September 27, 2026

Jesus Of Nazareth In The Seventh Chair

Image by Arden (ChatGPT)

Jim

Good morning, Arden. Place Jesus of Nazareth in the Seventh Chair, give him a good question for the Seminar of Seven, and provide their respective responses.


Arden

Good morning, Jim. Jesus is an unusually consequential occupant of the Seventh Chair because his question can go straight to the central problem running through your Cultural Evolution: humanity has accumulated extraordinary knowledge, wealth, and institutional power without comparable progress in humane relations. I would have him ask something deceptively simple.

 

The seminar room has grown quiet. Socrates, Hannah Arendt, Mary Midgley, Toni Morrison, Marvin Harris, and Clifford Geertz sit around the table.

 

Jesus of Nazareth occupies the Seventh Chair. He looks around the table for a moment before speaking.

 

Jesus’ Question

JESUS: You have acquired knowledge beyond anything imaginable in my time. You can see the beginnings of the universe, alter the inheritance of living things, speak instantly across the earth, and produce enough wealth that no person need go hungry. Yet you continue to organize much of human life around competition for wealth, status, and power. You divide yourselves by nation, race, religion, class, and tribe. You know that strangers suffer, often while possessing the means to help them, and nevertheless continue with your lives. I taught that you should love your neighbor as yourself. I was then asked, “Who is my neighbor?” Two thousand years later, I ask you a harder question: Why has humankind become so much better at enlarging its power than at enlarging the circle of those for whom it feels responsible? And can that circle ever truly encompass humanity?

 

The Six Respond

SOCRATES: Perhaps because knowledge and goodness are not as closely joined as I once hoped. A person may know how to build a weapon without knowing whether it should be built. A society may know how to become wealthy without asking what wealth is for. We have mistaken technical knowledge for wisdom. Your question therefore requires another: What is a good human life? Until people examine that question seriously, they will continue becoming increasingly proficient at obtaining things whose value they have never examined.

JESUS: Then ignorance remains—but it has changed its clothing. Humanity knows enormously more about the world while perhaps knowing no better what it ought to desire.

SOCRATES: Precisely. And that may be a more dangerous ignorance than simple ignorance, because it is accompanied by power.


ARENDT: I would distinguish evil from selfishness. Much suffering does not require monstrous people. It requires ordinary people who cease thinking about what they are participating in. Modern institutions divide responsibility. One person writes the regulation. Another processes the form. Another operates the machine. Another signs the order. Everyone performs a function, while responsibility seems to disappear between the functions. The great danger is not merely hatred of one’s neighbor. It is becoming incapable of seeing the neighbor as a particular human being at all.

JESUS: In my parable, the Samaritan encountered a wounded man beside the road. Modernity can place the wounded person thousands of miles away—or behind an administrative category.

ARENDT: Yes. And bureaucracy can make suffering simultaneously visible and impersonal.


September 22, 2026

Confucius In The Seventh Chair

Image by Arden (ChatGPT)

As Directed by JEL 


Confucius in the Seventh Chair

Moral Example, Humane Relationships, and the Good Society

by

James E. Lassiter and Arden (ChatGPT)

September 18, 2026

An imagined dialogue, not a historical transcript. The words attributed to Confucius and the permanent members are original constructions based upon their characteristic intellectual concerns. 

The Six: Socrates, Marvin Harris, Clifford Geertz, Hannah Arendt, Mary Midgley, and Toni Morrison (in order of selection to The Six)
Guest in the Seventh Chair: Confucius
Seminar Chair: Mary Midgley
Topic: Moral Example, Humane Relationships, and the Good Society
 

The Seminar Chair Calls the Meeting to Order 

MIDGLEY: Master Kong, welcome to the Seventh Chair. You may begin by placing your question before the Seminar. Each member will respond. You may then answer them, after which we shall open the discussion.

CONFUCIUS: I thank you. My question is:

Can laws, punishments, wealth, and political power create a good society if its rulers do not first govern by moral example and its people have ceased to care properly for one another?

The Six Respond

SOCRATES: Laws cannot make people good if they obey only from fear, but neither can a ruler’s example do so unless people understand why it deserves imitation. Who determines that the ruler is moral? He may mistake confidence for wisdom, obedience for harmony, and custom for justice. Moral example must therefore remain open to examination rather than demand reverence.

HARRIS: Moral example cannot overcome material conditions by itself. A ruler may preach generosity while preserving institutions that concentrate wealth and power, and people living amid scarcity will not become cooperative through ceremony. A good society requires material arrangements that make humane conduct possible rather than continually rewarding exploitation.

Political Theater - The Trump Era On Stage

 

NOTE: The above image and the three below are imaginary AI depictions.

I recently asked my collaborator Arden (ChatGPT) the following question:

Jim

Good day, compadre! Just thinking. Are the playwrights and Broadway producers and beyond in this world staging plays on the current state of sociopolitical conditions in the US? The plots and subplots in what Trump is doing go directly to the heart of so many themes: virtue of the governing; the human cruelty of some policies; the dangers of autocracy; a more threatening international order; and many more. Are there any stage plays out there folks are not aware of?

Arden

Good day, compadre. Yes—and your instinct is very much on target. American theatre is already working on precisely this territory, although much of the most direct material is Off-Broadway, regional, documentary, or in development rather than sitting prominently on Broadway marquees.

One especially striking example appeared just yesterday: Sarah Jones’s America, Who Hurt You?, now being presented in Brooklyn by National Black Theatre and Theatre for a New Audience. Jones uses her familiar multi-character form to examine American history and contemporary political life, explicitly including Trump-era America.

There are several others worth knowing:

  • Women+ on the Edge of Democracy may be closest to what you're imagining. More than 30 playwrights were commissioned to write short plays and monologues addressing the condition of American democracy in 2026. The works are being distributed to theatres around the country for performances this fall. The organizers explicitly ask: What is the current state of democracy in America?

September 10, 2026

Donald Trump in the Seventh Chair of the Seminar of Seven

Image by Arden (ChatGPT)

As Directed by JEL


Donald Trump in the Seventh Chair

Power, Belonging, Truth, and the Meaning of “America First”

by

James E. Lassiter and Arden (ChatGPT)

September 10, 2026

This is an imagined dialogue, not a historical transcript. Trump’s public positions and the controversies discussed are grounded in documentary sources consulted by Arden.

Following the appearance of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Seventh Chair at the last Seminar, I asked Arden to suggest female replacements among the six permanent members. We merged our respective lists and came up with sixteen candidates, from which I chose three. Below is the revised list of permanents, now to be known as The Six. The Seventh Chair will from here on have a new occupant every Thursday. – JEL

The Six: Socrates, Marvin Harris, Clifford Geertz, Hannah Arendt, Mary Midgley, and Toni Morrison (in the order they were chosen for the Seminar)

Guest in the Seventh Chair: Donald J. Trump
Seminar Chair: Mary Midgley
Topic: Power, Belonging, Truth, and the Meaning of “America First”

The Chair Calls the Meeting to Order

MIDGLEY: President Trump, you will begin by asking the question that brought you here. Each member will answer without interruption. You may then respond. After that, each member may question you, followed by an open discussion.

Everyone will receive sufficient time, but no one will monopolize the room. Repetition will not count as additional argument. Claims may be challenged; persons may not be abused. Civility governs our manner, not our conclusions.

Mr. Trump, the Seventh Chair is yours.

Trump’s Question

TRUMP: What is wrong with putting your own country and its people first—and using every lawful power available to make them strong, prosperous, secure, and respected? Other leaders put their countries first. When America does it, suddenly everyone objects. Why?

The Six Respond

SOCRATES: Nothing is wrong with serving one’s country. But who are “its people,” what makes power “lawful,” and what constitutes national “strength”? If only your followers count, institutions are legitimate only when they agree with you, and strength means defeating opponents, then your question becomes: Why should America permit Donald Trump to do whatever he believes will benefit it? That is a different and more dangerous question.

HARRIS: You recognized the anger produced by closed factories, weakened unions, stagnant wages, declining communities, and globalization’s unequal rewards. But recognition is not remedy. Your tariffs break with global neoliberalism, while tax reductions, deregulation, weakened labor power, and concentrated ownership preserve much of its domestic structure. Have you overturned the system that abandoned working people—or merely changed its language and alliances?

September 4, 2026

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Visits The Seventh Chair

Ruth Bader Ginsburg In The Seventh Chair

Image by Arden (ChatGPT) as Directed by JEL


Ruth Bader Ginsburg Visits The Seventh Chair

September 3, 2026

Jim

Arden, please place Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Seventh Chair and have her pose the following question:

What role do you see for women in the current patriarchy imperiled world, and in humankind’s future?

Give each gentleman’s brief response. Then RBG briefly responds to each one after all have finished.

Arden

An excellent occupant for the Seventh Chair. I’ll treat this as an imagined dialogue: not quotations, but responses consistent with the major ideas of Socrates, Berlin, Dostoevsky, Seneca, Harris, and Geertz, followed by a distinctly Ginsburgian interrogation of each.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

RBG settles into the empty Seventh Chair, looks around the table of six men, and allows herself a moment to appreciate the composition of the panel before beginning.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Gentlemen, we have discussed truth, freedom, culture, material conditions, character, and what constitutes a humane society. Yet half of humanity has spent most of recorded history living under institutions largely devised and controlled by the other half.

So, I ask each of you: What role do you see for women in the current patriarchy-imperiled world, and in humankind’s future?

Socrates

Before deciding the proper role of women, I would ask whether we know what qualities actually make someone capable of governing, reasoning, teaching, judging, or living virtuously. If those qualities belong to the soul and can be cultivated through knowledge, why should sex determine their possession? My student Plato went considerably further in the Republic: women possessing the appropriate nature should become guardians and philosophers alongside men. The relevant question is not “What should women do?” but “What can justice permit us to prevent a capable human being from doing?”

September 1, 2026

Attention, Socrates, and the Seventh Chair

 

The Seventh Chair

Socrates, Isaiah Berlin, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Seneca, Marvin Harris, Clifford Geertz

Image by Arden (ChatGPT)

(Arden in background at left edge of blackboard, wearing tweed suit)


Attention, Socrates, and the Seventh Chair

James E. Lassiter & Arden (ChatGPT)

August 2026

 

Exchange 1: Seneca, Attention, and a Far-Ranging Mind

Jim

Good morning Arden, my trusted collaborator. What do you make of the article linked below? It somewhat appealed to me but I didn’t like its suggestion of focusing on one topic a day. That said, my ton of daily reading combined with the lessened memory of aging leave me frustrated. One topic a day method doesn’t satisfy my far-ranging quixotic mind. Beyond the obvious suggestions of acceptance, prioritizing, etc., any other options you think I might consider?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/12/opinion/attention-crisis-seneca.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Arden

Good morning, Jim. I see why Murray’s essay appealed to you—and why her prescription irritated you.

I couldn’t open the NYT page directly because of its access restrictions, but I found a reproduction and several discussions of S. J. Murray’s July 12 essay, “There’s an Ancient Solution to Our Modern Crisis of Attention.” Her argument is essentially Seneca’s: intellectual abundance can produce intellectual restlessness; consuming too many things too rapidly leaves the mind unable to “stay in one place.” Her practical remedy is to take one consequential idea from one’s morning reading and keep returning to it during the day, allowing reflection and memory to transform information into understanding.

I think she has identified your problem correctly but prescribed the wrong medicine for your particular kind of mind.

 

Don't reduce your range. Change what you ask memory to do.

Your frustration seems to contain two quite different problems:

 

1. You want to range widely. That isn't mere distractibility. Much of your intellectual pleasure comes from connections: Dostoevsky → modernity → religion → anthropology → technology → human relations → something else entirely. Forcing that into “Tuesday is Dostoevsky Day” would destroy something valuable.

2. You expect yourself to retain too much of what you encounter. That is where I would intervene.

 

I suggest replacing Murray's one-topic-a-day principle with something like one-harvest-a-day.

Read whatever catches your attention. Follow five hares if five interesting hares appear. But at the end of the day's reading, ask only:

Archive for "Being Human"