Towards a Greater Intelligence: Fourth Draft, I-VII.

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 gems.

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.

 

When the Scientific Method was developed, it was presumed that the World as Such was Intelligible. Yet what constitutes “Intelligibility”? When I read a Letter, I am interfacing with an Impersonal Object; when I use a photo camera, it has no feelings for which I should be concerned. Be all that as it may, should I record a video wherein I read a Public Letter denouncing Science as a System, how many critics will not comment, “but he used TECHNOLOGY to make this very film!!” Yet why should I owe this DEBT to Technology, and how does that serve as a WARRANT for contemporary Science? This appears to be the case because it is presumed Technology must be synonymous with Scientific Knowledge. The Scientific Logos has BLESSED these devices, imbibing them with its Spirit.

Perhaps that caricature is somewhat unjust, but it is not far from the Truth. When I read the Letter, I can INFER upon that Intelligence which drafted the Letter. I PROJECT my own Intelligence UPON the Unintelligent Object, just as I PROJECT upon the Camera the Scientific Knowledge necessary to develop this Device. Were that Scientific Knowledge incomplete, not only would the Device, which bears the Mark of its Maker, have never been Imagined; this Imagining could never have been actualized with Certainty as to the effectiveness of its Actualization. Science is Mother, Father, and Child, the entire Trinity we call Technology, all in one Process, whose Ways are Mysterious to us but nonetheless Absolutely Binding.

That the Intelligence of the Designer may be inferred from the Object I do not mean to contest, though I maintain that we can have no Scientific Knowledge which fully accounts FOR this Intelligence. We know how to use Science in order to develop Technology; we know NOT how to use Science to understand that same Process of Development. Ideas come to us always from the Mysteries of the Unconscious; they belong, therefore, to Existence as Such. Nor can we presume that those who develop Technology are in possession of an Absolute Knowledge, one which would warrant the presumed existence of an Absolute Science, simply because NOT ALL THEORIES WORK. Science produces the Theory; Technology determines, by its efficacy or inefficacy, within the bounds of its own Utilities, and according to the reports of those Human Subjects circumscribed by those Utilities, whether or not such an application of Scientific Theory is VALID and TRUE. Science is the Father; Technology is the Mother, and when either the Father misconceives or the Mother miscarries, this Holy Trinity falls apart, however temporarily. Neither party is an Absolute Authority, so neither party deserves our unquestioning prostration and slavish worship.

Considering how those who worship Science and Technology treat their opponents, especially when drunk at parties, it is clear that what it means to be an intelligible HUMAN BEING is not very different anymore from what it means to be an intelligible Letter or Camera. We call “stupid” or perhaps even “disabled” (a term as mechanistic as it is insulting) those who do not understand the “Obvious Truths” of Science. Often, we struggle to UNDERSTAND these people, so we PRESUME them to be Unintelligent. If they TRY to MAKE THEMSELVES Understood, we see the futility of our own Understanding as symptomatic of THEIR Unintelligence; if they struggle to understand US, we presume that they are simply to Unintelligent to do so. As such, the modern Scientific Positivist equates INTELLIGENCE with INTELLIGIBILITY. I cannot COMPREHEND those either more or less Intelligent than I, given a wide margin, hence I give them a wide berth, especially if I presume myself to Know myself to be more Intelligent. Nor can those of wildly different Intelligence hope to make sense of ME, so why bother arguing with idiots? Simply determine whether or not they will serve the Truth. There’s no need to establish Common Ground between Parties; simply determine the Other’s stance. If the Other is “Right”, then he or she will not resist me; if he or she is “Wrong”, what a fantastic opportunity to PROVE it, eloquently.

All of this I do not yet contest as valid. I only contest that it’s Ironic that these same Militant Positivists presume the UNIVERSE to be devoid of Purposive Intelligence. Recall the Camera; I can infer the Designer from the Object. A similarly analogous observation was made about the Watch. Yet was this not the PERFECT Analogy for Intelligent Design? “No,” say the Scientists, “for the World as Such needs no Designer in order to be UNDERSTOOD.” Yet if People and Objects cannot be considered “Intelligible” if they are not “Intelligent”, then how can the WORLD AS SUCH be considered Intelligible to the Modern Scientist?

It becomes clear, now, why those who initially developed the Scientific Method(s) believed in God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

V.              Atheistic Sexuality: the Crisis of Consenting Libertines.

Sexual Ethics are practically dead nowadays, though the drive to establish and control Sexuality remains at the forefront of the liberal consciousness which killed those Ethics.

Consider the manner in which pairings are made. That they are most often between consenting adults is a given; the manner in which this consent is ACQUIRED goes largely unexamined, as well as the distinction between positive and negative forms of conspiracy between "consenting adults". To some extent, the Libertarian Position is practically taken for granted: Consenting adults may enter into any sort of conspiracy which stands to benefit both parties. If such an alliance should stand to hurt any party outside of the consenting parties, that is of no moral consequence; if it should stand to hurt the parties involved, they both bear the blame, but that is all.

How often can we claim to be so impartial? How often instead do we hear talk of one of the consenting parties violating the other's "rights"? And how often yet must we take biased strides and leaps of faith in order to pick sides, abstracting from the conflict and reducing it to Ideology!!

More often than not, consent is not enough. We make our pairings based upon our whims and NOT based upon Social Custom. That is not to say that no Customs EXIST, but rather that they are not ABSOLUTES.

One Custom is what came to be regarded as "the Bro Code". In effect, it's little more than modern formal variations on the Code of Chivalry, a Classic Ethic from the European Middle Ages which is aimed as much towards Solidarity between Good Men as well as principles of how those Men ought to treat Women.

That this Ethic is not "dead" or ought to be preserved goes almost without saying. It's essential for all modern people not just to discern their Friends from Enemies, but ALSO to be clear about what that ENTAILS: how Friends behave towards Friends. While Friendly Competition can and does exist, it is DISTINCT from Enmity, chiefly because IT TOO requires our consent. That Enemies do not require my consent to competition is a given; that my FRIENDS require my consent to competition is Essential.

How would this appear to the Liberal Individualist who does NOT value Friendship, however? To her, Individual Consent is Everything. It is not the business of the Society to DECIDE what WARRANTS Consent; that's the Individual's Own Business. Yet how are we to resolve conflicts of interest between Individuals? Simply put: that Consent which is RECIPROCATED suffices, and ONLY that Consent suffices; all other forms of Consent are null and void, and those enterprises producing that Consent are invalid, immoral, and pathological.

In short: Individualism produces Mob Mentality. The Individual may be as Instrumental and Disloyal as he or she chooses to be, SO LONG AS another Individual, by no means his or her Superior in Dignity, stands allegedly to BENEFIT by a conspiracy of whims between the two. Since all Individuals are equally depraved, and since they are only redeemed by consensual pairings, the only SELFISH parties are those who are outvoted, presumably because they lacked the INDIVIDUAL qualifications to be the more attractive option in a Competition which they did not consent to, EVEN AMONG ALLEGED FRIENDS.

How does this pathologizing of the Unrequited Lover stand with Moral Theory, though? According to Kohlberg Psychology, these pairings are Conventional at BEST and pre-Conventional in Principle. While clinically MOST people will reason in such a manner, that means NOT to indicate that this is the ONLY nor the BEST way to Reason.

One surpassing appeal is that of Selflessness. Selfless Love is NOT the same sort of Love that wants only the Other to be Happy, deriving Happiness from the other's Happiness at one's own expense, for that is nothing more than an investment in Empathy and Good Cheer. Happiness and Love are often in direct opposition to one another, and rightfully so, for Love is something more akin to an Agon[y]: a Struggle for Self-Transcendence. The Pursuit of Happiness produces Misery by Default, for it is ALWAYS a Selfish Enterprise. The Pursuit of Love produces Meaning, which endures EITHER Misery OR Happiness, "in sickness and in health".

It thus follows that the Unrequited Lover is SUPERIOR to the Conventional Lover, since he can Love WITHOUT BEING LOVED IN RETURN. It is precisely this kind of Commitment which serves to WARRANT Love, which serves as a PREREQUISITE to Consummate Love, (which is now to be defined as a consensual pairing between two parties who WOULD love one another as unrequited lovers if they had not the privilege of one another's consent,) and as such it CAN be used to DETERMINE who is WORTHY of consent in any competition. Unrequited Love is also DEFENDED BY Chivalry, since it is not distorted by a consent which is founded purely on whim and Competition. The man who defends his "Bro[ther's Honour]" needs not concern himself with whether or not his Brother pursues a woman who "cares" for the suitor, since it should suffice that Friends regard Friends as Honourable and Worthy Candidates, lest they become Enemies and even Bitter Rivals.

That the Predecessor Culture HAD an internal consistency between its diverse appeals is thereby apparent. That the Modern Culture of Liberal Individualism lacks this is transparent. MacIntyre needs no further evidence for his thesis in After Virtue except by observing the most banal of human sexual pairings. That women had no say in the establishment of Chivalry goes also without saying, almost. Yet far more important is this point: that women, taking charge in Sexuality, have yet to give Good Men a System which is nearly as consistent, both externally and internally, sociologically as well as psychologically. It is perhaps for that reason that we hear so much talk of “toxic relationships” but not prescriptions for an effective antidote. Maybe that is why Eminem’s most honest work is being censored, as well as why it shouldn’t.

VI.          The Liberal Bureaucrat OR: Why the Robot Shrinks Believed I’d Vote for Trump.

Last year, I took a psychometric test that was aimed at determining whether I had the moral makeup of a Trump supporter or a Biden supporter. My results indicated that, according to my moral leanings, I was most likely to vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election. Of course: I am NOT a Trump supporter, but perhaps not for the same reasons as most people vote for Biden; in that sense, the test was very accurate, though probably not in the manner it was supposed to have been. To me, Joe Biden embodied the cliché of the President We Need, whereas Donald Trump had always been the President We Deserved.

Why would I say such a thing? In short, I agree with Slavoj Zizek: Trump is the most POSTMODERN president this country has ever had. By “postmodern”, what is meant is that he has an ethic NOT of Consistency but rather of Inclusion. How is this possible in an ostensibly “conservative” icon who comes off as a bigot? Put simply: Trump is NOT a conservative. Donald Trump panders to conservatives just as Joe Biden panders to liberals. Neither man can deliver on his promises, nor SHOULD he, for the People protest too much.

Donald Trump’s Twitter history alone stands as a testament to a man whose mind answers to no logical authority. He rattles off on tangents, citing platitudes left and right, (though mostly right) but there is nothing there resembling an overlying Plan or Ethic. Yet remove Trump from the platform, as the Twitter staff did, and it does not look much better. Twitter inevitably PRODUCED a persona like Trump because it perpetually facilitates a mind like Trump’s: an incessant, rambling stream of unconsciousness devoid of Meaning. Trump is “postmodern” because WE are, and in this sense too he is the consummation of liberal individualism.

Trump represents a project that is older than its own memory, an enterprise spanning three centuries and fraught with confusion. Whenever Trump appears dictatorial or authoritarian, it is nothing but the inevitable consequence of unchecked individuality. Whenever we are so passionate in resisting bureaucracy that we become bureaucratic towards others, we become-Trump. As such, the Trump Administration represented a unique challenge for the American People: to either own up to ourselves or to blame each other. Any one of us has BEEN-Trump at one point or another, but it takes courage to ACKNOWLEDGE that fact; it is far easier to blame others by projecting Trump UPON them, and that is precisely what we did.

By this I do not mean to say that people are not WORTHY of contempt, especially when they behave in a Trump-like manner. Yet Trump supporters are not alone in these behaviours, and if one wonders why the Liberal Media is so repressive and adamant about “canceling” any vestige of Trump’s influence, as well as the “dark history” that made him possible, it is only because Liberal Media refuses to acknowledge its OWN sacred values as emblematic of that same dark history. Without “human rights”, there can be no “racism”; without “sexism”, there can be no “feminism”; without “the Elite”, there can be no “Equality”. These are not mere Taoist platitudes; these are observable trends, for in fact it was the “Right to Property” which perpetuated Slavery long before it was called “racism”, it was Sexism which made possible the rise of Feminism, both as the opposition to AND the implementation OF sexist practices, and it is the drive to be Superior and to evade Inferiority which compels men and women to want to be “Equal”. The Cancel Culture is nothing more than Scapegoating and Shadow Projection: the polar OPPOSITE of what one would expect of a Progressive Society which takes it as a matter of COURSE that History is fraught with inferiority. Liberal Media suppresses “conservative” tendencies so as to cover up its OWN kinship to Trump.

The psychometric test I took was “iffy”. In general, it’s a bad idea to confuse emotions, ethics, and politics as though they were one unit. Psychometrics of this kind seek to assess an individual’s subjective, emotive responses to political issues in order to determine that individual’s moral “leanings”, in turn producing a prediction for how that individual will vote.

I do not mean to say that human beings are “much too complex” to be analyzed; it is rather that politics, ethics, and emotions are much too complex to be EQUATED. Political Decisions are often grave matters requiring our best show of objectivity; it’s not that there is no room for emotion in this field, but emotion cannot be the Driving Force. Conversely, it is MORALITY which produces both our political views AND our emotional responses, but this Morality, because it produces our emotional responses, is NOT the product OF our emotional responses, and often when we have a “change of mind” we undergo a “change of heart” as well. This change in both does not always mean that we will make predictable political decisions, however, since it’s possible that Maturity only compels us to see that NEITHER side is Right.

So: why do I maintain that Biden is the “right” choice? It is because he is a Moderate. Moderacy is not something I take pride in, yet it is necessary for the country NOW, for we have to recover from the lunacy and extremism of the Trump Administration. This is not to say that I BLAME Trump for this lunacy; he is our scapegoat and a fitting mascot for the Zeitgeist. The reason I appear to be a Trump supporter is that, while I DO support Biden, I do NOT think like so many of his other supporters. Biden supporters, according to this test, think entirely in terms of liberal platitudes, by no means more sensible or informed than Trump’s otherwise harmless antics. Biden APPEARS to these people as Trump appeared to the American “conservative”. It takes, perhaps, a man like Biden to see the TRUE Biden: a much-needed reprieve.

 

VII.      A Tale of Five Black Men: Simpson, King, Smalls, Porgy, and Cosby.

 

People are not concerned about murder. People are concerned about judgement. O.J. Simpson got off because the Court was somehow duped into considering itself unqualified to judge of his crimes. Rodney King did not inspire a wave of devastating riots because he got away with drunk driving, but rather because those who sought to punish him for his crimes got away with using extreme force. No one has really expressed much concern for the highly documented and even celebrated murders of African American men in African American communities. One gapes in awe at the Black Lives Matter movement, since it seems delayed by such a margin. I’d already grown desensitized to the Notorious B.I.G.’s tales of gun violence towards his fellow black men; I was inwardly praying for the Police to finally put an end to this epidemic of murder.

Then I saw Porgy and Bess and witnessed a black character murdering his fellow with a meat hook. The few people “not of colour” in this play sought piously to bring the Villain to Justice, even surrendering various social niceties and elements of due process in the process: a smart move, considering that to operate within such confines is bureaucracy. Yet the inhabitants of Catfish Row resisted the investigation with inexplicable bias, and ultimately the Hero had to murder the Villain and thereby become the Villain before the show concluded. As the Opera ended on his most quixotic and megalomaniacal note, the audience cheered for all the actors, though they booed ironically the actors who portrayed the Officers of Law, actors who in their turn accepted the contempt their characters accrued with bows and smiles.

I was astounded. I was promised I would see “oppression” and “community”, but all of the “oppression” that I witnessed came from right WITHIN that same “community” that was supposed to have been its antithesis. The Villain’s actor, interviewed, insisted that he WAS no “Villain”; rather, he was like a “dog” that needed to be “trained”. Yet who would train him? Clearly: not those qualified to do so by Authority of Law. Thus his oppression would persist to an extreme, yet even in the aftermath of this extreme his vindicator would refuse to look him in the face and own up to the guilt of that same sin that in the gospel of that same community was an offence against the Lord of ALL Men.

This is perhaps the consequence of Liberal Individualism, though Communitarianism is not immune to it. Liberal Individual Society, especially EGALITARIAN Individualist Society, treats Judgement as though it were a fate worse than death and a sin worse than murder. If all distinctions of Authority are false, by whose Authority can I be judged a Villain? Who then are the Heroes? It’s no wonder that the Damsel in Distress, at one point central as an archetype, is now considered a taboo. Yet where is the Heroism in saving one’s SELF? Is it not EVIL to say that no one WANTS Salvation?

Communitarianism is not much help. I can stand up for my TRIBE, but ONLY for my Tribe. I am prone to resist interference from the Dominator Culture, though by the standards of that Culture those whom I resist are simply representing THEIR Tribe and that God of Retribution which our Tribes might share in Common. In the process, I hurt BOTH Tribes and become a sinner in the eyes of that same God, except if I presume that God would wish my enemy to live and sin a little longer so that *I* might be the one to punish him.

In context it is no more surprising that Bill Cosby was imprisoned than the fact that O.J. Simpson was not. While Simpson “represented” the Plight of the African American Man, Cosby had renounced the depravity of his culture’s tendencies towards violent crime and instead “represented” the Wealthy and Law-abiding Man. As such, the temptation was to expose his underlying HYPOCRISY. Cosby came to REPRESENT the Plight of the Unwealthy Woman, though he was only betrayed by that same Legal System he condoned when he too became the victim of a vigilante bypass of due process. Our OWN “hypocrisy” proved greater, and the Black Man was yet again reduced to a Symbol in the hands of Idealogues, no more Human in the Public Eye than Trump or Biden.

[({R.G.)}]