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.
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 similar analogy 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 updates to 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.
[({R.G.)}]
