NOTE: It has been pointed out to me that I have been very experimental in my usage of Capitalization. Part of this owes to the influence of German Idealism upon my Thinking. The rest is for Emphasis, intended to distinguish Core Concepts and Indispensable Appeals, of which many are introduced here, from idiomatic phrases and deductions, which I leave to the Imagination of the Reader. ENJOY. [({R.G.)}]
I.
The Shirtless Egoist:
Perhaps you’ve had the experience of
attending a social function and witnessing the effects of alcohol upon the ego.
Picture, for a moment, a man who attends such events with purely egocentric
intent. Perhaps one night he shows up in a stylish and expensive shirt, expecting,
rightfully, a great deal of attention to be paid to him for wearing it.
Satisfied with the response and elated by appraisal, he proceeds to indulge in
alcohol and the sorts of open expressions of self-confidence that only such
settings can facilitate. After a certain point, he decides that the shirt
amounts to little more than a constriction, a mere Jungian persona intended to
MASK the Great Man Within. He proceeds, therefore and thereafter, to shed the
shirt and to expose his newfound audience to his muscular abdominal build,
expecting the same praise for his bare chest as his shirt received. Yet, of
course, he has been misled by the persona by identifying attention paid to it
with attention paid to his Personality, an all-too-common confusion in the present
Zeitgeist of Social Media and Public Reputation. Should he be met with less
than praise for his tattoo, a matter of great Personal Value to him, he will
feel himself personally attacked, and he might react boorishly. He might even
imagine that his well-meaning critics had deliberately overstepped their bounds
in order to affront his honour; feeling a sense of boundary dissolution as a
result, he would be liable to project his own intentionality upon his critics, presuming
that they sought to supplant his status only in order to aggrandize themselves,
as he had sought to aggrandize HIS own self to begin with. Such a man would not
hesitate to call his critics narcissists and bullies, for this would be the
most effective psychological defence against them.
Should our hypothetical partygoer
come to his senses the following day, it might not be uncommon for him to reflect
upon his actions with some measure of humiliation and regret. Yet imagine, as an
Epilogue, that our hero proceeds to call the Host of the Party near
immediately, slurring an earnest apology that morning through the haze of a
hangover. Imagine that the Host is bewildered by this apology, insisting that
she remembers neither his antics nor their consequences, since she was,
herself, blacked out drunk and probably shirtless at the time.
I illustrate this not to inspire
nostalgia for your college undergraduate days, but rather to illustrate, by a
belaboured metaphor, the nature of arrogance and, more specifically, the sorts
of arrogance that go unchecked in Groups. While many of us are prone to
experience embarrassment in our moments of Inspired Egomania, we often tend to
feel far more secure when those around us corroborate our egos. We are happy to
draw lines between what we think we Think and what we think we Know, defining
ourselves by our Knowledge while reserving our Opinions for idle discourse,
often to make ourselves appear intelligent, clever, funny, or likeable.
Yet by this process we reveal
elements of Ourselves and Our Beliefs which we have taken for granted for ages,
often to our immense but largely subconscious detriment, for Life required us
to make Choices and we elected, out of Necessity, to make those Choices based
upon a series of presumptions that seemed incontrovertible at the time.
Most probably, those presumptions
which became ingrained within our psyches by Necessity were popular at the time
in our immediate social circle, perhaps even the Mainstream Media. Our felt
need to belong to a Community, to have a safety net to catch us, often plays a
central part in our Beliefs, especially those we consider necessary for
Decision-making. It enables us to bear with failure while more completely enjoying
Success; if our Choices prove to yield unfavourable results, we might appeal to
our Communal Common Sense in having made them, accruing common sympathy,
whereas if results go well we can expect our Success to be perceived as edifying
and contributive by our fellows. In this sense, the communitarian approach is a
win-win for all well-intentioned members involved within an established
discipline with clear-cut goals and guidelines.
Our communal nature as human beings
stands therefore to our credit as autonomous agents, especially insofar as we
presume upon this Nature as a Source of Truth and Wisdom. Yet in confronting
Reality as Such we are interfacing with a different kind of Intelligence, one
whose complexity may or may not surpass the artificial networks we’ve contrived
in Groups. When metaphysical claims about this Reality as Such, applied to
Ethical Choices, are introduced to Collective, Social Discourse, there looms always
the danger of confusing a Matter of Opinion for a Matter of Fact, simply
because, as autonomous agents, we are inclined to marginalize what we
consider to be “matters of opinion” as entertainment whilst prioritizing “matters
of fact” as ethically binding, not only upon Ourselves, but also – to the same
extent as we feel threatened by either criticism or choices made by those who
do not share our opinions – Others as well.
Once I have “tattooed” myself with
one Group’s Ideology, I’m apt to feel attacked by those who consider that
Ideology to be Questionable. I become arrogant and chauvinistic in displaying those
opinions with which I’ve self-identified, as well as boorish and defensive in resisting
those whom I’ve identified with a dissenting opinion, even if those who proffer
that opinion TO me do not themselves identify WITH that opinion to the same
pious and exclusivist extent as I do. Yet whether or not I should ever have to
ANSWER FOR my boorishness, my arrogance, my defensiveness, or my chauvinism is
entirely contingent upon the SURROUNDING SOCIAL SETTING. If everyone else is
likewise tattooed or intoxicated by the same opinionated egoism, I just may
avoid making a public folly of myself, especially insofar as my egoism is
compatible with the egoism of my fellows. If everyone is drunk anyway, no one
cares what you rattled off about.
II.
An Imperfect System:
Scientific Inquiry is an imperfect system
by design. It must be falsifiable in order to be valid. As such, it cannot be obligated
to produce Absolute Knowledge; Science does not “Need to Know”. Yet human
beings DO Need to Know, quite often, with regards to making Choices, especially
of an Ethical Nature. The Felt Necessity for Knowledge is often characteristic
of Religion in both its Ecstasy and its Agony, so much so that the Ecstasy
associated with Spiritual Awakening may be presumed to be little more than a relief
from Agonizing Moral Doubt in the face of Imperative Moral Decisions. Science
cannot satisfy this Felt Need for Imperative Certainty, given its fluid,
developing, and perpetually falsifiable Nature. It follows that “Man”
traditionally coupled Religion WITH Science, rather than seeking to drive a
wedge between them to cleanse himself of the sins of Faith in favour of the
sanctity of Rationality. Yet “Modern Man”, or “Modern Human Being” as we
understand “Ourselves”, has by and large revoked Religious Faith in favour of a
secular approach to Truth as Such. Suppressing the Will to Believe within the
circumscriptions of a formal Tradition, Modern Human Being finds expression for
the Religious Instinct in Science, though Science was never equipped for such
purposes and, in fact, it was developed to COMPLEMENT Religious Tradition and
Religious Presuppositions rather than to COMPENSATE for them.
Much of our contemporary arrogance
derives from the Promethean Pride of Technological Innovation and its cravings
for Rational, Technocratic Leadership which will not only ACKNOWLEDGE the “Scientific
Worldview” but will behave in a manner “consistent with” it. Yet this is to
presuppose that the Scientific Worldview POSSESSES the features of a Moral
Teleology or any other set of Imperatives, though clearly Scientific Naturalism
denies any such Purpose underlying our Existence as Such. Science not only
needs not to Know; it also needs not to Care, and if she is to be credited at
all as the Mother of Modern Technology, and if her Maternity is not one merely
of her having given birth but also of her frequent involvement in her Children’s
lives, she must be acknowledged as a fundamentally cold and unavailable parent,
many of whose Children have run amuck and wreaked havoc upon entire
Civilizations. Technology has helped us to fulfill purposes that have not only
augmented but also mitigated our Humanity, and were we to develop new Ethics
for the proper USE and DEVELOPMENT of Technology, as undoubtedly many attempts
are made to do, they would logically follow NOT from within the Utility of any
Technology NOR from within the Frame of Reference of a Science which is both
capricious and uncaring. Perhaps, for those initiated INTO Science and her mode
of thinking, this is not capricious at all, but acting of one’s “own accord” as
a Developing Intelligence, fulfilling the requirements of one’s own
deficiencies and goals, will nonetheless appear, rightfully, capricious to
those who are seeking a MORAL Worldview, as well as a PERSONAL one at that.
In this sense, we are all, as Modern
Individuals, Science Incarnate. We, too, follow our own methods, constantly
developing from past mistakes and revising our attitudes in order to accommodate
new developments in our Lives. We inherit the exciting unpredictability as well
as the insufferable caprice of an Ordered Worldview that makes sense internally
but which is baffling from the outside looking in. It follows that, when we DO
seek alliance and allegiance with Others, we do so NOT by following from Absolute
Principles but RATHER from those partisan biases which consolidated our certainties
at an earlier stage of development. Science Itself is not immune to these inherited
biases, nor are its modern practitioners, operating within the sort of “Community
of Peers” that is founded as much upon conditioned bias as upon rigorous indoctrination
within a sophisticated Practice. We are all, to some extent or another,
intoxicated by our fellows.
None of this is to say that we ought
NOT to pursue Objectivity, by one definition or another, that we ought to treat
all Opinions as Equal, that we ought to deny either interpersonal or
metaphysical Truth, nor that we ought to regard Everything as a Matter of
Opinion. It IS, however, to say that we have spent so much time operating under
the INFLUENCE of Individualism and its inherent partisan biases that we are not
quite READY YET for an effective form of Collectivism. As Watts pointed out, rugged
individuals tend to form “mobs” rather than Societies. Conformism by itself is
not effective Communitarianism, and it is merely an instrument for Fascism,
that is, Egoism on a Mass Scale.
We must thus proceed to re-evaluate
the Religious Fanaticism that has become so prevalent in Technocratic Culture,
as expressed in the conflicting claims produced by Social Media and Popular
Science. The former is largely subjectivist and individualist in scope, liberal
in its ethos, and possible only by avenue of a Technology which at once liberates
us and circumscribes us in its own, partisan Utilities. The latter is that Body
of Theory which is considered “Knowledge” only when it “works” but whose
Workings remain Mysterious whenever the Human Subject is involved, which is a constant
within all of our Human Inquiries. Between the unchecked subjectivism of the
former and the pretensions towards objectivity that the latter is guilty of
propagating, we are far from having actualized a genuinely working modern
Ethic. It becomes central to our purposes, therefore, if we at least ASPIRE towards
Ethical Action, to embrace an attitude of Humility with regards to the
incompleteness of our Physical Sciences as well as the attitudes which they
give rise to. These Sciences undoubtedly HAVE aided in the betterment of Human
Life, by several definitions of “better”, yet we ought not to feel such a
binding and pious DEBT to them that they should be allowed to either preclude non-scientific
Truths or even ANTI-scientific Truths from coming to light in Public, nor should
they be used as excuses for vainglorious violence.
III.
The Snare of the Present: Shady and Fierce.
Consider the concept of Progress.
Progressive thought is primarily predicated upon a set of optimistic
presumptions. “Progress” implies, by its very nature, a set of circumstances
whereby the Future supersedes and surpasses the Past. This may be conceived of
in one of two ways:
One way of interpreting Progress is
that the Past is home to a Tradition whereby Goals are established to be
resolved over the Course of Time, whose consummation lies in the Future. It
would thus follow, under such a paradigm, that the inheritors of this Tradition
would initially shoulder the burdens put UPON them BY their progenitors, whose
tutelage and records would be indispensable in the proper supervision of
Progress. While the Youth will some day live to surpass the Elderly in Dignity,
nonetheless they always OWE their Dignity TO the Elderly, not just in the
causal sense that, were it not for what the Elderly had accomplished, there
would be no Tradition to inherit and by which to attain Dignity, but ALSO
because, were no such Tradition to have existed, as interpreted primarily by
the relatively Elderly, then there would BE no Ethical Imperatives and, as
such, no obligations, no good or bad means or ends, and no Dignity by which to
make Choices.
At first, these two qualities of
Owing Dignity appear to be one and the same, and they are so insofar as they
are two sides of the same proverbial coin. My point is this: that not only are
we capable of being Dignified because our ancestors taught us what it would
MEAN to be Dignified, but we also MUST be Dignified BECAUSE they taught us
this. If this would appear arbitrary, it only appears this way until we,
ourselves, find ourselves repeating the habits of moral preaching. This is no
mistake; on the contrary, it is emblematic of Maturity that one begins to concern
one’s self with one’s Society, its Past, and its Future, and at this point one
atones with one’s ethical progenitors.
There is, of course, however, an
opposing view of Progress, and this is that of Scientific Teleology. One might
say that the Past is obsolete by nature, that Progress in Culture rather
parallels the development of Science and Technology. The proper interests of
the Human Being are to be rightfully circumscribed by the capabilities of the
most up-to-date technology, even if certain customs for which older
technologies were developed must be surrendered to the proverbial “Garbage Bin”
of History. Embodied in the words of Henry Ford, “History is bunk,” and it is in
response to this aphorism that Huxley draws his satirical Brave New World,
Jung draws his defence of Mythology as an essential part of psychoanalytic
practice, Lewis and Tolkien write about the arrogance of novelty and the fated decline
of Civilizations, and MacIntyre infers the importance of Tradition in Ethics. The attitude of Scientific Teleology ignores
the fact that, according to Modern Science, no Teleology exists in the World
Itself, though all moral claims are supposedly directly contingent upon the
Scientific Understanding OF the World Itself and its effects upon Human Beings,
and vice versa.
This is also the attitude of the
nihilist as exemplified by the mad scientist in Rick and Morty, an adult
animated series lauded for having “captured the Millennial Zeitgeist”. Yet at
the root of this nihilism is an unshakeable intellectual optimism. Science will
either solve all our problems or render those problems Meaningless and unworthy
of conscious attention, much less serious debate. Science, yet again, will
provide Certainty, and even if Meanings are lost along the way, they may be
discarded alongside History. Human Beings will use Technology to provide NEW,
more EFFICIENT and EFFECTIVE definitions for Marriage, for Love, for Sexuality,
for Justice, for Gender, for Race, and for Character and Merit. We have the
Technology, which implies that we have the Ability, and the first order of
business in our glorious ascent to the Stars is to jettison the old idols of
Tradition, of Social Order, and History.
What would one conceivably expect
from this latter interpretation of Progress, were it valid and true? Primarily,
we would characterize our Age as one of Unmitigated Optimism. The evils of the
Past would not impede our Progress towards Utopia. Mistakes would be recognized
instantly and corrected, despite the histories of those mistakes already made,
as well as the premonitions predicting those mistakes not yet made, having been
decimated. The Artist would not only perpetually surpass his earlier work, but
his earlier work would be regarded as inferior as a matter of course and NOT as
the result of any personal shortcoming. The Musician whose lyrics from nine
years ago appear too affronting for the contemporary listener would continue to
output credible work that is better suited to the Market, without
recrimination. In short: we would never be “haunted” by the materials of the
Past.
When I was growing up, prior to
Lady Gaga’s popularization of Electronic Dance Music, the two most important
names in popular music were Beyonce Knowles and Eminem. Beyonce’s popularity
has endured over the past two decades, as has the work of Marshall Mathers,
with both Artists innovating in their respective fields, winning both
popularity and notoriety on behalf of their respective genres and enterprises,
transforming their personae and sounds with each new album. It was surprising,
therefore, to learn from young feminists in 2014 that Beyonce was a “feminist
icon”, and it was even more surprising to learn that they did not recognize her
most iconic hits off of her debut album upon hearing them, only vaguely
guessing at who the singer was on the self-defining “Me, Myself and I”. Beyonce’s
style of vocals had not changed considerably, nor had her production techniques
and genre, yet ten years was enough time for people claiming to be “fans” to have
forgotten or perhaps never heard these songs.
Very recently, Marshall Mathers,
alias Eminem, has come under attack by young listeners on the streaming platform
TikTok. The rapper had been christened the “King of Controversy” for decades,
upsetting purists on both the religious right and the neoliberal left, inspiring
fruitless protests across generations. It is astonishing, therefore, to
discover that modern listeners have attempted to “cancel” his career for his
relatively TAME duet with Rihanna in 2012, less than a decade ago, more than a
decade after the release of THE Slim Shady LP.
What Beyonce’s career indicates is
that a seminal figure can go from being a sexual commodity to a respected
artist to a feminist icon without modern consumers really taking notice; what
Eminem’s career demonstrates is that an equally important figure in the same Industry
can be demonized by the same generation of consumers, despite having resisted censorship
from prior generations and thus paved the way for the popularization of those
forms of Media that the new generation takes for granted. Beyonce is haunted by
forgetfulness to roughly the same extent as Eminem is haunted by memory.
Listeners FORGET Beyonce’s early work, perhaps to the benefit of her present
image, but to the ultimate detriment of her legacy as anything more than an “icon”:
a symbol appropriated by an ideological agenda. Listeners REMEMBER Slim Shady’s
video starring Dominic Monaghan and Megan Fox, but because they FORGET his earlier
work they believe the more recent release to be damning. Both of these
tendencies in Media may be ascribed to “progressivism”, yet are they genuine
Progress?
No. As I explained, “Progress”
implies, even at its most nihilistic and cynical, a certain optimism and
idealism. If we are to be honest with ourselves, we must confess that we pride
ourselves in the Present precisely BECAUSE it was INCONCEIVABLE to the Prophets
of the Past. Scientific Teleology, as opposed to Traditional Progress, makes a
habit, as I have explained, of DISOWNING the Past in FAVOUR of the Present
Moment. Yet how are young people to avail themselves of this? After all: can
their ancestors not say that they PREDICTED that the Youth would make such
MISTAKES in the Future? One must, in order to defend Scientific Teleology, PRESUME
that such predictions were Impossible. No one can foresee the Future, nor is
anyone justified in directing its course.
Instead of looking back on Shady’s
early work and taking PRIDE in how far we have COME, in part BY AVENUE OF HIS
INFLUENCE, progressives in this school are happy to appropriate the results of
his daring innovations whilst disowning the Innovator. It is taken for GRANTED
that he OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN BETTER, DESPITE the presupposition that he could
NOT have known better, precisely BECAUSE HE LIVED IN OUR CULTURAL PAST.
The same principle may be applied
to European Philosophy. Progressives are happy to embrace Human Rights without
paying proper respects to those who CREATED Human Rights. Human Rights are
presumed to have always existed, inherently, within Nature. Yet how can they
have existed in Nature were they not fashioned by some sort of Intelligence
with its Own Plans for Progress?
IV.
The Intelligent Universe.
Those who do not study History are
not doomed merely to repeat it, but to appropriate it. We borrow the language
of the Past in order to justify the polar opposite in the Present. We may be
inventive in doing so, but we are certainly not Good, not even by our own
definitions, except for those which will be rendered moot within a year or so,
given our luck.
However, if every living generation
up until this point has known about these dangers, then have they not also,
presumably, been party to them? If so, how can we turn to ANYONE with the
intent of finding a credible Authority?
The answer is twofold: one is that
Authority need not be Perfect by the standards of a misguided Youth in order to
be credible. The other is that such an Authority may be derived from an
interpretation of the Universe which Science does not offer us: the Morally
Purposive One, wherein the Universe is Intelligent.
Not incidentally, both this former
theme of a “fallen” generation having inherited the errors of its progenitors,
as well as the Redemption of all generations, Living and Dead, Past, Present,
and Future, by contact with a Superior, Universal Intelligence, is nothing at
all new to Human Societies, nor is it peculiar to any one time or place in
Human Culture. Yet it is precisely this Dimension of Human Life, indispensable
to address the problems of Imminently Necessary Choice, which has been the most
systematically marginalized by those who fanatically insist that Science has
rendered it obsolete, as though it were in itself merely a dated form of Technology.
That Dimension is, of course, the Religious.
[({R.G.)}]
No comments:
Post a Comment