in hyper-secular Western societies. However, as Charles Murray has pointed out, folk have tended to be less likely to preach what they practice. Our duty is to keep conservative worldviews alive in the meantime, so that this cohort gets at least some exposure to messages that are contrary to the orthodoxies of The Left. The popularity of the so-called “intellectual dark web” suggests to me that a substantial proportion of the current college-aged cohort is thirsty for a more conservative intellectualism.

    I think, rather than being antagonistic to my point, that this statement of yours actually makes it.  Jordan Peterson is generally accounted to be part of the ‘intellectual dark web.’  I’d suggest that he’s found a way to “connect” with the young.  (I’m not so sure about some of the others, who I think are speaking mostly to geezers like me, but I think Peterson may be an example of someone who “gets it” and might be able to move the needle in real terms, rather than in vague “let’s wait a while until this generation grows up and then see where we are” terms)  I also think, as much of an execrable and intellectual wasteland as most of academia is these days, that gifted and right thinking teachers (if you can find such) are likely to have an edge when it comes to finding the “language” we need because they have dedicated their lives to working with the young.

    So no, I’m not ready to throw in the towel.  But I think time is short, and that waiting, as we have in the past, for things to balance out isn’t a strategy that works anymore.

    • #7
  8. Hank Rhody, Drunk on Power Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Drunk on Power
    @HankRhody

    I’m thinking the problem isn’t language. I think we’re ascribing to previous generations a great deal more control over their affairs than they had. That just because things turned out relatively well for them that they knew what they were doing and intended that outcome all along.

    The paranoiac who believes the Illuminati control everything can at least rest in the comfort that someone is controlling events, even if to nefarious ends.

    • #8
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Hank Rhody, Drunk on Power (View Comment):

    The paranoiac who believes the Illuminati control everything can at least rest in the comfort that someone is controlling events, even if to nefarious ends.

    The Illuminati don’t control everything. Just the stuff the Knights Templar haven’t gobbled up already.

    • #9
  10. Hank Rhody, Drunk on Power Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Drunk on Power
    @HankRhody

    Percival (View Comment):

    Hank Rhody, Drunk on Power (View Comment):

    The paranoiac who believes the Illuminati control everything can at least rest in the comfort that someone is controlling events, even if to nefarious ends.

    The Illuminati don’t control everything. Just the stuff the Knights Templar haven’t gobbled up already.

    Uh huh. You, you’re not just a Rosicrucian yelling “I’m my own person, dad! I have my own opinions!”

    • #10
  11. She Member
    She
    @She

    Hank Rhody, Drunk on Power (View Comment):

    I’m thinking the problem isn’t language. I think we’re ascribing to previous generations a great deal more control over their affairs than they had.

    Either that, or we’re thinking that the fact that every utterance of theirs, and every stupid, crazy, or even (perish the thought) rational thing they said, since it didn’t rattle round the world in seconds, may have been mitigated by inferior communications, and therefore didn’t have the impact it does today.

    • #11
  12. She Member
    She
    @She

    I don’t know what the answer is, either.  I do think that morals, and principles, have something to do with it and are worthwhile things to teach next generations.  That’s why I’m not sure about the “muh principles” meme.  IMHO, having principles, and living by them, is not always a sign of preening, hypocrisy, or privilege, and I’m not sure why some on the right are so willing to cede the ground to those on the left who believe that’s the case.

    • #12
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.