Social
Science and Philosophy for Unbroken Minds
Wim
Rietdijk
|
|
Relativism and
dogma about values have in common that both withdraw such values from the
domain of rational argument, so that they can be adjusted to vested interests
and egoism. This explains why dogma and relativism were or are so popular. |
|
(1) Values and
Purposes; the Scientifization of Utopia, Religion and Messianism
Basic insights
1. Science, technology and the values of the
Enlightenment are unrivalled in having sound credentials with respect to
solving our problems of life, on the understanding that there is much
similarity between the Enlightenment and the Sermon on the Mount.
2. Earlier I wrote: “Happiness is a question of
information and genes”. This holds because genes and information define both
our longings and the means to fulfil them.
3. Point 2. implies 1. to be irrefutable because
all our problems of life are associated with (fostering) happiness (compare 4.
below) whereas, on the other hand, science, technology and enlightened values
(i. e., such ones that can be rationally legitimised) are indeed unrivalled as
to produce more information and – in the future – better genes.
4. Within this scope, enlightened or rational
values are precisely those tending to optimise happiness (and reduce
unhappiness). This can easily be demonstrated:
a) I feel it to be undesirable to be killed, robbed, sick,… and
according to my best information others are in a similar position.
b) Then it is rational if the others and I agree that we will try to optimise
our joint happiness, inter alia, by trying to reduce killings, robbery
etc. and by fostering well-being in general. For instance, if, by sacrificing
some happiness (and compensate in feelings to have done well), I can cause my
fellow-man to experience more happiness, ethic should prescribe me to do so.
c) No other standards or guideline can be rationally argued to be
objectively desirable but the relevant optimisation of happiness.
Think of the honour of homelands,
chastity or convention. Their possible desirability is pure dogma or
assumption.
d) An important conclusion is that in all cases in which a number of
alternatives appear as to our course of action, while, at the same time, it
cannot be rationally argued or reasonably surmised which among such
alternatives will optimise total happiness, our relevant choice is morally
indifferent (as regards the only thing that matters: happiness).
e) The above does not exclude that, say, religious intuitions such as in the
New Testament may (in the long run) sometimes be “wiser than our calculations
about optimising happiness”. In actual fact, we humans still know little about
many “deep laws”, whereas in various questions other than ethics intuition also
led the way as compared with reason. Still, optimising happiness overwhelms
convention, myth and dogma as to moral credentials…
5. In all, ethics is the economics of
well-being,
simply because nothing else but the latter (including the reduction of
unhappiness) can rationally or by experience be found to be objectively desirable. This
amounts to a rational basis of values, purposes and Utopia.
Former
theory on this from Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was not quite consistent in two
respects. First, the principle of optimisation was not extended to mankind as a
whole (and animals) but only applied to individuals and the social associations
they belong to. Second, Bentham and his followers did not turn against
Victorian morals, aggressive wars and many stifling conventions that brought
much unhappiness.
6. The preceding five points are so cogent and
relatively simple to understand that it can only be influences beyond reason –
i.e., big interests, repression and taboos – that prevented their being
understood much earlier. This would have implied the substitution of major
parts of conventional philosophy, social policy and our priorities.
In
this context note that during most of history and in about all civilizations
the happiness of the people was far from getting any precedence. Not even
integrity was used to be taken very serious.
What
science, technology and rational values can concretely do as to the problems of
life such as anxiety, uncertainty, sex, competition, evil, the survival enigma
and the meaning of existence
7.
On a general level, they can do much by improving both genes and information,
which has important consequences for health, human faculties, virtues and
sexual attractiveness and by fostering efficient markets in information, love
partners, jobs etc., in connection with which measuring an individual’s
qualities is also vital. Inter alia,
think here of internet and “gene passports”.
8.
They can also fight lying (lie-detectors, brain-wave research, speech
analysis,…) and make research into near-death experiences and out-of-the-body
phenomena, which is relevant to the questions of survival and the meaning of
life.
As
human preferences and intentions can be better measured eventually, much can be
done against evil. This is an aspect of continuing the Enlightenment into the
intimate and the unconscious rather than “accept man as he is”. The idea of
progress gets real body this way… It actually amounts to bringing destiny to an
increasing degree under rational and moral control.
9.
The meaning of life is not a question of subjective ideas but of (information
about) an objective model of the world that allows for
a) plausible substantial progress as to happiness and, hence, as to solving
man’s problems of life;
b) an ultimate prevalence of good on evil;
c) information about a possible survival after death and its relevance to the
meaning of existence.
The
best hope for the righteous is not myth or sorcery but the laws of nature
appearing to be so much coherent and subtle – also on a more-than-local scale –
that destiny, including survival after death, will reflect and answer to the
qualities and deepest longings of our psyche and actions.
Further
realize that for a true scientifization of religion – up to and including the emotional domain – various primary emotions,
such as about beauty, integrity, sex, music and overcoming evil, should be
associated with the elevated and an “ultimate harmony of things”.
On
the contrary – compare traditional clergies –, most current intellectuals will
waste their time on secularised theology about “being”, “nothingness”,
“alienation”, “philosophy of language”, “the limits of language”, “abstract”
art, egalitarian ideology (political correctness) etc., that has nothing to do
with any coherent model of facts and their relations, that is, of the world.
Finding such coherence – i.e., science – is also the best weapon against
evil, such as troubled waters and malevolence.
10.
In the West, “sacred” theology has indeed been succeeded by a secularised
variant. Partly parallel with this is a tendency of very down-to-earth
attitudes characterised by much interest in every-day matters, even in
literature, and a complete absence of the elevated, in connection with intense
emotions or in general. Savouring the ordinary became the dominating way of
life, apart from the directly practical.
Actually,
formerly one used to associate the elevated with the wrong things – such as the
mother of God or the Eucharist – and currently one will not experience it in
connection with anything more-than-subjective at all. One does not think of
whatever elevated as an aspect of the universe. Such “irreligious” attitude
will not generate much inspiration with respect to either a Utopia or even
progress, apart from the practical short term… Often the only thing sacred
which remains will be man as he is himself.
A
vital point: the scientifization of religion
11. Most modern believers do not see an unbridgeable gap
between the Bible (Genesis) and evolution: add long-term coherence to the
latter – to the complex of natural laws – and you see an inspired rather than
coincidental development, according to a conception.
Our
position is that a similar “scientifization” of a religious tenet or model may
be applied to the essence of religion more generally, in the sense that
a) “God” is the mind and soul of the universe as a whole similarly to how man’s
mind is so of his biological organism. That is, without such mind violating any
natural law; only coordinating such laws, or rather: reflecting their
coherence. No miracles, and no sorcery;
b) Natural law is indeed much more coherent than was hitherto assumed, also to
the effect that the world – human destiny included – is considerably less
coincidental, and somehow “organic”, as compared with current conceptions. The
latter start with locally operative causal laws as the only rigorously
operative ordering principle in the universe. Meanwhile, physics discovered
non-locally operative phenomena, such as in the famous paradox of Einstein,
Podolsky and Rosen. They may reflect hitherto unknown coherence. (See the two
pages on physics on this website.)
(2) The Moral Level of our
Establishment
So many instances of moral inadequacy of those in
power appear that righteous and educated people cannot anyhow respect them as a
group (i.e., the establishment). They produced, or acquiesced in, too many
non-coincidental abuses for too long. We enumerate some unforgivable specimens,
too serious and too protracted for being compatible with the idea of our
establishment(s) to be in good faith.
1.
Whistle-blowers are often fired or frustrated without the authorities doing
much.
2.
In the juridical domain finding the truth is systematically prejudiced by many
technicalities, “privacy”, the right to non-cooperation and the concept of
“unlawfully obtained evidence”.
3.
In most countries multi-offenders are not interned for good, this only giving
more work and income to lawyers.
4.
Many taboos – an unofficial variant of censorship – continue to exist, such as
about “nature” and “nurture” and in connection with political correctness in
general, about euthanasia (also with respect to seriously handicapped
newborns), about the IQ-level of various categories of immigrants, and about
eugenics.
5.
On the one side most people feel that, inter alia, in politics, lying abounds but, on the other, nobody in the
establishment suggests to introduce lie-detection-controlled interviewing of
whole groups of politicians, officials and others. Think of interviewing Dutch
Representatives about a question like: “Did you feel relief after the murder of
Pim Fortuyn (a dissident Dutch politician) in 2002?”. Also examine relevant
Belgian officials, lawyers etc. about cover-ups in the Marc-Dutroux case. Or
interrogate all New-York officials and trade-union figures who play any part in
harbour policy about any possible role of the Mafia. Lie-detectors having a
margin of error of about 15 %, the relevant interviews of whole groups would produce much interesting material.
6.
The establishment appears to be indifferent to the fact that highly educated
women statistically will have (considerably) less offspring than lowly educated
women. This shows that human genetic quality is far from being a priority for
our leaders…The same thing appears from objections to the compulsory
sterilisation of multi-recidivists, chronic anti-socials and mentally retarded
people.
7.
Our authorities did little against highly cartelised professional groups who
ask artificially high fees. E.g., in April 2004 it appeared that Dutch
orthodontists had an average net income of 365,000 euro. The authorities only
obliged them to reduce their fees by 10 %… Also, US authorities tolerate that
25,000 cotton farmers receive a yearly subsidy of $ 2.3 billion from
development organization Oxfam (NRC Hb., 4/27/2004).
8.
In The Netherlands government for decades tolerated the squatting of buildings
and houses, as well as that people were forced to move because of their being
inconvenienced systematically by problem youths or neighbours. In the latter
case too the authorities did practically nothing.
The above also shows that the gap between, on the one side, the mentality of
the establishment appearing from it, and my work on the other side, is
unbridgeable. I “innerly emigrated”, whereas the other party refused to discuss
with me (which does not give evidence of moral strength). Still, from a
scientific point of view I have the advantage of not sharing the repressions of
those who adjusted themselves.
(3) On the Essential Dogmas and
Errors in our Culture (and an Enumeration of Some)
1.
Error: Paradox and incoherence have their legitimate places
in the universe and human life. One should not consider the world and human
existence from the standpoint of a consistent and in principle understandable
model M of everything that exists or happens. Also, one should restrict
oneself to arguing about human
experience and impressions. Note here that in microphysics by far most experts
no longer try to construct imaginable models of reality.
2.
Dogma: Both the individual and the community have a
“primary inviolability and independence” in the sense that on the one side
reason and coherence in a scientific meaning, and on the other side values,
valuation and purpose are mutually independent so that such individual and
community to a high degree have the right to freely choose values etc. In some respects man, values and culture escape from
scientific research and valuation. (Compare this standpoint with Section (1)
points 4. and 5., which show it to be logically untenable.)
3.
Two among current (Western and other) “free choices” are
a) One should not consider specific individuals to be genetically inferior
(fundamental egalitarianism, anti-eugenics);
b) In consequence of (1), points 4. and 5., also many other values, conventions
and taboos cannot be uphold by rational argument, that is, by calling on their
positive function in optimising total happiness – but they still prevail. Think
of various “solidarities” with ethnic or other groups that have no relevance to
rational values, of political correctness and, e.g., of taboos with respect to
lie-detection and radical reform of law enforcement to the detriment of
wrongdoers.
Finally
note that both a) and b) have relevance to the relation of individual and
group, and to our standpoint about evolution.
4.
Dogma: Our leaders are roughly in good faith. Social evils
are merely temporary errors or unintended results of good intentions rather
than – just as ideology – subtle and rather unconscious means (or concomitants
thereof) that serve group interests as contrasted with the common good and
objective morality. Good intentions will also generally underlie taboos such as
about sex, immigration, eugenics, and as to a radical reform of law enforcement
so as to make finding the truth prevail on technicalities, privacy and rights
of the defendant.
5.
Philosophical thought will be so confused and superficial that it is not even
realised that prevalent relativism implies that the Holocaust and torturing
children for amusement are not objectively wrong and might legitimately be
chosen by a culture as part and parcel of it.
Two
more inconsistencies ensuing from such confusion are:
a) Positing a contrast of reason and emotion, though in actual fact emotion is
a natural phenomenon just as the eruption of a volcano, about which reason and
science can argue and experiment like with respect to other phenomena;
b) There is some discrepancy between the pleasure principle and performance
ethic. Actually, performance is a driving force of progress which, in turn, is
a condition for the increase of happiness.
(4) Current Religion: Worshipping Man
As He Is
1.
Many of the dogmas and errors indicated above are implications of the “religion
of man”, which contains man as he is to be the ultimate measure of everything.
A God so much inviolable that even euthanasia, using DNA material for solving
crimes, eugenics and applying lie-detectors will constitute serious problems
for true believers.
2.
God in heaven becoming less and less plausible – by both modern science and the
extreme sufferings on this planet –, most people “withdrew the projection of
God to the Earth”, to themselves and the visible such as their social
environment, which became their ultimate basis and mainstay. This did not only
happen because of the above “macro-philosophical” reasons but also consequent
on more down-to-earth developments such as democratisation and commercials
taking everybody serious (“the consumer is king”), and because of the mentality
in business in which our image (the opinion and judgment of others) is the
ultimate thing that matters. (Also think of Riesman’s other-directed
personality.) In all, man’s preferences, prejudices and beliefs became
something deserving the greatest respect, which contributed much to his
becoming a kind of secularised God.
(5) As Many New Explanations and
Theories Would Violate Current Religion and Taboos, They Are Repressed,
Stagnation in Socio-Cultural Thought Being a Result
1.
In the times of Marx, Pareto, Veblen, Weber and Mannheim democracy and free
speech were less developed than now. But, on the other hand, an educated individual
used to be more an individual indeed. For the barrage of media levelling,
the other-directed attitude, fashion, hype and image, teamwork, bureaucracy and massive peer pressure, and a flood of information that prevents
many to see the wood for the trees, still were
in their infancy.
The
net result could be – and very probably is – that the “institutionalisation” of
the intelligentsia, the socialization of thinking and Ortega y Gasset’s man-in-the-crowd
phenomenon, also with respect to the educated
classes, prevailed on what we gained as to freedom of thought, so that, on
balance, conformism increased. In this context also
think of a massive interweaving of interests, and a deliberation and meeting
culture.
2.
In actual fact, we indeed saw socio-cultural theory-building and substantial
explanation almost shrink out of existence during about the last three-quarters
of a century. Hardly any socio-cultural idea bringing something from its place
turned up… Exposure is out. Current sociology concedes that Machiavelli’s
thesis to the effect that political actors will mislead us is largely correct,
and that Marx’s, Mannheim’s, Schelsky’s and Gouldner’s arguing that ideologies
will disguisedly make special interests pass for the common good, is correct too.
But social science emanates that, of course, all of this does not refer to
our own concrete political parties, vested interests, political correctness and
humouring taboos and the powers that be. Our own
establishments, leftists and rightists have only the best intentions, and
ideology is a thing of the past.
3.
Major current dogmas that repressed many new insights are relativism,
egalitarianism, and an associated position of emphasizing “nurture” as against
“nature”. These, inter alia, prevented
sociology from seeing that
a) The massive increase of crime in the past half-century resulted from
inferior genes being confronted with permissiveness rather than an
uncompromising horror of evil;
b) Most social problems, in Western and other societies, resulted from bad
genes and inferior values rather than from many being “socially disadvantaged”
or “discriminated”. The experimentally evident circumstance that individuals,
races and social classes will have genes and values of different (average)
quality (e.g., as to IQ, delayed gratification and integrity) is repressed by
relativism, egalitarianism and political interests.
4.
Relativism and egalitarianism also obscured or repressed the insight that laws
and procedures only trouble many waters if they are not mere instruments to
support good against evil and efficiency and progress against stagnation.
As
regards immigration policy, relativistic and egalitarian dogma or ideology
repressed the single most relevant aspect of it: how valuable is an immigrant,
as to IQ and other largely genetic qualities, as to education and as to value
system? From this standpoint, e.g., Jews should be more welcome than many
others. Both leftists and rightists ignore this.
In
the same vein, both egalitarianism and current “religion of man” frustrate
insights about eugenics and euthanasia applied to the incurably demented or
insane, and to seriously handicapped newborns.
5.
Relativism and egalitarianism, jointly with commercialisation, are also
co-responsible for a massive dulling and degradation – as to the media and
education – because John Doe and the lowest common denominator became the
standard, and are taken very seriously, not only in elections but also as
regards psychological level. Think here of Ortega y Gasset and his “man-in-the-crowd”.
6.
Relativism and egalitarianism undermine both the idea of progress and that of
human genetic quality. This not only repressed many sociological explanations
(about crime, underclasses, educational results,…) but also the contrast of left
and right. Largely abandoning the idea of progress, the modern “liberal” left
became the pressure-group of “the disadvantaged”, that is, largely, genetic
rearguards. This had indeed much influence on the policies as to crime, social
relations and education. Rather than concentrating on the support of the
victims of evil, “solidarity” tended to extend to society (and its order) as a
whole. This both benefited the status quo and repressed much moral indignation
about social abuses and the fate of victims, from those of crime and
anti-socials to whistle-blowers.
Within
this scope, underclasses, problem youth, addicts and the like should not evoke
solidarity but indignation.
7.
Abandoning the ideas of progress, objective evil and the variation of genetic quality
– among individuals, social groups
and regions on the Earth – detracts much of any coherent model of the world.
For example, many social inequalities and conflicts get “a coincidence”, most
prejudices, taboos and ideology become unintentional rather than unconsciously
fostering interests, and social evils are no longer objective evil at all.
Quite
a few problems becoming unsolvable this way (e.g., from the starting point of
genetic egalitarianism leading to softness on crime, massive redistribution,
endless educational reforms, positive discrimination etc.), many
bureaucracies and “problem solvers”
keep on being busy. This, too, of course,
is a mere coincidence according to the relevant egalitarian ideology. (Note
that in redistribution and the helping bureaucracy much more money is at stake
than in the military-industrial complex!)
8.
There is one more important psychological consequence of current relativism,
other-directedness and commercialisation. That is, they will tend to induce
social and other non-beta scientists and authors to give priority to wide
circulation, and approval by the media and peers, rather than the inner
conviction of having produced important new ideas.
Generally, social relations and success get precedence on truth and objective
values in the relevant frame of mind…
9.
We can see particularly clearly how much, inter alia, the erosion of the idea of progress and the “institutionalisation” of
the left (and its association with rearguards) confused the antithesis between
“left” and “right”, by establishing that chasing Saddam Hussein and the
ayatollah regime is much more opposed by the left than by the right. On the
other hand, “progressives” will feel even more sympathy than the right for
downright unreason like Dada,
Cobra, Finnegan’s Wake and absurdist theatre like Pinter’s. It has even been
observed that since the sixties left and right changed places (viz. by the prominent Dutch publicist Hendrik-Jan Schoo).
10.
A pre-eminent instrument of power was and is “solidarity” – national,
religious, ethnic, class and other (think of political correctness and
other-directedness). All kinds work like nationalism, which has been called “an
instrument to make the many exert themselves for the benefit of the few”. In
essence they are operative by making everybody actually rally around the
leaders, the in-crowds, common ideologies (that foster interests),…
Controversy, criticism of particular groups, accusations and deeming others to
be in bad faith simply do not fit in such “sociability”; they also undermine
authority. More often than not, solidarity will be kindred with conformism,
also in “members” tending not to violate common taboos etc.
About
all solidarities except those around rational values and purposes – integrity,
optimum happiness,… – have serious drawbacks.
Currently
dominating solidarity is that of other-directedness, group-mindedness,
political correctness and “the religion of man” [compare (4)]. It has similar conforming effects as former ones and, therefore,
contributes much to the stagnation of socio-cultural thought we also discuss
here.
11.
Friedrich von Hayek wrote that intellectuals tend to be very dependent on the
opinion of their peers because most among them have not many original things to
say and merely pass on second-hand knowledge and ideas, so that they will not
have much of themselves to rely on. We can add that businessmen, farmers,
doctors and workers will produce more concrete products, visible services or
make money as a source of self-esteem. The products of most intellectuals
mostly are very dependent on subjective factors such as opinion or fashion.
In
agreement with this, most intellectuals indeed produce mainly “fashionable
products” and “imponderables in the nth
dimension” (the expression is Veblen’s, who referred to religion). Compare here
lengthy discussions of concepts like “being”, “alienation”, “emptiness”, “the
Unknowable” and “language” apart from what emotion or thought it expresses.
And, of course, think of “imponderables” about incoherent art and myriads of
paraphrases of what other intellectuals produced. Evidently, this leads to much
mutual dependence and conformism, especially in an atmosphere of relativism, subjectivism and
other-directedness. That is, we see one more cause of current stagnation of
socio-cultural thought being explained.
(6) What Mechanisms Keep the
Establishment in Power and Frustrate Rational Values and Action?
1.
We already extensively discussed this subject elsewhere. In this section, we
mainly summarize this and add some points.
The
essential instrument of all power not intended to serve the common good – the
well-being of the public – is anyhow to frustrate reason, rational values
and/or awakened, free and coherent emotions. Vital specimens of such frustration
are violence, censorship, obscure bureaucracy and troubled waters in general,
an underdeveloped public, and ideological manipulation. By rational values we
understand such values that can be legitimised by reason, which means that they
are attuned to optimising well-being [compare Sect. (1)]. In other words, they fit in the “red thread of enlightenment” that
constitutes the core of socio-cultural evolution and a central conception in my work.
2.
From about World War II on the pre-eminent anti-enlightened ideological power
instrument was and is the idea that “the world is incoherent, man is
irrational, values or even truth are relative or subjective, and (therefore)
progress and a coherent scientific model of
reality are impossible”.
Existentialism,
postmodernism, emphasizing “fundamental uncertainty”, modern incoherent art,
the conviction that “the world is not makable”, anti-intellectualistic
educational reforms, relativistic sociology and the thesis that values are a
matter of subjective choice are current manifestations of the above core idea.
The latter actually amounts to a counter-revolution against reason by troubling intellectual waters fundamentally.
It
works in a similar direction that such barrage of information and opinions will
overflow us that anyone’s failure to answer an argument will remain unobserved
by about everybody, which highly means the end of serious discourse. It became a mere option
to go into arguments and, moreover, hardly anyone still sees the wood for the
trees.
3.
The spirit of my work is the utmost opposite of the “studiedly troubling
waters” described in 2. This very logically is a major cause of its being
opposed or hushed up. For, not being to the point is an essential “tactic” of
the orthodoxy, i.e., an implementation of taboo and repression that my work
explains to be an unconsciously applied ideological instruments of irrational
power. Censorship, sexual or other taboos, unwillingness of putting any cat
among the pigeons and loathing “abdominal sentiments” all have an aspect of
intentionally not being to the point.
4.
Keeping waters troubled, and everything very “complicated”, obscure or
confused, is indeed an effective instrument of power. For example, it appears
in opinion polls that most people find the status quo to be so complicated and power so anonymous that they actually feel powerless.
Also
realize that relativism works in favour of the status quo: nothing else is objectively better, and criticizing the establishment
is a mere question of subjective opinion.
5.
The “elites” preach “solidarity” [for similar reasons why they often use(d)
national solidarity for rallying people around them], but their main inadequacy
is that they themselves will be far from solidary with the victims of social
abuse and of the inferior, not even with whistle-blowers and the victims of
special interests or nuisance. This, and indeed many cases of benefiting
special interests, and of leaving alone profiteers of abuses, amount to serious
moral failure, causing the establishment not to deserve moral authority or even
respect. It lacks the strength and/or the will to radically enforce integrity,
efficiency and justice.
(7) On the Contribution of Individual
Psychology to Major Power Mechanisms
1.
All orthodoxy, ideology and manipulation of the masses are a compromise of
interests of the ruling classes and those of the (often manipulated) “rank and
file” individuals, such as the latter’s need of safety, status, self-respect
etc.
2.
In recent decades we see a new (unintentional) variant of “the
counter-revolution against reason” in the shape of the masses (and elites)
being flooded with impressions, amusement, opinions, contradictory interests
calling on individuals, and mutually jarring roles to be played. The result is incoherence,
uncertainty and a tendency to confusion and relativism. Such inner “chaos”
badly fits in with an enlightened transparency and order of emotions, values
and intellectual activity and, therefore, amounts to an anti-enlightened social
factor.
3.
Apart from practical reasons, an individual essentially needs the community and
its culture to reduce aggression, anxiety and jungle competition, and further
for appreciation. It is obvious that such individual needs also contribute(d)
much to phenomena like religion, nationalism, egalitarianism and various other
kinds of solidarity and group-mindedness such as other-directedness and
conformism.
Also,
individuals will need “something greater than themselves” – charismatic
leaders, a “movement”, an ideology, an ethnic group, an integrating belief,
etc. – to confer personal risk and responsibility to, and to derive an identity
and mainstay from. They need “solidarity” with the group just as they
(formerly) sought it via religion and, in a sense, worship the community to a
considerable degree, more often than not repressing its negative features such
as, e.g., discussed on these pages.
Now
compare this with the interests the establishment, too, has in emphasizing
solidarity and the group. I.e., remind our earlier quotation about nationalism
and the exertions of the many. From this an unconscious compromise between the
interests of the rulers and the masses becomes obvious. This argument also
contains that, where I criticise the establishment and an associated “orthodoxy”
– from the old rightism and sexual taboos to political correctness and modern
art – I actually attack a (secularised) religion,
which makes many unhappy.
By
unconscious instinct, the powers that be will not seldom foster uncertainty,
anxiety, guilt feelings or aggression in order to stimulate the above
mechanisms tending to cement solidarity and stimulate group integration.
History abounds of examples about foreign enemies, witches, Jews, a clergy
pushing guilt feelings, persecutions of “public enemies”,…
4.
In actual fact, solidarity and community-building are positive as far as their
leading values and purposes are rational rather than a compromise of the ruling
oligarchy of vested interests (establishment) and the masses, as discussed
above. That is, solidarity and community-building should primarily serve the
union of forces in the service of
progress, efficiency, justice and mutual support rather than anxiety,
uncertainty, confusion and ideological manipulation playing a part.
We
partly derive the above insights from Eric Hoffer (The True believer, 1989) who emphasizes that, especially in religion and totalitarian
ideologies, individuals tend to transfer much of their responsibilities, risks,
failures and (therefore) freedom to “a greater whole” in order to feel safer
and (re)gain self-esteem (that can now be derived from such whole).
5.
All wars, persecutions, exploitation, oppression and other social abuses in
modern society did result from fateful cooperation of establishments and the masses
as discussed above. (Earlier, the part played by the masses was often more
modest.)
6.
In current society as well as in previous ones most people live in an
emotional, moral and intellectual “uniform” that goes with the “greater whole”
they want to belong to. They will not really think about, say, a politically
correct or other “orthodox” standpoint that is part of the “complex” into which
they integrate. People recognise each other by such “uniform”. Also in such way
“collusions” of individuals or interests comes into being. In this context,
also think of old-boys networks, networking in general, students’ unions,
bureaucracies, political parties, and also of various “sub-cultures” as to
speech, clothing etc. In all of them, conformism is a common feature.
Most
successful people owe their careers to a considerable extent to these kinds of
“adjustment”, which makes them dependent on and solidary with the relevant
ambiance. They realize that if
their career would not have been “helped” by various contacts, and by “joining
in the game”, it could very well have turned out less positive… For example,
very many academics do not owe their position to original thinking and
concomitant new discoveries. Paraphrasing the right peers, consistently
dropping the right names and having the right friends will help at least as
much. Massive conformism is an obvious result.
In
the business community selling oneself, one’s image and one’s product plays a
similar part. Other-directness did not come from the mere blue sky…
7.
No ideologist or whomever openly chooses for evil. Actually, those wanting to
shield the powerful or social abuses does not say so but, for example, asserts
that good and evil are quite relative.
Those
hating reason do not say so either, but extensively review Merleau-Ponty,
postmodernists, absurd theatre and “modern art”. Similarly, those wanting to
keep people underdeveloped and to conform them do not explicitly advertise this
but opt for egalitarian education, shifting priority from the intellectual to
the “social” dimension. Education should “join with the world of experience of
the pupil”. More generally, those liking conformism say that people should be
more “social”. (In actual fact, the truly “social” means “moral in a rational
sense” rather than group-orientation.)
Those
not liking discussion about substance turn against the “controversial”; we
should not criticise sub-groups in society or major actors in it, for they
belong too. And if, say, the powers that be want superficiality and here-and-now-primitiveness,
even “quality papers” seriously discuss “rappers”, “hip-hop” and literature
focusing on banal things experienced by banal people.
The
above social phenomena are specimens of
how compromises as referred to earlier come about; that is, compromises
between interests of the establishment and propensities of the rank and file.
Ideological manipulation will often play an essential part here. For example,
relativism helps the public in not feeling very responsible, inter alia, about social evils. Further, anti-intellectualistic education is
easier and prevents “a dichotomy in society” from appearing. Avoiding “the
controversial” puts the majority more at ease. Joining in cheap amusement
speaks for itself…
8.
Within the scope of 7. also the compromise the counter culture embodies is very
relevant: on the one side we see a prevalence of here-and-now superficiality, the occasional and incoherence
(fine for the establishment), on the other side self-indulgence and an aversion
to delayed gratification and “performance ethics” appear and, therefore,
ultimately a consumers’ mentality (fine for both the consumption industry and
the “indulgers”). Small wonder that the relevant “nonconformists” and
“revolutionaries” travelled from one interview to the next television
appearance…
In
the same vein, a general softness towards rearguards – who pass for victims of
their environment: the “nurture” position, the “nature” one being well-nigh
taboo here – does not only serve lawyers and the helping bureaucracies very
well but also has a tendency of freeing the general public from responsibility
and guilt feelings: their own shortcomings, indolence or non-performance are
excused too. Also think of relativism and egalitarianism in this context.
9.
In one more important respect not only the establishment but also the general
public has an interest in the “counter-revolution against reason”. Think of
many illusions, empty status symbols (from cars to branded clothes), habits of
thought, self-deceit,… That is, if reason would be consistently applied, what
would rest of the self-respect of those busying themselves with “abstract art”,
social games, royalty, manipulation, irrational philosophy, fashions of many
kind or other things only resting on convention? Also think of bureaucrats
producing ever more complicated regulations or who busy themselves with
“questions of competence” (which will absorb 20 % of their working week in The Netherlands). What would rest of
their self-image as soon as rational values and purposes, integrity and
efficiency would become what God and
convention were in the past?! Further think of
lawyers who are not attuned to truth and justice but to technicalities,
loopholes and myriads of “rights”, and of those many involved in “games people play”…
All
such institutionalised inveracities and hypocrisy would be in danger by any
continuation of the enlightenment to the unconscious and the intimate, which
will ultimately also result in “everything being measured of everybody”. Small
wonder that the gist of these pages – a gradual pushing back of deceit and
troubled waters, and their substitution by science and transparent coherence –
is unpopular with both the establishment and many among the public.
General
conclusion: The world would see a protracted
“massacre of St. Bartholomew of
privileges, irrational power, deceit, hypocrisy and falseness” if the
enlightened tendencies discussed here would indeed gradually prevail on the
“varnished jungle” and its profiteers we now witness for quite a long time. Note
that such prevalence simply amounts to a
continuation of the process of progress we already saw for more than a millennium – progress as to reason , the rationalization of values
and emotional awakening and coherence –, so
that it is actually not very bold to predict it. (In fact, it arises suspicion that so few predict it; a lot of people probably do not like it.) It will also continue to work to the detriment of myriads of wanglers
and fiddlers of all kinds, precisely as in the past.
The
historic Enlightenment was a mere episode in a more comprehensive process.
Currently, the latter’s essence – apart from progress in techno-science – is
our realization that, just as winning the war had precedence on about
everything else in 1943, truth, justice, integrity, efficiency and progress –
rational values – should be our priorities now, prevailing on bureaucracy,
vested interests, ideology etc.
(8)
Most “Political” People prefer an Uncertain and Ambiguous World to Rational
Values and Coherent Determinism
|
|
Troubled waters
are the source of most evil; myth belongs to them. What gives society any
right of forcing individuals to make sacrifices for a myth, or for whatever
purpose or value that cannot be legitimised by sound rational argument?! |
|
1.
Power elites as well as John Doe will find their mainstay in social networks or
games rather than rational values and the hypothesis of a rational, just and
coherent world. For the short run and every-day practice they even seem to be
right. Our position essentially is that in the long run – such as referring to
our individual destinies and that of mankind – such values, justice and
coherence will prevail, by deep coherence in natural law. This, actually, is
what the scientifization of religion ultimately amounts to.
2.
Conservatism (the right) indeed stands for order and absolute values, but these
are those of dogma and conventions of the past rather than the ones that can be
based on reason and science, as indicated in Sect. (1). Rightist values
correspond to old books, traditional hierarchies, power relations and
ignorance, whereas post-sixties’ leftists actually will be believers of the
religion of Sect. (4), and worship man as he is and the group (the “social
dimension”). They will abandon genetic or even moral hierarchies (relativism).
Both current left and right start from social rather than rational facts,
relations and values. Consistent reason (rationalism) and openness (no taboos,
no repressions) are correctly felt as menacing to many vested interests, myths,
prejudices an manipulated states of mind. This, in fact, is the essential point
with all progress within the scope of social evolution. Inter alia, the executions of Socrates and Jesus of Nazareth, and what happened to Galileo Galilei, have everything
to do with this.
The
purely instrumental or ad hoc way of thinking
brings considerably less from its place than consistent reason and openness,
including those referring to values and emotions. Hence it will be preferred…
Inconsistency and incoherence are a condition of most evil, such as troubled
waters, humouring vested interests and the “political” way of life.
Accordingly, relativism, postmodernism and other-directedness abound. Far from
starting from a consistent and coherent network of truths and values, one does
so from a network of powerful interests that so often prevails on the common
good. Particularly the right puts first and foremost a historical order which,
it is true, has something to do with “survival of the fittest”, but mainly with
respect to the fittest power mechanisms.
These used to and will be violence, (un)official censorship, ideological
manipulation, superstition and political games such as networking leading to relatiocracy. Of course, the relevant profiteers do not like the world to be brought
under rational and moral control, as is implied by our foregoing argument.
3.
It fits in this context that in vital domains the essential factors are
repressed, neglected or taboo, as we discussed in other pages of this website.
We give some examples here:
a) With respect to immigration, the low average IQ of Third-world immigrants in the West (see Richard Lynn &
Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations),
and the left’s electoral interest in such “disadvantaged”, are taboo subjects;
b) The issue of genetic quality differences between individuals is at all
taboo;
c) One more almost completely repressed subject is any radical reform in the
juridical domain, to the effect that all technicalities, rights of the
defendant and privacy considerations that make finding the truth more
difficult, are abolished (such repression benefits lawyers and others in the
“crime business”);
d) Neo-positivism in theoretical physics amounts to a virtual taboo for more
than a half century. It contains that thinking about details of micro-processes
that would fit in an understandable model (i.e., they would contribute to an
imaginable picture of what really happens, or guarantee conservation of
momentum), but cannot actually be observed, is “meaningless”. Only experimental
results and formulas that can predict them would be relevant. This is a
typical way of turning against the very core of science, which is insight, that is, understandable coherent models of what actually happens. Still, neo-positivism passes for “rigorousness” and “abandoning
presuppositions”. It will react to paradoxical and unimaginable results by
merely saying that “coherent models are impossible” rather than: “we should
change something in our concepts in order to make them possible, or approach the relevant problems in a different way”.
In the shape of relativity theory and quantum mechanics one did so in the past.
Within
this scope it fits that, if on Internet I look for “microphysics” in
combination with “realistic models” (or understandable, or imaginable models) I
get 3 or 4 hits. With “string theory” I got 536,000 hits. (Also compare this
with more than 50,000 and 1,500,000 hits with “Michel Foucault” and “James
Joyce”, respectively.)
e) In by far most modern philosophy, art and social science we see
“institutionalisation” into massive industries of nonsense, irrelevance and
details-mongering, simply because talking about substance [concrete ideology,
social evils, problems like those of a) through d),…] is virtually taboo or repressed.
Hence we see indeed massive philosophical verbiage about “being”, “the
unknowable”, “emptiness” and “alienation”, and slogans about “a new way of
looking at reality”, “revolutionary”, “shocking” and the “innovative” that
disguise the utmost absence of substance in “modern art”. At the same time,
social science “guided” educational, crime and underclass policies from
egalitarian and “nurture” dogmatics, which led to as many disasters in most
Western countries… Actually, most of our academic intellectuals became in
the domain of the mind what bureaucrats will be on the practical organisational level.
Of
course, their strong inclination to humour vested interests, taboo and
repressions constitutes one more reason why many prefer the “socio-relational”
approach of touchy problem fields to a rational one.
The
relevant climate is characterised by the circumstance that most scholars and
scientists are pre-eminently interested in how others validate their work: other-directedness
in science.
4.
The ultimate cause of situations as described above is that establishments and
people in general feel too little compassion with victims of evil and
inefficiency of all kinds. This, in turn, is also a question of genes.
Further
realise that postmodernism, relativism, subjectivism, uncertainty, chaos,…, in
their having an aspect of troubled waters, essentially have strained relations
with integrity. This implies a moral reproach to the forces that made them
popular. Note within this scope that those having most interest in relativizing
ethics are those who are wrong.
(9) More about the Opposition to Transparency, Coherence, and
these Pages. On the Adherents of Taboo, Uncertainty and Man-As-He-Is
1.
A priori, it is obvious that consistent
enlightenment will be radically incompatible with a culture and society in
which reason and rational values are so much perverted that
a) One did not hit upon the idea of the massive sexual frustration generated by
the scarcity of attractive people and the primitiveness and opacity of the
sexual market;
b) Rational values are violated so radically that in the juridical domain
various factors are allowed to frustrate finding the truth (privacy,
technicalities, the right to non-cooperation,…);
c) Not even Bentham’s followers (“The greatest happiness for the greatest
number”) realized that their (correct) idea is and was incompatible with the
nationalistic wars and the sexual morality of Bentham’s time (about 1800 A.D.)
and one and a half century beyond it;
d) The idea of human quality is so much undermined by egalitarianism that, inter
alia, low-IQ members of youth gangs and chronic
anti-socials are considered to be genetically “of equal value” as compared with
the average people on “the other side of the Bell curve”, whereas eugenics is
taboo.
e) In spite of the circumstance that more than half of Westerners feel that
there is some life after death, no multi-billion dollar research is made into
such matter. On the other hand, billions are spent to keep alive demented
elderly.
In order to uphold unreason as the above – whatever may be its sources –
society has no alternative but confining reason and rational values within
narrow bounds of taboo, repression and unofficial censorship. My work is among
the violators of these… The orthodoxy and “correctness” take refuge in
intellectual, moral and emotional troubled waters and manipulations of many
kinds, like politicians and commercials will so often do, and as has massively
been done throughout history. What you see here is a study into how it happens
now, with us.
2.
Further, we start from four irrefutable facts:
a) Beneath a veneer of civilization man and his inner features in many respects
remind of his jungle state;
b) Most people do not like the idea that all such (and other) features would be
identified, measured and explained by the best available science and
technology, as to all of us personally;
c) Neither they would welcome all their preferences, passions and (un)conscious
actions to be registered, also with the aid of sophisticated lie-detection, not
even if no errors of the apparatuses need to be feared;
d) History shows us to how large a degree egoism and the evil aspects of such
preferences, passions and actions co-define them. Would this suddenly have
ended to hold?
3.
Such kind of circumstances are responsible for the difficulty of continuing the
Enlightenment into the intimate and the unconscious – that is, into hidden
intentions, ideology and subtle manipulation – with all its unhappy
consequences.
It
may be forgiven that mankind still did not succeed in such continuation, but it
is unforgivable that most people actually oppose it by cultivating myth and fundamental uncertainty, and by not fighting
any lack of integrity and social evils by all means available, as well as by not
even in theory applauding my work. The latter
gives many details of situations and evils such as indicated above, and that
are relevant to our present time. This also undermines the authority of the
community and any solidarity with it, which subversion has always been taboo.
Not
liking whistle-blowers and, on the other hand, positively appreciating
philosophies and world views which reject a coherent and transparent model of
the world and of man, raise serious doubts as to relevant people’s integrity:
do they acquiesce in evil often coming away unscathed? There is much
relationship with the objections to a “comprehensive measurement of man”
referred to above.
4.
Relativism, egalitarianism and political correctness are more specifically attuned
to man not being accountable with regard to his dark sides. Within this scope,
anti-eugenics is especially attuned to repressing the idea of inherent
inferiority. Everything inferior (morally or genetically) – be it an
individual, a way of life or a mentality – demands to be accepted as it is, and
so does the community as a whole. Hence no debunking, please, by rational
argument or values. Neither a rational sex market, nor gene passports, nor the
“measurement of man” fits in such state of mind.
In
the last resort, most people prefer trusting on the old jungle ways of
self-preservation: power, the “political” way, misleading and hence troubled
waters. Especially those in powerful or privileged positions (the
establishment) prefer the status quo, power play, being well-connected,
manipulation and the “political” way of being – as validated by the ages – to
consistent intelligence and (enforcing) integrity. We see the results around
us.
Hence,
again, they prefer Heideggerian verbiage, incoherent art, bureaucracy and
political correctness to consistent enlightenment, lie-detection, gene
passports and a rational sex market, and they hate the unhappy whistle-blowers.
5.
In the best case, the establishment does not loathe evil, such as crime, so
much as to abandon “privacy”, “the right to silence”, and many other rights of
defendants that often obstruct finding the truth. Such failure appears under
the thin pretext that such abandonment would endanger the “constitutional
state” (defined in a sense that it more helps the criminal than his potential
victims and, e.g., does not put the truth first and foremost).
We
generally see confirmed the adage: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely”. These pages, inter alia,
investigate how this also holds to a considerable degree on the level of
ideology and important sectors of culture, that has been called “the
crystallized politics of the ages”.
A
particular instance is that the churches and other sectors of the establishment
unconsciously prefer people to be uncertain and powerless – that is, dependent
– in questions of life and death,
and therefore instinctively are not in a hurry to foster massive research into
near-death experiences, reincarnation and the like. Because they also want to
retain the domain of life and death to themselves, especially churches will
turn against abortion, euthanasia (also as to seriously handicapped newborns),
eugenics and the like. They and many other manipulators prefer man to be seen
as “a Mystery” and “inviolable”, and as being above the scientific way of
thinking.
For
the rest myth, such as about status, is one more irrational instrument from
which many derive their self-esteem and illusions, via a host of empty symbols
and social agreements, from art preference and membership of certain clubs to
clothes, speech and cars. All of this would be undermined by the
“scientifization of life” that is a consequence of the spirit of these pages.
6.
There is also a widespread attitude to sexuality that fits in with the above
scope of many preferring incoherence to transparency. That is, an attitude
thinking and feeling about it in terms of “dark and obscure desires”,
aggression, ambiguity, anxiety, guilt and sin rather than beauty, optimum
quality of body and soul, and optimum information as to where partners are to
be found who best correspond with you as to what produces sympathy and lust.
This, again, means optimum information and genes.
In
actual fact, constructing associations between lust (intense happiness) and
darkness or sin, and, on the other hand, contrasting lust and sympathy with
clarity (that is, reason and information) rather than associating them with
high quality and good genes, is the mother
of all perversions. That is, also, a
basic source of a dichotomy of desire and reason, and hence of troubled waters.
7.
Partly summarizing, the established ideas (paradigm and orthodoxy, centered
around relativism, egalitarianism, anti-rationalism and the rejection of
consistent coherence, and often – a rightist variant – the attribution of
authority to convention and the group as such) reject my work for reasons such
as
a) It undermines the moral authority of the community, also as a source of
“solidarity”, because of its criticising many social evils amounting to its moral
default as judged by rational values;
b) It sees through many myths, ideology, illusions and status symbols that
cannot rationally be based, therewith undermining the identity and self-esteem
of many;
c) By standing for “transparency, measurement and the idea of coherence” as to
everything it does not only menace such self-esteem but also will eventually
lead to showing the moral-ideological corruption and inconsistency of many;
d) Additionally, via a), b) and c) it also undermines about all irrational
psychological means of power, from ideology, non-scientific utopias, myth,
convention and “image” to uncertainty and relativism. The most important of
these is irrational solidarity;
e) It undermines every possible moral value not attuned to optimum (long-term)
well-being. Therewith, it also finds worthless all sacrifices that do not
arguably increase happiness or reduce unhappiness (many conventions, sexual and
other taboos, group loyalties such as national and ethnic ones,…);
f) Most people have something to hide or manipulate something. They fear the
spirit of transparency and coherence, of consistent enlightenment;
g) He who is emotional about truth and
rational values – as the present author is – is a danger to the establishment
by such very fact. For in some vital questions he will give precedence to these
values which may contrast with convention, vested interests and compromise.
h) In our relativistic and “nurture”-oriented era, in which everything is
“social”, most intellectuals are not at all primarily in search of “the truth”
– they will often indeed put it in parentheses – but participate in a social
game, seeking status, publicity and career. Hence they are
not much interested in, say, refuting my arguments, but prefer paraphrasing the
great names, joining in the hypes, and serving their images and the respect of
their peers.
(10) Some Major Concrete New Policies
in Agreement with the Foregoing
In our page Jesus, Voltaire and
Prometheus: the Essence of Sociology, point 26 of Part I, we already
proposed a number of policies which, in our opinion, should characterize what
our leaders do. We now add some other fundamental points to these.
1.
By getting one’s priorities right, much more transparency, simplicity and
coherence can be attained in the bureaucracy, in laws, procedures and the
juridical domain, and in government at all. Some major principles should
prevail:
a) Enforcing integrity by all means available and also fostering efficiency and
progress according to rational values. For example, restrictive regulation and
practices in industry, trade and agriculture should generally be forbidden.
(Think of many work rules and classifications, “unlawfully obtained
evidence”,…)
b) Radical subordination of all special interests to such priorities, including
contracts and acquired rights, which at least may not be allowed to frustrate
democratic policies. The three priorities – integrity, efficiency and progress
– should be as important as traditionally was victory in a war.
Inter
alia, eliminate all special influence of farmers on
agricultural policy, of lawyers on crime-fighting and of labour unions (and
strikes) on social policy: none of them will put integrity and efficiency first
and foremost.
c) Abolish about all subsidies and reduce taxes to income tax and sales taxes
on a number of harmful and luxury products (tobacco, alcohol, cars, status
products).
d) Political campaigns should no longer co-depend on gifts and the possession
of money at all; relevant laws should be adjusted.
e) Reduce welfare to negative income taxes for the poor and further roughly
adopt the Danish system: easy dismissal, rather high benefits, and stringent
obligations and practices as to the acceptance of a new job, medical
examinations for sickness leave, etc. No “free” negotiations between labour and
business, or whatever special interest, should be allowed to interfere.
As
to social policy, much can be derived from Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, with the
exception of complete freedom of speech and integrity of the courts, etc.
2.
The mere circumstance that, in spite of much havoc, wars used to accelerate
both technological and social developments, and recent economic growth in Japan
(up to 1990) and China, demonstrate that an “orthodox” free economy is not
optimum as to economic progress, though socialism appeared not to be the best
solution either. For a concrete alternative policy see our reference above.
One
more demonstration that “free” economies are not optimum is the fact that,
e.g., in the US, the “best and the brightest” can earn more in law or financial
sectors than in beta science and fundamental research. This in spite of the
circumstance that, according to (Nobel laureate) Robert Solow’s research,
techno-science is the ultimate engine of economic growth. In this context,
short-term thinking is often inherent to free markets. This also reflects
itself in the inaction as regards the protracted US trade imbalance and as to
the “emigration” of much material production from such country. Also think of
an over-estimation of the relevance of “instant liquidity”, which needlessly
caused many businesses to go broke, inter alia,
in the Depression, in Japan of the ninety’s and in Russia after communism.
Conclusion: growth and an efficient long-term use of resources should have more
precedence. In particular think of vigorously stimulating fundamental research.
3.
I propose a political experiment, to be performed in a small country such as
The Netherlands, under the auspices of the EU, to the effect that
a) Voting is restricted to those with an IQ > 130;
b) A referendum is organized as soon as 60 % of adults prefer it as to some
item, as should appear from opinion polls; in the referenda, all adults have
the right to vote; A “High Court” defines the precise formulation of the
relevant question. Nobody is allowed to influence the outcome by donations.
c) Lie-detector interviewing is applied to anyone seeking election as a
Representative, also various questions being asked as to the candidate’s
propensity of giving priority to integrity and the common good as compared with
special interests. As the relevant instruments have a margin of error of 15 %,
85 % of the “successful” candidates can reasonably be assumed to be righteous
people. (For the rest, candidates should not be excluded by their possible
appearing to be “pro-special-interest”, but the voters now are well-informed.)
The
total experiment should last, say, 8 years.
4.
Also, it could be revealing to apply lie-detector-controlled interviewing to
current Representatives with respect to touchy questions such as about
terrorism, crime, immigration, education, or “genetic equality”. For example,
Dutch representatives could be confronted with the question: “Did you feel
relief after the murder of Pim Fortuyn in 2002?”
5.
We should correct a fundamental flaw in orthodox economic thought:
If the US would print dollars and gave
them to Indian Farmers to allow them to get out of debt, this would be good for
India and could hardly contribute to inflation in the US. Hence it should be
done, contrary to orthodoxy. Many comparable situations can be imagined.
6.
Within the scope of crime-fighting implant a chip in everybody so that alibi’s
would become much less of a problem. This fits in the context of abolishing
privacy, technicalities and rights such as that of non-cooperation because only
truth and justice are relevant in a rational value system.
7.
We should also correct a basic flaw in democracy that amounts to the following:
Practical politics shows that if government wants to reduce, say, some benefit
for 10 % of the voters, it will reckon more with the reaction of such minority
than with that of the other 90 % who can only gain by such measure (lower
taxes). Within this scope special interests tend to prevail, the more so
because they will collude and majorities are usually indolent. As a part of a
solution it should be prescribed by law that, with any benefit, subsidy or
other expenditure by which special groups are benefited – from EU agricultural
policy to import duties –, the authorities would be obliged to explicitly,
eye-catching and transparently publish what are the corresponding yearly costs
to the average household.
(11) Various Additions
1.
From theoretical physics and art to the juridical domain and bureaucracy,
formalism far too much substituted substance and primary common sense. This
will harm transparency and, therefore, facilitates manipulation and beating
about the bush.
2.
As a major emotional outlet, sports should be substituted by local, national
and international matches of the mind rather than the body: competitions in
argumentation on substantial issues in every domain. Possible shifts of opinion
with the audience, effected by the contests, could be used as part of the
refereeing.
3.
I am not embittered by the hushing-up of my work: in corroborating much of what
I say about moral levels and taboo it gives me a pleasant self-assurance. I
never felt tempted to conclude from it that eugenics is wrong and that the
admirers of Beuys and Lyotard are no snobs, or do not cultivate unreason.
4.
My opponents were very good to me: they allowed me to produce many new results
by their mere looking away from the many treasures hidden behind taboo or to be
found by no longer adjusting to collective repression.
5.
Of course, discrimination with respect to those who are equal is wrong. But why
discrimination as to people who are unequal
is wrong too?
6.
Many don’t like arguments in points – 1, 2, 3a, 3b,… –, finding it “wearisome”.
Small wonder: they are accustomed to thinking by association rather than
logically, and a new point will not be preceded by an
association but fits in a logical whole or model.
7.
A country in which squatters will not be evicted within a day, and those more
than incidentally causing nuisance within a few weeks, is not a constitutional
state. The latter amounts to making the position of criminals, anti-socials and
the like as difficult as possible, because the law and all procedures – without
any formalistic loophole, technicality or complication – are squarely against
them.
8.
Our “quality” papers devote more attention to “rap”, “hip-hop” and “absurdist
theatre” than to the problems discussed here.
9.
The level of mankind and of our culture shouts from our TV-screens and from the
number of hours a day people will watch the pulp.
10.
Primary (r)evolutions will be techno-scientific ones. Internet is an example, inter
alia, in the domain of ideas and politics (freedom of
speech) and as to sex (a much better market). Another major instance is
genetics (among other things, thinking about man in terms of quality and
manipulation, which approach it will promote).
11.
We should not seek the certainty, identity and a mainstay that conservatism and
the right offer to us via convention, religion and solidarity which cannot
rationally be explained and legitimised. On the contrary, we should seek them
in a rational value system, and in facts, phenomena, coherence and hope connected
with scientific research. Also, we should find them in our preliminary
intuitions about these, which join our instincts about beauty, goodness and the
elevated.
12.
One cannot deny that “the laws of he jungle” still are abundantly reflected in
our genes and behaviour. Now, it is conspicuous that most people seem to feel
that such representation, of course, can be massively recognised on the
practical and every-day level but that, on the level of “the grand design of
our culture and society”, it is untraceable! That is, such laws are purported
to be absent in the philosophical, cultural and social preferences of our
elites, and in the ways dissidents are dealt with, or power instruments in
general are used. On the contrary, the above “abundant reflection” should
induce us not to expect too much of the level of culture.
For
the rest, not even God can bring about anything without power. Within this
scope one asks oneself: as on the one hand God guided evolution also by means
of the laws of the jungle, how, on the other hand, could He confront us with
the Sermon on the Mount?
Preliminary Conclusions
1) An Erroneous Paradigm that Reduces Sociology to a
Stick-in-the-Mud State
There are some common flaws in about all leading
philosophies and ideologies, which jointly amount to an erroneous paradigm:
“There is a fundamental gap between science (such as referring to
coherence) and values (such as the
elevated)” [compare (6), point 2.]. It is
near to denying man and, therefore,
his values, to be subjects of science, and also denies any reference of
reason and science to “objectively undesirable
phenomena” like tragedy on the one side, and the elevated on the other. It does not see any connection between (scientific) coherence and “human” beauty and elevation.
Further, it simply denies that the Holocaust was objectively wrong.
Directly
associated with these philosophical flaws we see on the practical level a
virtual absence of moral indignation and of seeking causes and culprits as to concrete instances of social and other evils, such as lack of integrity and quality. We see this commonly reflected
in the thinking of
Burke-conservatism (that does not reject myth, even if it costs many lives),
the political right as associated with big business (that actually is a
special-interest ideology),
modern leftist liberalism (which puts man-as-he-is as well as “nurture” first
and foremost),
neo-Marxism (which, though purporting to be scientific, is again a
special-interest ideology), and
the counter culture, existentialism, Wittgenstein’s philosophy, postmodernism,
neo-positivism, and analytic philosophy (which tries to purify language from
“nonsense”), which are all morally relativistic.
They
are simply not at war with evil, and banish it to the subjective domain. With
this they give full scope to the power of vested interests, and to the
well-connected, and also repress much social theory and coherence in which such
evil and irrational power play a part (as causes, hidden motives, integrating
factors,…).
2) On the Scientifization of Religion
and Utopia
It is essential in such (preliminary) scientifization
– and, hence, in that of major problems of life – that our psyche experiences a
coherent integration of the emotions of elevation and alliance which, in the
best cases, we go through in
response to, say, beauty (of nature, or of art), fundamental new insights (the
Aha-Erlebnis), sexuality, and righteousness. For
such integration amounts to our sensing
something very positive at the background of various phenomena, which, by
such very coherence, has also something to
do with science. Why would science not be in a position of gradually finding
more details as to both the relevant coherence and possible deep laws in our
destinies? Why would these problems constitute an exception as to the power
of scientific knowledge, that may allow us to
approach the ideal of bringing such destinies under rational and moral control,
thus realising Utopia (or the Kingdom of God), in line with what historic
progress shows us?
Further,
isn’t it strange that many feel “indoctrinated” experiences of elevation – such
as about “Immaculate Conception” or “Our Country” – to be normal, whereas
natural ones about beauty, sex or integrity are far less often mentioned? Why
is the pope more charismatic than the starry sky? My hypothesis is that interest-driven manipulation is the explanation.
Religion should be a major factor in the general cultural fight against evil,
anxiety and troubled waters. Too often it became their ally…
3) Transparency, Coherence and
Rational Values versus Troubled Waters, Coincidence, Subjectivism and
Relativism
Why is it that so much which contrasts with my work –
political correctness, egalitarianism, conformism, anti-rationalistic
philosophy, incoherent art, the cherishing of uncertainty and coincidence,… –
is in great demand? If we answer this question, we also answer the one why my
work is practically taboo. Let’s try to find the solution. Such work, inter
alia, contains three core elements:
1. Rationalism in
the sense of aiming at both optimum cogent obviousness and optimum coherence
(with respect to any argument and subject), as contrasted with subjective
preference, myth, ideology, uncertainty and obscurity in the broadest sense.
2. In the same
vein, transparency is also pursued within the scope of rational values which find evil to be synonymous with the undesirable: unhappiness, which is in principle an observable condition that should
be minimised. This argument bridges the gap between facts and values, also as
to their objective nature.
3. (Social) evil in
the above sense – far from, as a rule, depending on coincidence – is found to
often show a large degree of coherence and purposefulness as to causes, effects
and means of implementation. Such more-than-incidental abuse is also found to
very often stem from vested interests and the establishment. It appears that
explaining society, culture and their evolution becomes far more simple and
coherent by elaborating the contrast mentioned in the title of this point 3) and by
putting first and foremost the present points 1. – 3.
Hence my work and, more generally, coherence implied by transparency, directly
tend to undermine the moral authority of our establishment and that of the
collective (the group) in general. Throughout history, this has been taboo to
the utmost because conforming the individual and his reason (intelligence) used
to be the core purpose of all socio-cultural systems.
Precisely
within this scope, current “orthodoxy” cultivates or humours a complete
“nonsense industry” of irrationalism, and also tries to keep people
psychologically dependent. In this context, incoherent modern art and the
assumption that life is unmakable are specimens of ideological manipulation. We
see again an opposition of the powerful to the core of enlightenment, which
tends to bring the world under rational and moral control. This contrast
embodies a broad generalisation of Schelsky’s idea that ideologists tend to distrust technology because it makes people less dependent
and thus reduces demand for the ideologists’ product [compare 4) below]. Both “the rightist and the leftist churches” oppose consistent
reason, transparency and enlightenment within the scope of the above. They do
so, for example, by cultivating “the social dimension”, from convention to
egalitarianism and from royalty to political correctness. Independent thinking
is their common enemy because it is dangerous to both their irrational values
and their manipulative methods. All of
this explains both the “great demand” mentioned at
the start of this point 3) and negative attitudes towards my work. The latter, characterised by points 1. – 3., also undermines the
national, egalitarian and other solidarity myths and “socio-political games”
popular with many men in the crowd too, and is instinctively hated for it. Note
here that many in the rank-and-file derive illusions, consolation or the
feeling of greatness from various religious, national or social myths,
conventions or prejudices. In the same vein, many among genetic rearguards and
their leaders will not be fond of the idea of “man being measurable”…
4) Some Elaborations on Schelsky’s
Idea
1.
The part played by the ideologists in Schelsky’s idea can be extended to
manipulators in general, censorship, taboo and repression, superstition and
convention, political correctness, the principle of chaos and unmakability,
dogma, irrational philosophy, modern art, the cultivation of uncertainty,
coincidence and incoherence, relativism, subjectivism and the thesis that man
is “above science”. Also think of Riesman’s other-directedness. On the other
hand, the role Schelsky attributes to technology can be extended to that of
rationalism, science, the idea of progress, determinism and coherence in
general, Riesman’s autonomous personality, rational values and the exposure of
everything in society that tends to produce frustration or anxiety.
2.
An important specific example is that – though very many in West and East are
interested in a possible hereafter –, the general mentality is not conducive to
massive scientific research into the problem, which is purportedly “not
suitable for scientific research”. Explanation: the churches and many others
are not in a hurry to reduce human dependence and anxiety related to our
ignorance about death…
3.
In case of an actual reality of paranormal phenomena we may add a bold
hypothesis. That is, if paranormal communication would indeed really appear it would be rather
obvious that the earlier discussed psychological mechanisms of manipulation and
power may continue on a collective-unconscious level. This could mean that
dissidents and nonconformists find themselves confronted with telepathic and
other super-individual tendencies against their independence, similar to those
operative on the “normal” social level.
Note
here that parapsychological research claims to have found that a militant inner
attitude against an inimical social environment tends to improve positive
results of parapsychological experiments. Well, may we be so bold as to
extrapolate this to our point by imagining that, first, a collective
unconscious will try to conform us and, second, we could militantly fend this
off? Inter alia, we may do so by the
intense self-confidence and inner strength derived from our “debunking” such
collective unconscious and its “voodoo” by our clearly realising the immense
cruelties and chutzpahs the collective committed or acquiesced in, therewith
forfeiting all moral authority, as our establishments did too. Consider such attitude as a vital part of your contribution to the fight between
good and evil.
Please react! See our
Discussion Page