It is self-evident, even to a fool (who is often the most defensive of
organisms) that one can be punished for a crime but not for the perception of a
crime. Our Society is ordered and made sane by the careful and ardent
observation of certain Universal Moral Principles, and the merit of an
individual is determined by the Individual’s capacity and decision to adhere to
such principles. Such is our upbringing: a constant preparation and pruning for
Adult Life, which is most ideally the excellent execution of these Universal
Ethics. Yet in Actual Adulthood we find a problem that philosophers have
described as simply “The Absurd”. It becomes technically IMPOSSIBLE to
ascertain with OBJECTIVE CERTAINTY one’s moral position in relation to all
others, at least insofar as the childish perspective is concerned. In
childhood, we imagine an ornate hierarchy where every boss answers to an other
boss, infinitely and indefinitely, with no Ultimate Leader and no Ultimate
Subordinate. Yet such is of course a naïve view. In TRUTH, at any one point one
cannot have total access to any ABSOLUTE score-board for morality. One only has
one’s past, one’s future, one’s present, and all of the convictions contained
within the three (which are in fact One). These convictions apply to both Self
and Other, and they tend to categorize the actions of both parties as either “good”
or “bad”. Based upon one’s degree of tolerance (as Chesterton defines it: the underdevelopment
of [one’s] Convictions), various individuals have various capacity to PARDON
bad behavior. Once such a threshold is past, the Other becomes classified as a “bad
person”. Yet the self-conscious subject always tends to grovel before the
SUBJECTIVITY of its assessment.
So in adulthood we find peace through one last refuge: the two-class
system. Good and Evil are not a SPECTRUM of authority but rather two definite
groups of people: One Hero, the other Villain. Yet this of course cannot be
ascertained by one’s position on a hierarchy. It CAN, however, be determined by
one’s DIRECTION OF MOTION. People who tend to fall short of Goodness do so ad
nauseum with progressively (if you’ll pardon the term) worse results. Meanwhile,
Good people tend to soar. The contrast is breathtaking and tragic to behold,
especially when we notice the devices of the Good sabotaged by the stupidity of
the Evil.
A man may suffer from loneliness at the top. Consider the position of
a twenty-six-year-old Virgin. I can attest to this condition personally. I
began this weblog four years ago with one fundamental question in mind: is the
sexual act a moral act? To this day I have concluded that it IS, but only if it
is recognized as an Entitlement: a Need, therefore a Right. According to this
conclusion my own condition stands as evidence to the general failure of
contemporary society to meet this imperative. It is not a sense of Entitlement
for which I can be condemned, for in my humility in approaching this question I
have remained blameless and have erred on the side of caution, proverbially.
From time to time I wonder, though: why am I still a Virgin? I cannot
be arrogant and therefore unattractive. The sheer notion that any one would
have lost one’s virginity in one’s early twenties or even late TEENS is
shocking. What arrogance! Yet it does arouse some degree of righteous fury and
envy. And not only does it do that: it gives way to HOPE for the Good Man. He
thinks: “Well, if some one as CLEARLY inferior as [SO-AND-SO] can have had sex
MULTIPLE times, then surely *I*…”
And this all follows logically. Yet the Absurd still stares one in the
face at every street corner.
The only refuge left is in God. The Good Man has to think, at first:
1.
If THEY can do it, so can I.
Yet simply being ABLE is not sufficient to the moral individual, and
simply INSISTING upon one’s ability is not evidence of it. So promptly the argument
evolves:
2.
If THEY can do it, so MUST I.
“Must” implies “can” of course, so this position transcends and
includes the original.
At this point Our Hero embarks upon a Quest to Find Love. Yet he
finds, after the dozenth rejection on the dance floor, that some thing is
working against him. Could the God that had given him such Hope in his equality
(a paradoxical deduction from his Superiority) now be working AGAINST him? Or
has the DEVIL simply possessed these unreceptive women?
The first coping mechanism is obvious:
A.
I MUST do this, and I WOULD, but THEY are unreceptive
because of their own failings.
This would appear to be an arrogant impulse, but in fact the arrogance
belongs to the failing person.
The following step elucidates the matter further:
B.
THEIR failings are not that they find me unattractive, but
that they find me SO attractive that they fail to approach me. Perhaps they
lack my confidence because of their shortcomings in Virtue.
So we observe step 3 in Our Hero’s Mental Development:
3.
If THEY can do it, *I* MUST be ATTRACTIVE.
This is sound from the perspective of Reason, but it is not yet
convincing Empirically and Emotively. Overwhelming evidence seems to contradict
Lucid Reason, and so we must step out of the secular prism and consider the
Spiritual. Could it be that God WAS, after all, plotting in our favour all
along, and that He had a plan, but it was not the failure of the Other to
accord with this plan, but rather one’s OWN failure to UNCOVER the Plan?
Mythology discerns the Temptress from the Goddess. When Our Hero
learns this distinction, his entire outlook is transformed:
4.
If THEY can do it, there is SOME ONE OUT THERE FOR ME.
Hence we arrive at the Soul Mate Conclusion.
Working backwards from this conclusion, Our Hero learns that it was
only ever LOVE FOR AN OTHER that had produced this restlessness in the FIRST
PLACE. So it never MATTERED what the sordid affairs of his inferiors were. They
had simply been overzealous in their interference in his private life.
5.
If THEY can do it, it does not matter. If they CANNOT do
it, it does not matter. All that matters is THIS PERSON.
So the self-pity of false burden is transcended.
I began this essay by pointing out that one cannot be charged for
bearing witness to a crime.
I explained that even a FOOL would not contest this fact.
I did this because FOOLS ATTEMPT to contest this fact without knowing
it, where sexuality is concerned.
To the INFERIOR MAN, a man of LOW CONVICTIONS and EVIL DIRECTION,
there is no Moral Order governing human relationships. So it is arrogant to
protest the Absurdity of sexual conduct; to this mind, all entitlement is
SELF-entitlement, and all righteousness is SELF-righteous. The narcissist
stamps all values alien to him with his seal.
THANKFULLY this is a deluded posture.
The Fool insists that there IS no Moral Order, no Good nor Evil, but
simply CHAOS. So he cleverly (and stupidly) blames the Good Man’s predicament
upon the Good Man Himself, insisting that the decision to Be-Good is little
more than self-flattery and that it is FOR THIS VERY ARROGANCE that the Good Man
is condemned to involuntary Virginity.
But there are several glaring fallacies about this.
First: it presupposes that the Virginity is INVOLUNTARY. The Good Man
initially presumes this too, until his Convictions have grown to a degree that
he has totally individuated himself from the Inferior Mindset.
Second: It is coercive. By yielding to the threat of Dying Alone, the
Person of Virtue SURRENDERS his or her Virtue and changes Direction. This
immediately puts the Person of Virtue in the POSITION of Vice, and thereby he
or she finds evidence for the coercive bias, and ONLY evidence for it. YET THE
BIAS WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION FROM THE START. Conversely, it was never a
foregone CONCLUSION that the bias was coercive; simply observing this [tragic] progression
in people, that they become corrupted by fear, is enough reason to describe it
so boldly.
I write not with the intent of aggrandizing myself or rationalizing away
a personal character flaw.
I write rather to encourage the Good to remain upon their path, and I
encourage them to enlighten their more deviant fellows.
Dm.A.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment