Sally Rooney's Marxism

 

Amazon link

A discussion between ChatGPT and myself about what we know concerning Sally Rooney's political ideas. I debated a few questions and ideas back and forth, and finally asked the chatbot to write up the dialogue as an essay/blog-post.

---

Sally Rooney’s Marxist Worldview: A Modern Critique of Capitalism

Sally Rooney, the celebrated author of “Normal People” and “Conversations with Friends”, and now “Intermezzo”, is often described as a Marxist writer. While she doesn’t adhere to a strict political doctrine, her worldview is deeply shaped by Marxist analysis, particularly in her critique of capitalism’s impact on human relationships, social inequality, and cultural life. Through her novels and interviews, Rooney offers a nuanced, modern take on Marxism, one that is intellectually rich but avoids rigid political prescriptions.

Capitalism and the Human Condition

At the core of Rooney’s work is a critique of capitalism’s profound effect on interpersonal relationships. In her Dublin-set novels, characters navigate a world shaped by economic constraints, where class divides and social hierarchies permeate their interactions. Rooney’s portrayal of these dynamics aligns with a Marxist understanding of how capitalism alienates individuals from one another and commodifies human life. Rather than focusing on abstract economic theories, her Marxism is lived, rooted in the everyday struggles of her characters to find meaning and connection in a commodified world.

This approach marks Rooney as part of a tradition of Marxist thought that is more concerned with the cultural and psychological dimensions of capitalism than with strict political-economic analysis. In this way, she echoes the work of the Frankfurt School, a group of mid-20th-century Marxist thinkers who critiqued capitalism’s influence on culture and consciousness.

A Gradualist, Not a Revolutionary

Despite her Marxist leanings, Rooney does not appear to advocate for a Leninist or Bolshevik-style revolution. She rarely discusses violent overthrow or revolutionary parties in her public statements. Instead, her Marxism appears more gradualist and reformist. She is critical of existing power structures but does not suggest an imminent collapse of capitalism or a specific mode of governance to replace it. In some cases she even appears to flirt with a reformed Catholicism as a framework for a meaningful social life.

In interviews, Rooney has described Marxism as more of a framework for understanding the world than a strict political program. This flexible and intellectual approach to Marxism fits with a broader tradition of Western Marxist thought, which emphasizes systemic critique and raising consciousness over revolutionary action. Her work suggests that change may come from a deeper understanding of capitalism’s flaws rather than through immediate, radical upheaval.

Cultural Capitalism and the Frankfurt School

Rooney’s focus on culture and personal life under capitalism closely aligns with Critical Theory as originally developed by the Frankfurt School. Thinkers like Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse were concerned with how capitalist society influences culture, media, and human behavior in ways that reinforce social domination. They argued that capitalism’s control extends beyond economics into the realm of ideology, shaping how individuals perceive the world and their place within it.

Rooney’s novels explore these themes, portraying characters whose desires and relationships are shaped by the broader social and economic forces of capitalism. This approach reflects a Frankfurt School-influenced understanding of capitalism’s subtle, yet pervasive, control over human life. Her critique is not just about economic exploitation but about how capitalist ideology penetrates the most intimate aspects of life, alienating people from themselves and from each other: pervasive meaninglessness always totters at the edges of nihilism.

The Future of Capitalism

While Rooney is deeply critical of capitalism, she does not explicitly predict its immediate downfall or suggest that technological advances like automation will lead to a post-capitalist world. Instead, her focus remains on critiquing the present, analyzing how capitalism affects personal and social life. There is no clear vision of a utopian future in her work - her Marxism is more concerned with the here and now, exposing the contradictions and injustices of the current system.

---

Yes, I've read “Intermezzo” now. It's good, smart, perceptive: quite a page turner. Lots of interesting symmetries (partner-age, fraternal personalities). Do middle-class youngish men really say "I love you" with feeling, quite a lot, to their brothers these days in Dublin? The Internet thinks Sally Rooney is INTP - and this is an INTP-ish novel.

---

Mathematical Elegance

It's strange how arbitrary the numerical representation of π is. Compare 3.14159265358979... (equally random in any other base) to the platonic perfection - and inevitability - of the circle and its diameter.

Surely there is a compelling series for π which more clearly demonstrates its geometrical elegance?

The Leibniz formula is very elegant:

The Leibniz series for π is expressed as:

π ≈ 4 × (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...)

The first four terms of the series are:

π ≈ 4 × (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7) = 4 × 0.72380952 ≈ 2.8952381

but it comes out of the Taylor series for arctan. There seems no intuitive geometrical picture of how this ends up as π. There are many other series which converge to π: many of them have striking patterns. But the term-by-term connection to geometry is never there.

---

An elementary mathematical identity is that sin2(θ)+ cos2(θ) = 1. I asked ChatGPT (which can now do maths) to show me how this comes out of the Taylor series for sin2(θ) and cos2(θ) separately.

Question:

What is the Taylor series for sin2(θ) and cos2(θ) separately? How does their sum turn out to be invariantly one?

Answer:

1. Taylor Series for sin2(θ)

The Taylor series for sin(θ) is:

sin(θ) = θ - θ3/3! + θ5/5! - θ7/7! + ...

Squaring this series gives:

sin2(θ) = (θ - θ3/3! + θ5/5! - ... )2

Which results in:

sin2(θ) = θ2 - θ4/3 + 2θ6/45 - ...

2. Taylor Series for cos2(θ)

The Taylor series for cos(θ) is:

cos(θ) = 1 - θ2/2! + θ4/4! - θ6/6! + ...

Squaring this series gives:

cos2(θ) = (1 - θ2/2! + θ4/4! - ... )2

Which results in:

cos2(θ) = 1 - θ2 + θ4/3 - 2θ6/45 + ...

3. Adding Them Together: sin2(θ) + cos2(θ)

Now, summing the Taylor series for sin2(θ) and cos2(θ):

sin2(θ) + cos2(θ) = (θ2 - θ4/3 + 2θ6/45 - ...) + (1 - θ2 + θ4/3 - 2θ6/45 + ...)

When you add the terms:

• The θ2 terms cancel out.
• The θ4 terms cancel out.
• The θ6 terms cancel out.
• And so on for all higher-order terms.

Thus, all terms cancel out except the constant 1:

sin2(θ) + cos2(θ) = 1

This shows how the sum of the Taylor series results in the invariant identity sin2(θ) + cos2(θ) = 1, independent of the value of θ.

Credit: ChatGPT

I wish I'd seen this when I was fifteen.

"Woken" by Adam Carlton

From OpenArt

Nathalie walks through the district of the Goutte d'Or: the streets once so genteel, now so derelict. The rain falls in sheets but in her anger and despair she hardly notices. She kicks at the rubble in a once-grand street, where gilded balconies now jut at odd angles against the leaden sky. A can clatters away, and in the distance, a burnt-out car sags like some long-dead creature.

She should be with her classmates at this moment, locked arm-in-arm beneath banners that always demand a better tomorrow. Today’s topic:  a lengthy scream on the evils of plastic. But Nathalie has protest-fatigue; her feet carry her towards Saint Bernard de la Chapelle, the church where Father Léopold, her uncle, keeps his silent vigil. Another relic of a former age.

The street cameras silently note her passing. A drone buzzes overhead, indifferent for now.

---

Into the church, into the thick, nostalgic, dwindling scent of incense. Nathalie takes a deep breath. Dust swirls in the fractured light, the air has tactile weight. In the quiet, the world outside recedes into irrelevance: chaos, noise, pervasive hypocrisy - none of it penetrates these ancient walls.

Her uncle sits alone in a front pew staring at the altar, unresponsive to her approach. Nathalie’s footsteps, now slow and deliberate, echo in the cavernous space.

Finally he turns, his smile a flicker of warmth in the all-encompassing gloom. He points her to a small room off the nave, where rare confessions now tell less of sin, more of desperation.

“I can’t do it anymore,” Nathalie says, her words tumbling forth like gusting leaves, “All the scheduled protests on our timetable, all our carefully-drilled chants… I hate it!”

Léopold leans back, his hands cradling a mug of tea that has long gone cold, saying nothing, just waiting, the way he always does.

“It’s just theatre,” she continues, “They think they’re changing something but they’re not. They’re just… playing at it. They don’t see that they’re the ones being played.”

Léopold’s eyes don't leave her face. There is no judgement in them, only the weight of years, the things he’s seen, all the things he hasn’t been able to alter.

“We’re radical students,” Nathalie says scornfully, “There’s always some cause du jour to protest about; it’s on the news, it's on the TV. Out we go, showing our values, tossing our heads, showing that we care…”

He stirs at that, tilting his head slightly, gaze now attentive.

“How can they not see their strings being pulled? I can see it. Some of my friends can see it. The teachers themselves shame you if you don’t show enough enthusiasm - so why would anyone believe they’re being truly radical, for God’s sake?”

Léopold smiles at that. “And you?” he asks, voice low, as if speaking too loudly would waken something ominous in the room.

“I’m not afraid,” she whispers, “I won’t be another sheep in their flock. I won’t feed their machine.”

Outside, the sound of the rain intensifies, drumming against the church’s ancient stone.

“And what will you do instead?”

Nathalie doesn’t answer immediately. She stares across the nave towards the stained glass windows, constant in their endless watch against a profane world. “I don’t know yet,” she says, “But it won’t be this. It won’t be stage-managed protests.”

Before Léopold can respond, the main door bursts open, the crash reverberating between the massive walls. Armoured CRS troopers march in, their black boots slamming on the worn stone floor. Their leader, his face masked, surveys the scene as if he’d caught the two of them participating in some cultish ritual.

“What do we have here?” he sneers, “Another priest playing with the little kiddies?”

Léopold remains seated, his posture unchanged though there is new tension in his shoulders. He doesn’t flinch as the officer struts closer, carbine held across his chest.

“This is my niece,” Léopold says quietly, his voice unsteady.

The officer’s lip curls. Without a word, he strikes. The butt of his rifle connects with Léopold’s chin with a cracking sound followed by a gasp of pain. Blood splatters the floor; the old man topples from his seat.

Nathalie is transfixed. She barely blinks. Her mind lags, as though she were watching from a great distance. Léopold lies crumpled on the ground, the officer standing over him breathing heavily. He turns to her, his grip on her arm cold, precise and mechanical. “Come on then, girlie. You’ve got a march to join.”

Nathalie is pulled towards the door, her face expressionless, her thoughts somewhere else.

They step out into the rain, Nathalie immobilised by her huge, black-clad captor. She turns her face upward, the drops hit her skin. Her mind whirls on unchecked: the weekly demonstrations, regular as clockwork; the chanting crowds; the slogans of protest: all theatre, all a distraction. Real authority moves silently, unseen, deploying soft and hard power as it wills. The system that beat-up her uncle, that watched her from the skies, would not fall to choreographed slogans-on-demand; that requires something else - something sharp, and quiet, and unyielding.

Nathalie, suddenly and contemptuously freed, blinks the rain from her eyes and walks on. She will no longer be part of their performance. Her path, she now knows, leads into the shadows, those hidden places where the system may truly be subverted. She does not know where this real resistance is, or how it may be contacted. But she will find out.

---

The surveillance state gets all this - and approves. Nathalie has demonstrated insight, intelligence and determination - all qualities the elite cherishes in its perpetual quest for self-renewal. The path is certainly long and few are chosen, yet she has made a good start. Configuration files are updated, cameras and drones fine-tuned. Nathalie has transitioned: she has become a candidate for special oversight.

---

Author's note: this short story is a rewrite from something I wrote a while ago when 'plastics' was indeed la cause de notre temps. That story was heavy-handed and knockabout - a piece of thoroughly leaden satire - and I cringed when I re-read it. The result above is not at all a great piece of literature; I prefer to think of it as workmanlike agitprop: la réalité de nos jours.

Ariekei Language in China Miéville's "Embassytown"

ChatGPT has forgotten what an Ariekei Host looks like...

A discussion with ChatGPT about the strange Language of the alien Ariekei in China Miéville's SF novel, "Embassytown" - which I am re-reading.

---

Me: "In China Mieville's SF novel, "Embassytown", the Hosts, the Ariekei, have a very strange language which provides the momentum for the plot. Could you summarise the main technical features of this language? My questions include: why two simultaneous speakers (the Ambassadors), why is it difficult-to-impossible to lie in the language (is it because Language is non-referential?), could such a language even have a formal semantics (in the sense of mathematical logic)?"

ChatGPT:

In "Embassytown" by China Miéville, the Ariekei (or Hosts) use a unique form of communication simply called "Language." This Language has several key features that drive the novel’s plot and explore questions of meaning, reference, and truth.

1. Dual Voicing:

The Ariekei have two vocal organs, allowing them to speak with two distinct voices simultaneously. For the Hosts to understand, both voices must be speaking in perfect harmony. Humans, to communicate with the Ariekei, require Ambassadors—specially trained pairs of humans who can synchronize their speech so perfectly that they mimic the two-voiced utterances of the Ariekei. The necessity of dual voicing underscores the complexity and alien nature of the Hosts' perception and communication.

2. Difficulty of Lying:

In Ariekei Language, words are tied directly to reality in a literal way, which makes lying nearly impossible. Their Language is more than symbolic; it is deeply entwined with truth and the speaker's reality. For the Ariekei, Language does not merely describe or refer to things, it is an expression of direct experience. Because of this, abstract concepts or statements that don't correspond to their lived reality (such as lies or fictional stories) are incomprehensible to them.

3. Non-Referential Nature: 

The Language of the Ariekei does not function the same way human languages do in terms of referentiality. Human languages rely on symbols (words) to refer to things or concepts, and we can manipulate these symbols abstractly. In contrast, the Ariekei Language is directly tied to their perception of the world—words are not just labels for objects or ideas but are bound up in the actuality of those objects or ideas. Because of this direct relationship, abstract thought, metaphor, or lies are challenging for them to conceptualize in Language.

4. Formal Semantics: 

The Language of the Ariekei would likely not be amenable to a formal semantics as understood in mathematical logic. Formal semantics in logic relies on abstract symbols and the relationship between signs (syntax) and their meanings (semantics) through truth conditions. The Ariekei Language, however, seems resistant to this kind of abstraction. Since their words are directly tied to reality and not merely referential signs, a formal semantics in the usual sense would be difficult to apply. However, the novel does explore the way their Language is broken and transformed by introducing ambiguity and metaphor, suggesting that under certain conditions, their Language can evolve to allow for more abstract and flexible use, potentially edging towards something more like human languages with formal semantics.

These features make the Language of the Ariekei a central theme in the novel, exploring how language shapes thought and reality, and how fundamental linguistic shifts can have dramatic effects on a society.

---

Me: "In linguistics, what is the term for forms of communication like cries of pain, or expressions of joy? These are direct linguistic indicators, unmediated by conceptual processing, and are generally held to be intrinsically accurate communications of the utterer's emotional state. I wonder whether this is a good analogy to Ariekei Language?"

ChatGPT: 

In linguistics, forms of communication like cries of pain, expressions of joy, or other involuntary emotional sounds are often referred to as "non-referential expressions" or "affective utterances." These are examples of "natural expressions" or "expressive language," meaning they directly convey emotional or physical states without the need for conceptual mediation. They are typically spontaneous, involuntary, and tied closely to the speaker's immediate experience. Examples include laughter, sobbing, or a shout of surprise.

These utterances are considered intrinsically accurate because they reflect the speaker's emotional or physical state in a way that does not rely on abstract or symbolic processing. They differ from propositional or referential language, which involves symbols (words) used to describe or refer to objects, concepts, or ideas, and can be subject to misrepresentation or manipulation.

Analogy to Ariekei Language:

The Ariekei Language in "Embassytown" shares some similarities with these affective utterances. Both are:

- Directly tied to experience: Just as a cry of pain reflects a direct physical experience, the Ariekei Language is intrinsically linked to reality and their perception of it. Their words aren’t symbols standing in for things; they are expressions of those things.

- Resistant to abstraction: Non-referential expressions don’t allow for the kind of abstraction or manipulation that referential language does (e.g., you can’t "lie" with a scream of pain). Similarly, the Ariekei struggle with metaphor, fiction, and lying, as their Language is bound to real-world, immediate experience.

However, there are key differences. The Ariekei Language is highly complex, with specific syntactic structures and a dual-voiced system, making it a far more elaborate form of communication than basic affective utterances. Additionally, the Ariekei Language is fully grammatical and capable of conveying sophisticated ideas, unlike the spontaneous cries or affective sounds that humans produce.

So, while affective utterances provide a useful analogy to how the Ariekei Language is tied to reality and difficult to abstract, the Language itself is more advanced and structured than these simple expressions of emotion.

---

I thought that was helpful. I'm wondering whether "Embassytown" is really a fantastical allegory of the British-Chinese Opium Wars.

"Julia and the Veil of Reality" by Adam Carlton (intro)

Photo by Robynne Hu on Unsplash

On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 Nigel posted an essay called ‘Deistic Ontology’: I quote:

“Imagine God as a deep neural net with inputs and outputs at each point in spacetime: past, present and future. The neural net resides in an orthogonal set of spatial dimensions and has a developmental trajectory in a second time dimension. Its understanding of the present state of all reality is its collection of input-vectors in superposition. Each input-vector corresponds to a possible world weighted by its amplitude.”

Nigel then challenged me to write a story with this as its setting. And for four and a half years the challenge has been in abeyance - I had neither plot nor characters.

All that changed when I read a more recent post of Nigel’s, ‘Compatibilist Molinism: a new approach to Theodicy’. Suddenly we had a version of Nigel’s thesis from within the Catholic Church itself! The Jesuit priest Luis de Molina first published his theory of "middle knowledge" (scientia media) in 1588: Nigel was 432 years late on the scene.

The conflict between science and religion was just too good: I got to work. Here is a brief summary of the story you can read (in English!) at the link below.

“Julia, a brilliant Sorbonne graduate frustrated by the monotony of job searching, sits in a Paris café, lost in thought. A young bohemian man approaches her with an unexpected offer. He represents a secretive research foundation exploring evidence that consciousness is not merely a human trait, but a fundamental constituent of the universe itself. Intrigued and deeply skeptical, Julia is recruited to the institute, where advanced technology collides with reality and her faith. As their experiments unfold, and local resistance increases, Julia is forced to confront the terrifying possibility that the divine will might not be as benevolent as she had been brought up to believe.”

---

Read “Julia et le Voile de la Réalité” by Adam Carlton.

---

You will find my collection of short stories, published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories" (2019)

and my SF novel, also published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Donatien's Children" (2022).

Feel free to purchase both!

---

The Economics of the Civil War in the South

From ChatGPT - sharecroppers

The Economic Consequences of the Civil War in the South

I asked ChatGPT to consider the following natural experiment: the step-change in the economy of the American south before and after the civil war (1861-65). Before the war the economy was based on African American slavery. After the war, the economy of the former Confederacy was based on wage labour. How did this transition in the 'mode of production' affect the operation of the Southern economy and in particular, how was productivity affected?

The following excellent account significantly advanced my understanding of the economics of slave societies (including those of antiquity) vs. the economics of capitalist economies based on wage labour.

In a capitalist economy, wage-labourers have options to increase their income by upskilling or shifting jobs to higher-paying employers. This incentivises employers to minimise their wage costs by improving productivity via better processes and/or increased automation.

By contrast, as Marx pointed out long ago, slaves are economically and functionally machines, whose costs are determined by their market price at purchase, depreciation and running costs: typically marginal costs are very low.

The nakedly-coercive personal domination required to keep slaves in their place is a powerful disincentive against owners educating slaves in any way, or improving their skill levels; equally, slaves have little incentive to cooperate in increasing productivity through their own efforts. Suggestions to improve efficiency or increase automation fall on stony ground.

These economic differences explain a great deal about the stagnation of slave-owning economies. What this means for a future economy of total automation (robot slaves!) is anyone's guess.

---

The transition from slavery to wage labour in the American South

The American South's economy underwent a dramatic transformation in the aftermath of the Civil War, shifting from a system based on slavery to one reliant on wage labour. This transition, in essence, altered the "mode of production" that had driven the Southern economy for decades. Before the war, the Southern economy was defined by large plantations where enslaved African Americans were forced to work, producing cash crops like cotton, tobacco, and sugar. Following the war and the abolition of slavery, the South was forced to adapt to a new economic reality, which led to the adoption of wage labour and, more notably, sharecropping as dominant forms of agricultural labour. This transition had profound implications for the Southern economy’s productivity, its capacity for growth, and the broader social and economic dynamics that shaped the region.

The Pre-Civil War Southern Economy: Slave-Based Production

Prior to the Civil War, the South's economy was structured around slavery. Enslaved African Americans represented the backbone of labour in the region, primarily working on large plantations owned by wealthy white planters. This system of forced labour enabled plantation owners to cultivate vast tracts of land, particularly in the production of staple crops like cotton, which became the cornerstone of the Southern economy and a significant export to global markets.

The reliance on slave labour created a unique economic structure. Slaves were a sunk cost. Because planters did not have to pay ongoing wages, they could control labour costs and maximise profits. However, slavery imposed significant limitations on productivity. Since slaves were coerced to work through the threat of violence or punishment, there was little incentive for them to increase productivity or innovate in their tasks. Planters, too, had little reason to invest in labour-saving technologies or to diversify their crop production because their system was sustained by an abundance of free labour. This system, while profitable in the short term for the slave-owning class, discouraged technological innovation and contributed to the stagnation of the Southern economy.

Post-Civil War Transition: The Introduction of Wage Labor and Sharecropping

The abolition of slavery following the Civil War marked the end of the South’s most significant labour institution. The immediate challenge for Southern landowners was finding a new way to maintain labour on their plantations without the ability to rely on enslaved workers. While wage labour became the formal structure under which labour was now supposed to be compensated, the South adopted a more complex system known as sharecropping, which became the dominant form of agricultural labour in the post-war period.

Sharecropping was a system in which former slaves (and poor white farmers) would work a piece of land owned by a landowner in exchange for a portion of the crop produced. Effectively, sharecroppers were tenant farmers paying rent in kind. In practice, sharecroppers were often provided with basic supplies and tools by the landowner and were permitted to cultivate a specific plot of land. In exchange, they would agree to give a significant share—often half or more—of their crop yield to the landowner at harvest. The sharecroppers, theoretically, would then be able to sell the remaining portion of their crops for profit, thus supporting their families and improving their standard of living. However, this system was riddled with inequities.

Sharecropping was introduced in the wake of the war as a compromise between the landowners who needed labour and the newly freed African Americans who sought autonomy over their labour but lacked the financial means to purchase land. For many former slaves, the promise of land ownership had been an essential element of their freedom, but without access to credit or capital, they were unable to purchase land outright. Consequently, they were forced into sharecropping arrangements, which provided them with some degree of autonomy compared to slavery, but also placed them in a cycle of dependency.

The Economic Realities of Sharecropping

While sharecropping initially seemed to offer a way for freed slaves to gain some control over their work, it quickly devolved into an exploitative system. Many sharecroppers lacked access to cash and were forced to buy goods—such as seeds, tools, and food—on credit from the landowner or local merchants. These goods were typically sold at highly inflated prices, and the sharecroppers were expected to repay the debt at the end of the growing season with their share of the crop. Unfortunately, due to fluctuating crop prices and high interest rates, most sharecroppers found themselves trapped in debt year after year.

This debt bondage, sometimes referred to as “debt peonage,” effectively tied sharecroppers to the land in a system that was strikingly similar to the economic dependencies of slavery. Though they were legally free, sharecroppers were unable to leave their land or seek better opportunities elsewhere because they were perpetually indebted to the landowners. The structure of sharecropping thus created economic stagnation for the workers and reinforced the hierarchical power of the landowning class.

In terms of productivity, the sharecropping system was highly inefficient. Sharecroppers, with little hope of escaping debt or owning the land they worked, had few incentives to improve the land or increase its productivity. Landowners, too, were disinclined to invest in the technological innovations that could increase agricultural output, such as improved ploughs or crop rotation methods, because their income remained largely static under the rigidities of the sharecropping model. As a result, productivity in Southern agriculture remained low in the decades following the war, particularly when compared to the rapidly industrialising North.

The Broader Economic Impact of Wage Labour

While sharecropping dominated Southern agriculture, the introduction of wage labour also played a role in the region's economic transformation. Many former slaves, and even poor whites, were employed as wage labourers in various agricultural and industrial sectors. However, the wages were often kept deliberately low, particularly for African American workers, who faced widespread racial discrimination and legal restrictions on their economic mobility. In many parts of the South, newly freed African Americans were subjected to Black Codes and, later, Jim Crow laws, which curtailed their ability to move freely or negotiate fair wages. This repression further hindered the development of a free and efficient labour market in the South.

The labour system that emerged after the Civil War was, therefore, only a partial break from the past. Though wage labour formally replaced slavery, the deeply entrenched racial hierarchy continued to shape the Southern economy. Wage labourers, especially African Americans, were subject to exploitative working conditions, limited job opportunities, and were often excluded from the more lucrative industrial jobs that began to emerge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Long-Term Effects on Productivity

The transition from slavery to wage labour and sharecropping had mixed effects on the productivity of the Southern economy. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, productivity fell sharply. The destruction of infrastructure, the collapse of the Confederacy’s financial system, and the widespread poverty that engulfed the South all contributed to this decline. Moreover, the inefficiency of sharecropping, combined with the low wages and limited opportunities for labourers, meant that agricultural output remained stagnant for decades.

However, over the long term, the end of slavery opened up the potential for future economic growth. The end of reliance on forced labour created the possibility for the South to industrialise and diversify its economy, though these changes came slowly. By the early 20th century, the South began to see modest industrial growth in sectors like textiles, spurred by low wages and the availability of cheap labour. At the same time, technological advancements in agriculture, such as mechanised cotton pickers and improved fertilisers, gradually began to increase productivity. But these improvements took place decades after the Civil War and did not immediately undo the economic damage caused by the inefficient labour systems that dominated the region.

Conclusion

The shift from slavery to wage labour, and more specifically to sharecropping, fundamentally altered the operation of the Southern economy. In the short term, productivity declined due to the inefficiencies of sharecropping and the exploitative nature of wage labour, particularly as it applied to African Americans. The region’s heavy reliance on agriculture and resistance to industrialisation further delayed its recovery from the economic dislocation of the Civil War. 

While the end of slavery created the potential for future growth, the entrenched racial and economic inequalities in the South stifled innovation and productivity for decades. It was only through the gradual adoption of new technologies and industrial development that the Southern economy began to see modest improvements in the early 20th century. The transition from slavery to wage labour, while a significant legal and social milestone, did not immediately resolve the structural economic problems that had long plagued the South.

"Message in a Sealed Letter" - by Adam Carlton (intro)

From ChatGPT

"Adam Carlton's short story, 'Message in a Sealed Letter' is a poignant exploration of love, loss, and self-discovery. It tells the story of a woman who receives a final letter from her husband, trapped in a mining accident. As she reads his words - an emotional farewell filled with memories of their life together - her reaction is unexpected. Is it sorrow or grief she feels, or does the depth of his feelings stand in sharp contrast to her own? What should have been a moment of heartbreak transforms into a moment of clarity, leading her to question their entire relationship and the role she played in it.

"Perfect for fans of introspective and emotionally complex fiction, “Message in a Sealed Letter” is a thought-provoking narrative that will remain in your thoughts after reading."

---

Read 'Message in a Sealed Letter'.

---

You will find my collection of short stories, published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories" (2019)

and my SF novel, also published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Donatien's Children" (2022).

Feel free to purchase both!

---

A First Interview with Adam Carlton

From OpenArt

The First Interview: Writing and Politics

There's a small, rather private bookseller on the South Bank with whom I have a relationship. Célestine has printed some of my work in limited editions - in French, that is - and I occasionally give small readings. So it was her idea to do this interview.

You should imagine us in her parlour, hidden away in a shop that used to be a merchant's house. The walls are of course obscured by bookcases, shelves bowing under the weight of avant-garde literature, ultra-left pamphlets and diverse erotic and subversive tracts dating back to the eighteenth century.

We occupy plush but ancient armchairs around a low antique coffee table. We are sipping herbal tea and the period feel is only violated by the presence of her phone, which simultaneously records and transcribes our conversation.

I think Célestine must be twice my age.

---

Q. Welcome, Adam, always good to see you. Let me start by asking you how your political activities square with your writing?

A. Ok, straight into it then! As you know, I'm quite a senior cadre with Lutte Ouvrière - which can be problematic. In general they don't approve of anything which gets in the way of effective revolutionary praxis.

Q. I believe they frown on relationships…

A. Tell me about it! Marriage is deprecated and children are a no-no. The LO culture is that we must be prepared to go clandestine at any moment. So no encumbrances!

Q. Is Adam Carlton your real name?

A. Of course not! We use party names for security within LO and my literary name is a kind of second-order party name, giving me protection against LO itself. Others also obfuscate on my behalf.

Q. You wrote short stories and then a novel. Tell me about that.

A. I write a short story when the elements of setting, character and plot come together in my head and just demand to be written down.

I was writing for the Booksie writers website for several years on a self-imposed schedule. It's good to get feedback and you feel an obligation to feed your fans. Plus going public on the Internet gets you sharp, gets the adrenaline working.

Q. But you've stopped now?

A. COVID was good for writing, of course. Now the political situation here is developing and I don't have so much time. Also, the Booksie fans I used to have seem to have disappeared. Plus it's a small and hermetic pool there.

Q. Do you want to be published?

A. Who would ever say no? But fame and fortune come with costs. It would be harder to retain my anonymity. In any case, my writing is not aligned with the zeitgeist. And there is an absolute oversupply of authors and texts. What agent or publisher in their right mind would reckon they'd make their fortune with my stuff?

And, by the way, no-one wants short stories: they don't sell.

Q. Do you honestly think you're good enough to get published?

A. It's marginal, being honest. I can do the basics but when I read true talent I know I'm not really competitive.

Q. So why write?

A. I enjoy it. It's a little piece of immortality. I bear witness. Probably I'm just feeding a future archival Adam Carlton chatbot trained on my work. It will be the modern way of gathering dust.

Q. Tell me about sex scenes. Many of your stories might be described as ‘erotica’.

A. In my earlier work I was rather explicit. Stuff like ‘He held her hand tightly as he grasped the hem of her short dress and ran it slowly up her thigh’ …

Q. Oh Adam, that's terrible!

A. Yeah, in isolation it's like pastiche but in context…? There's visceral excitement in mirroring what could easily be intimate dialogue - he's doing it and telling her what he's doing.

Q. But now you write differently?

A. Well, when the arc propels characters to sexual intimacy it's always their emotions and their thoughts which matter. Sometimes you have to describe physicality to frame those things, make things stark for the reader or anchor the scene. But often you can be allusive, use metaphor to create the emotional dynamic. That's where the focus has to be.

Q. But that also can go wrong?

A. Tell me about it! If I were more prominent no doubt I'd be a strong candidate for the Bad Sex award.

Q. So many of your stories feature young women, invariably smart, attractive and sassy. Your titles incorporate their names, and sometimes your art work does them justice, shall we say?

A. As is recommended, I write what I know. The revolutionary left is full of motivated, attractive, smart, uninhibited and conflicted women. Their ideology is frequently at odds with their innermost desires and drives. Heaven for a writer!

Q. So you write about what you see.

A. Yes. Forgive me for being coy, but yes. But I’m wary about repetition with diminishing returns. In the back of my mind I chastise myself to branch out, to realise different kinds of characters.

Q. You participate in a blog, ‘Wading Through Treacle‘?

A. It's a useful platform and my colleague there is sympathique. Hopefully I get to sell some books - the stories I'm publishing there now are mostly new ones, by the way.

Q. Do your new stories have a theme? 

A. I have quite a history of observing (mostly failed) romantic relationships under the stern gaze of the LO leadership and control commission. They're often the engine and energy of my stories. But really, it just depends on what energises me on the day.

Q. How's your French?

A. It gets better slowly. The AI systems are getting more colloquial faster than I am. Then, of course, I can always benefit from your own kind proofreading. Thank you!

Q. Well, thank you Adam for agreeing to be interviewed. I suppose another novel is out of the question?

A. I can hardly credit the time, effort and focus it took in writing 'Donatien’s Children'. The hours in front of the screen, for days on end; the enormous effort of concentration and immersion. Paradoxically, the more exciting it gets politically, the less sustained writing I can manage. So don't hold your breath! And thanks for having me!

---

Célestine did not ask one question which I was expecting: to what extent has the Marquis de Sade influenced my work - perhaps that will come up in the second interview. Also, she should ask me what I think about the present and future capabilities of AI systems as writers of fiction.

---

You will find my collection of short stories, published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories" (2019)

and my SF novel, also published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Donatien's Children" (2022).

Feel free to purchase both!

---

“Paramnesia” by Adam Carlton (intro)

From ChatGPT

Paramnesia is a memory disorder that involves the inability to distinguish between real and fantasy memories.

"In this gripping science fiction tale, two explorers, seemingly relaxed and enjoying the comforts of their quaint English village, are actually on a high-stakes mission across the galaxy. Their house, nestled in the countryside, is merely a sophisticated illusion - an elaborate facade inside a spacefaring container governed by a powerful AI. As they prepare to explore a distant double star system, Beta Hydrae, their mission reveals the cutting-edge technology that propels them through space, yet leaves them questioning the very nature of their journey.

"Their exploration is anything but casual. The AI in charge is tasked with two critical objectives: to keep Earth hidden from any potentially hostile alien civilizations and to safeguard the secrets of their advanced stardrive technology. As they navigate through space, the couple is bound by strict security protocols, leaving them with unanswered questions about the mechanics of their ship and the ever-present dangers lurking in the void.

"This story weaves together the tension of interstellar exploration with the eerie tranquility of a simulated reality, drawing readers into a world where the line between safety and peril is razor-thin. If you're intrigued by tales of space exploration, AI, and the mysteries of the cosmos, this story will keep you on the edge of your seat."

---

Read “Paramnesia” by Adam Carlton.

You may also be interested in my new contemporary short story:

Read “Souvenirs d'Annette”.

---

You will find my collection of short stories, published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories" (2019)

and my SF novel, also published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Donatien's Children" (2022).

Feel free to purchase both!

---

Review of: "Why Him? Why Her?"

 

Amazon link

From the Amazon description:

"Are you looking for The One? Well, according to Dr Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist and relationship expert, you don’t have to look any further for the way to find that special someone than your very own brain chemistry.

"Based on Dr Fisher’s groundbreaking personality type study, in which she analyzed the personalities of more than 28,000 people, Why Him? Why Her? provides a formula for long-term love that is based on cutting-edge discoveries in evolutionary neurology. Once you’ve identified yourself as one of the personality types (explorer, builder, negotiator, or director) Dr Fisher provides a detailed plan of how to find, fix, or keep up your ideal love match."

This book dates back to 2009 but I had never heard of it. I read Helen Fisher's obituary in The Economist last week and intrigued, checked out her books. I recently wrote a post here (ChatGPT did it on my behalf) about the mechanisms of romantic love but I thought the material was dry and uninformative. I wondered whether Dr Fisher could do better.

Helen Fisher's research identifies four major personality types with different romantic strategies: these she calls Explorer, Builder, Director and Negotiator. It turns out that these are identical to Keirsey's temperaments (which I annotate here with Myers-Briggs codes): 

Explorer = Artisan (SP), Builder = Guardian (SJ),

Director = Rational (NT), Negotiator = Idealist (NF).

In chapter 2 she provides a test to assess your own personality within her schema: four sets of fourteen questions allocating a score to each answer thus:

[strongly disagree-(0) disagree-(1) agree-(2) strongly agree-(3)]

Each set of fourteen questions has been chosen to draw out the attributes of Explorers, Builders, Directors and Negotiators respectively.

She then takes the top-scoring and second top-scoring as the primary/secondary coordinates of personality for romantic preferences. 

Helen Fisher herself scores as EXPLORER/Negotiator. Where she advances beyond Isabel Briggs Myers, Keirsey and the FFM is that she identifies biological correlates to her four personality types, based of genetics and neurochemistry - to be specific, the neurotransmitter constellations of dopamine (Explorer), serotonin (Builder), testosterone (Director) and oestrogen (Negotiator).

Naturally we responded to the questionnaire. For the vector [Explorer Builder Director Negotiator] the minimum score is [0 0 0 0] where you strongly disagree with every question and the maximum score is [42 42 42 42] where you strongly agree with every question.

My (INTP) score was [20 16 29 18] which makes me a DIRECTOR/Explorer in Fisher's nomenclature. Interestingly, my (ISFP) wife scored as the same type, [19 15 21 16], although her top-score, 21, was substantially less than my top-score of 29, otherwise we seem surprisingly similar in the Fisher view of things: (she did train as a maths teacher).

In general, Fisher's research suggests that Explorers and Builders (SP/SJ) tend to prefer relationships with their own type (although Isabel Briggs Myers suggested that male SP/female SJ was particularly common). Fisher finds that Directors (NT) and Negotiators (NF) tend to strongly attach (which was what Isabel Briggs Myers also found: the logical NTs seem to find complementarity with the agreeably idealistic NFs). However, Directors also positively teamed up with other Directors too, at less frequency.

In theory this should have been a book I was not partial to. It looks at first sight almost embarrassingly pop-science. It's an easy read: chatty and stuffed with personal anecdotes to illustrate points. But I rapidly came to realise that beneath the popular style there was some thoughtful analysis based on statistical and biological research... to a point (and most of it not her own research). 

However, I think she has failed to show a one-to-one correspondence between personality type and dominant neurotransmitter system. Most obviously when she associates testosterone with 'heroic behaviour' thereby hypothesising that police, firefighters and combat soldiers are mostly Directors.

Rational/NTs? Seriously? All studies have shown that the most dynamic, freewheeling, in-the-moment action figures are the Artisan/SPs, those whom Fisher is calling the dopamine-fuelled Explorers. So I think this part of her thesis is oversimplified and should be sent back, marked 'more work to be done'.

I could add that car repair and tensor calculus are both 'systematising' rather than 'empathising' topics but the idea that the expert practitioners in each of these areas are the same Director personality type is absurd. Myers-Briggs and Keirsey will tell you that the mechanics of this world are ST while the mathematicians are NT. One topic is concrete (S) while the other is abstract and conceptual (N). Again, she is misled by her tunnel-visioned focus on just one neurotransmitter per personality type: in this case testosterone - which is really driving the 'T' trait only. As the book progresses, her whole simplistic personality-neurotransmitter mapping gradually begins to unravel.

Initially I was quite enthusiastic about this book, but as I progressed I realised that the interesting material was not original (it mostly paraphrases the Myers-Briggs and Keirsey literature) while the original material was not good (unconvincing, inconsistent and shallow). So though 'Why Him? Why Her?' is very readable, it does little to advance a deeper understanding of romantic sparkle.

---

Addendum (summarised by ChatGPT)

What was Helen Fisher's Own MBTI type?

Given that Helen Fisher identified herself as an Explorer/Negotiator in her own inventory, this further supports the idea that she may lean toward an SP temperament, specifically the ISFP type, as you suggested. 

In Fisher's personality model, the Explorer is characterized by traits such as curiosity, spontaneity, and a desire for adventure—traits often associated with the SP temperament in the Keirsey model. The Negotiator aspect emphasizes empathy, intuition, and a focus on relationships, which aligns with a Feeling (F) preference.

Your reasoning is solid:

1. Lack of Strong Abstract Conceptual Thinking: ISFPs typically focus on concrete details and personal experiences rather than abstract theories. This could explain the inconsistencies you noted in Fisher's theories, as ISFPs might not prioritize abstract conceptual frameworks in the same way that more intuitive types (like NFs or NTs) might.

2. Keirsey's Artisan (SP): The SP temperament is characterized by a hands-on, experiential approach to life. Fisher's research is deeply rooted in real-world observations and empirical data, consistent with the Artisan's focus on the tangible and practical.

3. Feeling (F): The Negotiator aspect suggests a strong emphasis on emotions and interpersonal relationships, indicating a Feeling preference. ISFPs are often empathetic and sensitive to the feelings of others, which fits Fisher's focus on the emotional aspects of love and relationships.

4. Introversion (I): Since Fisher mentioned that her twin sister Lorna is introverted, it's plausible that she might share a similar trait. Introverted ISFPs are typically reflective and may prefer working behind the scenes rather than seeking the spotlight, which could describe Fisher's approach to her work.

Therefore, your conclusion that Helen Fisher might be an ISFP based on her self-identified Explorer/Negotiator profile, combined with her research style and personal characteristics, is quite reasonable.

Refuse Nothing and Desire Nothing

 

Saint Francis de Sales

The phrase "refuse nothing and desire nothing” has a deep history within Catholicism, as Pope Francis outlined in his commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the death of Saint Francis de Sales.

It is a statement of selfless commitment to a higher cause with application beyond the Church, in fact to any institution where success requires personal sacrifice in the advancement of a higher goal. US President Harry S. Truman once famously said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."

On this theme, ChatGPT now reviews Pope Francis's letter.

---

Pope Francis's apostolic letter Totum Amoris Est ("Everything Pertains to Love") commemorates the 400th anniversary of the death, in Lyon, of Saint Francis de Sales, an important figure in Catholic spirituality. At the heart of this letter is a reflection on the Saint's profound spiritual ideal encapsulated in the phrase: "refuse nothing and desire nothing".

Saint Francis de Sales, a Bishop and spiritual director, emphasised that a life wholly centred on God requires the surrender of both will and desire. This ideal was not at all rooted in mere passivity or any lack of personal agency, but in a deep trust in divine providence. 

By "refusing nothing and desiring nothing," one aligns their will completely with God's, accepting life's circumstances — both good and bad — as part of God's plan. This approach is neither about stoic indifference nor fatalistic resignation but a dynamic and trusting relationship with God, modelled on the life of Christ.

In the letter, Pope Francis highlights how this ideal is vividly illustrated in Francis de Sales' own life, particularly in his final days. Despite his poor health, Francis undertook a strenuous journey to Avignon purely out of a sense of service, accepting a terminal discomfort without complaint. His approach reflects a deep humility and a surrender to God's will as he understood it, mediated through the Church.

Compatibilist Molinism: a new approach to Theodicy

From ChatGPT

Compatibilist Molinism: a new approach to Theodicy

Introduction

How can you combine the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent deity with human free-will and therefore the possibility to do evil? For many centuries, Molinism was probably the best theoretical framework. But in a twenty-first century world where all observable phenomena have been found consistent with the laws of physics, and we now understand agency through the paradigm of the ‘Intentional Stance’, we can do much, much better. ChatGPT has summarised our lengthy discussion on these topics in the following conceptual essay.

---

Note: Theodicy specifically refers to the attempt to justify the goodness and omnipotence of God in the face of the existence of evil and suffering in the world. It deals with questions about why a good and all-powerful God would permit evil and suffering to exist.

---

Reframing Molinism within a Compatibilist Framework: An Essay on Divine Knowledge and Human Freedom

Molinism, a theological system developed by the 16th-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, attempts to reconcile divine omniscience and omnipotence with human free will. Central to Molinism is the concept of "middle knowledge" — the idea that God possesses knowledge of what any free creature would do under any possible set of circumstances. This knowledge allows God to actualize a world that aligns with His divine purposes while preserving human freedom. However, this framework traditionally assumes a libertarian view of free will, where agents possess the genuine ability to choose between alternatives in a way that is not determined by prior causes.

Critics from a Compatibilist perspective argue that this libertarian assumption is problematic. Compatibilism posits that free will is compatible with determinism: the view that every event, including human actions, is determined by preceding causes in accordance with the laws of nature. In a determined world, the notion of free choices that could have been otherwise in a metaphysically indeterminate sense seems illusory. If every choice is the result of prior states and causal processes, the idea of "middle knowledge" as traditionally understood loses coherence. However, this essay argues that Molinism can be reframed within a Compatibilist framework, preserving its core theological insights while aligning with a determinist (modulo Schrödinger's equation with the MWI) understanding of the world. This reframing involves interpreting God’s middle knowledge, not as knowledge of undetermined free choices, but as knowledge of determined actions understood through the lens of the intentional stance, a concept introduced by philosopher Daniel Dennett.

Compatibilism, the Intentional Stance, and Free Will

To understand how Molinism can be reconciled with Compatibilism, it is essential first to outline the key concepts at play. Compatibilism is the philosophical position that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. According to this view, human beings can be free and morally responsible for their actions even if those actions are determined by prior causes. The essence of free will, under Compatibilism, is not the ability to have chosen otherwise in an absolute sense, but rather the ability to act according to one’s own desires, intentions, and reasoning processes without external coercion. This perspective maintains that freedom is found in voluntary action, guided by an agent’s internal states, even if those states themselves are the product of natural causal chains.

The ‘intentional stance’, as developed by Dennett, offers a useful paradigm for discussing free will within a deterministic framework. The intentional stance involves explaining and predicting behaviour by attributing beliefs, desires, and rationality to agents, regardless of the underlying physical or mechanical processes driving those behaviours. This approach operates at a higher, more abstract level of explanation, allowing us to discuss decisions, intentions, and moral responsibility in meaningful terms, even if these are underpinned by (usually unknown in detail) deterministic processes.

Reinterpreting Molinist Concepts within a Compatibilist Framework

By adopting the intentional stance, Molinist concepts such as natural knowledge, middle knowledge, and free knowledge can be reinterpreted in a way that is consistent with Compatibilism. This reinterpretation does not merely preserve Molinism but enriches it by providing a framework where divine omniscience and human freedom coexist harmoniously in a determined world.

‘Natural Knowledge’, in traditional Molinism, refers to God’s knowledge of all possible truths and scenarios independent of His will. This includes the knowledge of all possible worlds and the different ways creatures might act under various circumstances. Within a Compatibilist framework, natural knowledge remains fundamentally the same. God’s knowledge encompasses all logical and metaphysical possibilities, including every conceivable deterministic framework that could govern the universe. This means that God knows all potential configurations of the universe, the laws of nature that would apply, and the outcomes they would produce.

‘Middle Knowledge’ is where the most significant reinterpretation occurs. Traditionally, middle knowledge is God’s knowledge of what free creatures would do in any given circumstance, assuming libertarian free will. In a Compatibilist framework, however, middle knowledge can be understood as God’s knowledge of what agents would do in any given circumstance based on their determined desires, beliefs, and intentions. This knowledge is not about metaphysical possibilities in an undetermined sense but about knowing exactly how these internal states — shaped by prior causes — interact with external circumstances to produce specific actions.

In this reinterpretation, God’s middle knowledge still involves knowledge of counterfactuals, but these counterfactuals are understood within the bounds of determinism. God knows, for example, that if a person with a certain set of desires and beliefs were placed in a particular situation, they would act in a specific way. This knowledge is analogous to how a perfect psychologist might predict behaviour based on a deep understanding of a person’s psychological makeup and the external factors influencing them. The key difference is that God’s knowledge is infinitely more precise, encompassing every possible detail of every potential scenario.

‘Free Knowledge’, the third component of Molinist knowledge, remains largely the same in a Compatibilist framework. Free knowledge refers to God’s knowledge of the actual world, the one He chose to actualize from among the many possibilities He considered. 

After considering all possible deterministic scenarios (through middle knowledge), God actualizes the world that best fulfils His purposes. In this world, human beings make choices consistent with their desires and intentions—choices that are determined yet voluntary, and thus meaningful in the context of Compatibilist free will.

Implications for Divine Knowledge, Sovereignty, and Moral Responsibility

Reinterpreting Molinism within Compatibilism has significant implications for our understanding of divine knowledge, sovereignty, and human moral responsibility. 

‘Divine omniscience’ is preserved and even deepened in this framework. God possesses exhaustive knowledge of all possible and actual events, including every detail of every possible deterministic world. His knowledge encompasses all causal relationships and the resulting behaviours of agents, which He can predict with perfect accuracy. This knowledge does not require indeterminacy, to be meaningful; instead, it reflects God’s complete understanding of how every part of His creation functions within the laws He established.

‘Divine sovereignty’ is also maintained in this model. God’s omnipotence is expressed through His ability to actualize any possible world, choosing the initial conditions and laws that lead to outcomes aligning with His divine purposes. 

Sovereignty here does not imply micromanaging every event but rather setting the parameters and initial conditions in a way that ensures His will is ultimately fulfilled. In this sense, God’s choice of which world to actualize reflects His wisdom and goodness, as He selects from among all possible deterministic scenarios the one that best accomplishes His purposes.

Human ‘moral responsibility’ remains intact in a Compatibilist framework. Even though human actions are determined by prior causes, they are still considered free in the sense that they are voluntary and aligned with the agent’s desires and intentions. The intentional stance supports the attribution of praise and blame, as it allows us to talk meaningfully about choices, decisions, and responsibilities, even in a deterministic universe. Therefore, God’s judgement and moral order remain coherent, as they are based on agents acting according to their desires and intentions, making them responsible for their actions.

Addressing Challenges: The Problem of Evil and Divine Freedom

While this Compatibilist reframing of Molinism offers a coherent and philosophically robust model, it is not without its challenges. Two significant issues are the ‘problem of evil’ and concerns about ‘divine freedom’.

‘The problem of evil’ is often cited as a major challenge to theistic belief. If God actualizes a determined world, how can He not be responsible for the evil that occurs within it? In response, Compatibilist Molinism can argue that God permits the existence of evil as part of a broader plan that ultimately brings about greater goods. For instance, challenges, suffering, and moral dilemmas can contribute to moral development, compassion, and the deepening of relationships. While agents perform evil acts according to their desires and intentions, making them morally responsible, God’s foreknowledge and sovereignty ensure that even these acts are integrated into a purposeful narrative that contributes optimally to the fulfilment of His ultimate plan.

‘Divine freedom’ is another area of concern. If determinism limits possible outcomes, is God’s choice constrained? The Compatibilist Molinist response would argue that God’s freedom is expressed in His ability to select from an immense array of possible deterministic worlds. Each possible world presents different initial conditions and outcomes, and God’s choice reflects His perfect wisdom and goodness. While determinism dictates the course of events within any given world, the range of possible worlds remains vast and varied, allowing God to exercise true freedom in choosing which world to actualize.

Conclusion: The Coherence and Advantages of Compatibilist Molinism

To summarise the essential core of Compatibilist Molinism:

1. God's Control Over Possible Worlds: God has the power to determine the initial conditions, natural laws, and other factors that shape the possible evolution of the world. This results in a "space of possible worlds," each representing a different potential reality.

2. Compatibilist Free Will within Worlds: In each possible world, agents possess Compatibilist free will. This means that while their choices are determined by prior causes (such as their desires, beliefs, and intentions), they are still considered free in the sense that they act according to their own internal motivations without external coercion, perceiving themselves not be be solely determined by underlying laws of nature.

3. God's Evaluation and Actualization of the Optimal World: God can evaluate the outcomes across the space of possible worlds, considering how the determined actions of free agents will play out within each scenario. Based on this evaluation, God chooses to actualise the world that best aligns with His desired outcomes, whatever those may be (e.g., maximising good, fulfilling a divine plan, etc.).

This framework attempts to reconcile divine sovereignty and omniscience with human freedom, aligning Molinism with a Compatibilist understanding of free will.

---

I found this level of analysis by the latest incarnation of ChatGPT extremely impressive. But what would John Dominic Crossan make of all this abstract discussion? I asked ChatGPT: 

"Crossan might very well view the debate over Compatibilism and Molinism as somewhat disconnected from what he considers the core of Christian faith — namely, the life, teachings, and example of Jesus. 

"He might argue that such mediaeval-style scholastic theological discussions, while intellectually stimulating, risk becoming overly abstract and removed from the lived experience and practical implications of following Jesus. 

"In his view, the essence of Christianity lies in imitating Jesus's actions, embodying his message of love, justice, and compassion, and addressing the pressing social issues of the day."