Comments on Surviving Phalaris: Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total ...

Well, see, and I agree with you, but not how you g...

2010-07-21T16:53:40.968-06:00

Well, see, and I agree with you, but not how you get there.

Obviously, monism has to address the nature of other-ness and things outside the self. To do that, I would need to better define my concept of the "self" -- I agree with the idea of a self quite simplistic and -seemingly- isolated compared with the other more transcendent aspects of the self. Well, I think you know where that description is going anyway. Just because I prefer monism doesn't mean no one as equally valid as myself exists -- quite the opposite. Everyone and everything else is as equally important and included. As far as things outside the self opposing the will, you could consider dual-aspect monism instead of dualism.

Lastly, I think it's true that we need shared stories and a communal sense of ethics, but at the same time, this common story and ethic needs adaptability to diversity.

Most of this discussion I haven't been certain what point I've been trying to make. I think cruelty in children is natural and instinctive, and unfortunate, but not symptomatic of society's moral decline (except in situations in which such behavior is ignored or improperly or unethically addressed). It obviously can be a contrast on which future compassion can be fostered. Secondly, I think immigration ruckus centers around issues that are inherent with population density, and again, on instinctual reactivity. It's that these natural fears are covered up with political ballyhooing from two sides who are just estranging each other, defending their flag like a trooper, and then ignoring the actuality as much as possible.

I have no solutions myself. I'm not informed enough about it to make an educated guess, either. I'm suggesting the root cause is not ideology so much as human nature being suppressed and covered up by ideological rationalizations. Much like our discussion -- where we discuss monism versus dualism as if it were crucial to a proper conclusion.

...(continued from previous comment) Your comment...

2010-07-21T14:50:28.565-06:00

...(continued from previous comment)

Your comment on morality is a non-sequitur. Dualism and authority are not particularly syllogistic. Certainly the possibility of 'choice' would seem to point to things that are exclusive of, and at times opposed to, each other. There are things we choose which preclude us from choosing other things. That suggests to me that there can be dualism in places. Or else, what is it to be called when something opposes the will? And again, here we are arguing quite as if someone were right and someone were wrong! And finally, there can be no "transcendental" unless there is something recognized outside of and beyond the self. In a community, where there exists a common story and a common heritage, then naturally morality too exists in that outside world of abstract forms. That was how morality was shared before we investigated solipsistic ideas of the self along with Descartes. I am no adherent to the church of dualism, but it is clear to me that dualism is a useful heuristic for explaining at least some of these phenomena.

Now, that last paragraph of yours really shows where the angst lies! Finally, the argument is really cooking. If anything, you come out as absolutely individualistic: How dare anyone claim that there is some external and objective truth that we must all abide!!! You are quite offended at that notion, as are the many people stomping around shouting about how they are wrongfully being forced to care for illegal immigrants. This is exactly the same attitude of the religious folk, among whom I count myself. Do you think our purported belief in some absolute truth makes one bit of difference? Are you kidding me? We must shape our own selves! We are in the business of self-making, and no one shall interfere! You can't make me do stuff. That's Satan's plan!

No, no. Don't get me wrong again. I'm not putting you in the same cruelty bucket with those guys. We seem to agree about the need for compassion, only our ways of arriving there are totally different. In fact, your method is gratingly similar to those who I am trying to argue against. Hence this argument. I rather enjoy argument and am not one to avoid it just because we agree on the punchline. That doesn't serve my thinking at all. Paradoxically, it is precisely this low-level conflict that produces real progress and refinement. You "proffered your subjectivity," and I didn't like it because it didn't support my thesis, even though it agreed with it. How often do you get that in politics?

And lastly, this: I am saying nothing about absolute truth! You quite misunderstand me. We need not be absolutely certain of our principles (I'm not!), but we must agree on what they are and live them if we are to be any sort of community. We need shared stories and shared truths. Even individuals must eventually settle on some foundation or other. This is the whole point of "Vote Fascist": The idea that we have a shared humanity and some basic responsibilities to each other that once upon a time we all agreed upon--because we once had a notion of Mankind instead of just "Me".

Yes, I am referring to all of those shared stories...

2010-07-21T14:49:42.357-06:00

Yes, I am referring to all of those shared stories, but mostly the story that once resonated strongly with the audience to whom "Vote Fascist" was primarily directed: Religious people who once believed in it, but who have since adopted the doctrine of individualism. It is rather beside the point what those other specific stories you brought up dealt with, only that people's definition of self used to be found there. There was no "self" without "others.

My point was that those shared stories, and particularly the story we claim as our heritage, are not the stories of individuals, but of communities. As you point out (and I do not argue), there used to be a plurality of communities. I'm not griping about that. However, it has increasingly become a plurality of individuals. In the paradigm of community, violence and power were once intruders. Oh, yes! There was always plenty of violence! But violence was not viewed as the default state of man until we started listening to the stories that Darwin and others began to tell us. Violence was once considered to be the fallen state, the part of our shared humanity that we did not choose. We believed that violence and power were taken up voluntarily and that they required a certain awareness.

My interpretation of solipsism and so forth is, again, not "mine." It is a conclusion based on historiographical studies in systematic and philosophical theology, which I am interested in. You could try reading Oliver, Milbank, Pickstock, Ward, Cavanaugh, and Shortt if you want to see where I am coming from. I've been reading them. This is all very much a part of our cultural history and development. Individualism didn't just pop out of nowhere. In any case, it seems rather obvious to me that the first step away from unity is one that begins to say that the "self" is the only knowable thing. How is that a slanted interpretation? And I in no way equated all individualists with the hateful and the cruel. In fact, I clearly stated that such "free" people are able to agree if they choose to do so.

(continued in next comment, because now you made me get all wordy)...

Your right, there was a shared story. Basically, t...

2010-07-21T13:19:31.857-06:00

Your right, there was a shared story. Basically, the pharaoh was God on earth, as well as the son of God (Horus son of Osiris). Or maybe you're referring to the collective memories of the ancient ancestors regarding the universal and omniscient Great Spirit? Actually there's a lot of shares stories to pick from. There's a lot of different concepts of man to be derived from that as well.

I also find your interpretation of solipsism and monism and nominalism rather slanted. Monism seems obvious for a panentheist, but where exactly that commonly devolves into a self-centered vision of the hateful and cruel baffles me.

You seem to believe morality requires dualism to exist. You cannot be moral unless there is an exterior Ultimate Moral Authority to enforce and endorse it.

I doubt there's such a thing as absolute objectivity, of which perhaps Heisenburg's uncertainty principle lends credence in a very oblique way. As such, I proffered my subjectivity on your post, but I feel your response rather reactionary: as if your conclusions are only valid if and only if humanity can be defined in very narrow terms, and all subjectivity itself must bow to Supreme Will in order for there to be any moral attributes applicable. It requires the absolute-objective, very narrowly defined. Here again, I see fear of what's different.

Dave, Your solipsism is another development along...

2010-07-21T11:28:59.875-06:00

Dave,

Your solipsism is another development along the lines of Medieval nominalist philosophy. You reject universals and say things like "no man can define what Man is," or that it is "impossible to know what it is like" to be this or that.

And yet, that is exactly the aim of all creation stories that become the basis of real human unity. What I wrote was not at all "my personal concept of man," but a shared tradition and heritage that lasted for many years among many people. We once agreed on exactly what Man is.

It hardly matters to our story what the prehistoric ancestors of Man thought, or if they had kindness and other virtues. Nor does it matter to our story that we now find empathy--a reflection of God's goodness--in crows. When the curtains opened on our own creation story, man was not viewed as "essentially metaphysical," but specifically metaphysical. His nature was described in an unmistakable dualism, which you find hard to swallow--and so you have a revised story of your own to tell.

The point is that there was a shared story that said something specific about human transcendence. That story is part of what our civilization and self-knowledge was once built upon. We were not discrete and objective individuals stuck in the fabric of society, telling each other our own stories and our own truths; but members of a living unity and partakers of a common heritage. Since you have cast that common heritage off, you are now free to pick and choose whatever bits you like, even to mostly agree with me! There is your modern liberalism.

Today's hateful and cruel, who also adhere to a similarly self-centered vision, will all agree that compassion is a noble quality! They will give beautiful sermons on the very subject over the pulpit at church. They will reflect kindly on the parable of the Good Samaritan and on their own Christian doctrine that tells how they should love their neighbors as themselves. And they fully believe themselves to be in possession of all those noble qualities.

Oh, and they also turn in lists of illegal immigrants, and claim in all seriousness that this mean-spirited public conversation about immigration has no meanness in it at all. All of these spectacular contradictions are perfectly reasonable if you accept that all that can really be known is the self, which is a perfect unity with God; and there is no striving for good--no true choice (since choice requires a kind of dualism)--there is only the nature of being. We can say anything we want and make it true.

Solipsism, nominalism, etc., etc., were all progressions toward the secular individualism--the differentiation of the individual and rejection of shared stories--that marks today's culture of cruelty and negative liberty.

The creation story you recount in the first paragr...

2010-07-20T22:32:55.809-06:00

The creation story you recount in the first paragraph could easily be called a summary of Genesis as well.

Also, I don't believe anthropologists avoid the elements of man's noble qualities. It seems one of the first historically notable events anthropology notes is the burial of the dead, the caring for the sick and the lame.

As far as man not being Man without metaphysics, I must posit that it is impossible to know what it is like to be Homo neanderthalis, etc., likely the same with any other species. We do not know animals' minds, and we do not know whether they have metaphysics or not. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with you to a point: there is something essentially metaphysical about being human, or having "humanity." I don't agree it is dependent on a struggle against evil, but rather a spiritual self-awareness to consciously act and thereby create -- perhaps aware also of the inseparability of oneself with God and all that is, and that never-ending creative force.

In any case, I agree that compassion is a noble thing, and many other qualities as well. It is transcendent quality to those who are aware of its meaning for their particular realm of existence, and so aware, who also choose it. Yet, no man can define what a Man is and a Man is not for everyone else. You have defined your concept of man. (I like to think that "humanity" might be equally present, and indeed perhaps more keenly observant, in the brain of an advanced therapod -- or any other mundane encapsulation.)

There is a mundane tendency toward behavior adapted to environment. Being aware of this, and also of other more abstract possibilities, it is then that individual's choice to be compassionate (for instance) and to express it. But this is not a struggle against evil, as I see it, but rather simply the nature of God.

The best way to spread compassion is to show compassion. I believe humanity for the great majority inclined toward such, and the problem as far as immigration goes is mostly ignorance -- floating about in a media-gas cloud of non-received thought and reactionary rhetoric shouted by true-believer cheerleaders while we avoid really talking to each other.

Anyway, that was a bit rambling, but I figured it was easier to put all the recent thoughts in my head into a blog comment rather than try to put together a formal argument/essay. :)

Dave, Anthropologists tell us that the oldest cre...

2010-07-20T17:04:38.471-06:00

Dave,

Anthropologists tell us that the oldest creation stories of all cultures tend to share the same themes, such as what you have mentioned and also what I addressed under the four aspects of cruelty in my essay. From these creation stories, we learn that the nature of humankind is predatory, self-absorbed, competitive, suspicious, sexist, racist, and desirous to subjugate and tame the earth and the elements.

What these Anthropologists seem to avoid are the elements of such stories that deal with man's noble qualities. If we say that the work of a kindly Creator is also reflected in us, then this is to be interpreted as curious and superstitious but not terribly meaningful because we can't see it. But it seems that the Hebrew creation story, at least, was interested in a man who was locked in a struggle between right and wrong. All of those generations and civilizations before Adam could not have been Man because they lacked his metaphysics. To be properly considered Mankind, we must be moral creatures. That has implications for our concept of freedom. If this creation story is truly our heritage, then there are certain liberties we must never take if we wish to remain Men. Here, of course, I am using "Men" in the general sense of mankind.

Creation stories are constantly being recast with these similar themes. During the intense secularization of the Nineteenth century, in which the modern money economy crystallized, these stories reemerged sans any moral dimension under the names of "Capitalism" and "Socialism." Our creation stories now describe economic phenomena. "God is a Capitalist," as Rick Koerber was fond of saying.

What I find fascinating is that it is precisely the religious people who have championed this new secular and ultimately atheistic worldview, while the self-described secular and agnostic are advocating for compassion and morality in many of these issues.

Firstly, I think cruelty in children is like an in...

2010-07-20T12:01:35.528-06:00

Firstly, I think cruelty in children is like an inborn drive to compete for adult attention or die (not unlike a eaglet harassing its later-born sibling and even chasing it from the nest).

As far as immigration, I think it's another tragedy of the commons. The more people there are, the less any one person can expect to have. I don't know that it's a matter of a sense of entitlement more than it is a matter of fear for competition of resources. Only very recently has the average individual been more likely than not to consistently have enough to survive.