The left became basically conformist and anti-enlightened from the day it posited man to be defined by his environment.
The weakest point of modern thought is its highly abandoning coherence, that is, understandable models. It did so not only in quantum mechanics but also in so diverse domains as postmodern philosophy, abstract art, many curricula in education, relativistic sociology that reverts to ad hoc explanations, in emphasizing coincidence in biological and social evolutions and in human destiny, while many philosophers are openly subjectivist and, therefore, support incoherence too.
From a rational point of view, what's wrong with calling objectively bad those who are indifferent of the unhappiness of others? Moral relativism is simply declaring the ethical dimension to be irrelevant.
It is widely believed that after the demise of authoritarianism and open censorship thinking became truly free in the advanced countries, rational argument calling the tune. Indeed, Newton, Darwin, Freud and even Marx were free or largely so in publishing their ideas.
Still, conforming to mainstream thinking never stopped to be helpful as to one's career, particularly after Riesman's other-directed personality became predominant. Mass media depending on advertisers and on those many deriving their mainstay from the familiar, in addition to an increasing bureaucratization and networking in science too, are compounding such kind of tendencies.
We especially call attention to the manipulation of ideas as a force acting contrary to rational argument. Not a few persistent habits of thought contrast so much with it that it is far-fetched to assume that this is a coincidence and that no (disguised) interests are behind them. Apart from such interests they are simply too crazy for someone - let alone many - to adopt them by mere coincidence. This website contains many instances in which the relevant hidden motives especially boil down to the intention to undermine, relativize or confuse reason and rational values in the first place. We give some examples:
How could a morally sound individual ever feel solidary with a community that allows multi-offenders to freely procreate and that excludes "illegally obtained" evidence in juridical procedures?!
Such ideology fits in an historical series: tribalism, traditionalism, religion, authoritarianism, nationalism, and modern ideologies like communism, fascism and the other-directed kind of "solidarity". We earlier called the latter the religion of Man, or politically correct egalitarianism. All solidarity religions combine the functions of giving a mainstay to the masses (the public) and being an instrument of power for the ruling oligarchies, conforming their subjects and indeed "making the many exerting themselves for the interests of the few". The way in which current "correctness" does so is the umpteenth variant of "You are nothing, the group is everything". (Compare the Nazi's: "Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles".) This is effectuated now in a new way, viz. by conforming people via solidarity and equality: relativizing both quality and reason. "We" is prior even to argument. As to this vital point other-directedness, relativism and the egalitarian "we" support each other: the individual has nothing to revert to except the group (the collective). There's no other source of truth and value. Both the oligarchs of Robert Michels' Iron Law (1911) and the "disadvantaged industry" are happy; the intellectual class of idea mongers is so as well, constituting the modern priesthood. (Small wonder that so relatively many intellectuals supported marked ideologies.) Eugenics and "stigmatization" are utterly taboo, and unenlightened Third-World cultures and immigrants from them are welcomed. All of this pervades philosophy, social thought, education and politics. The idea of progress receded by mere relativism. Current "progressiveness" is no more related to it.
Inter alia, it is precisely the extreme absurdity of various positions of current - and other - solidarity religions that makes plausible their nature as unconsciously conspiratorial rather than coincidental. There are interests behind them; nobody would have hit upon them without these. That is, nobody would have hit upon ideas like these:
* Reducing the coherence of the subject matter on secondary schools;
* Heideggerian or postmodern unreason as well as "abstract art";
* The idea that defendants have the right of not cooperating, or that some evidence could be left out of consideration because of its being "illegally obtained";
* Opposing compulsory sterilization of genetic problem cases.
Concretely, among the relevant interests we see the general one of anti-enlightenment, of egalitarian political parties, and of lawyers and the disadvantaged industry.
Our thesis that the chutzpahs will stem from vested interests and their unconscious "conspiracy" is also supported by the remarkable circumstance that, as far as I know, no alternative explanations have been offered. Apparently, mainstream thinking is not interested in explaining, say, sexual taboos, incoherent art, "progressive" education and political correctness, as well as objections to eugenics. Does it prefer unconscious conspiracies to remain unconscious?
Social science as well as public opinion try and make us believe that, though society is highly a mess, hardly a few among the components of our establishment are (unconsciously) in bad faith.
It strikes the eye that, on the one side, conservatives and those critical of the Enlightenment time and again posit that their progressive opponents underestimate evil in man, whereas such opponents would neither see the limits of reason as to solving this and other problems. Still, on the other side, those conservatives continue not to go seriously into many instances at which my work - such as 1. and 2. above - precisely applies reason to unmask man's large-scale evil doings in society. Especially, they failed in doing so in cases in which reason hitherto did not succeed in eliminating evil because the latter was or is operative
disguisedly and indirectly, such as in ideology and the chutzpahs given in 2. above. Quite the reverse, one would expect that the relevant sceptics about the Enlightenment are enthusiastic of my approach... Probably, the explanation of this paradox is that the relevant conservatives are less than happy with the idea that unconscious socio-cultural interests and motives would be exposed more generally, those of tradition, sexual repressive morals, nationalism etc. included. In the antithesis of reason and unconscious anti-enlightened influences (in society and culture), conservatism will not be on the side of the first...
The ideas turning against enlightenment in a broad sense roughly amount to the same that turn against a climate of catharsis. They are exemplified by
1. Emphasizing uncertainty and coincidence rather than coherence;
2. Stressing romanticism, "games people play" and the inexplicit (inter alia, in the sexual domain) rather than putting cats among any pigeons;
3. Emphasizing indirect methods, taboos and the subjective rather than rational argument.
The gist of 2. and
3. is compounded by some vital phenomena:
As religion, nationalism and all other solidarity ideologies are (also) power instruments, their massive promotion in all history obviously is (unconsciously) co-inspired by oligarchic establishments that thrive on them. That is, they have clearly conspiratorial features. We give four major examples.
First, we see how "conspiratorial" self-interest inspired most authorities to sensing that censorship in the intellectual and the instinctive-emotional domain served such interest. In this context also fit most worldwide sexual taboos that - not a coincidence - were or are especially pushed by religion. Those authorities used to or will especially repress sexuality via familial traditions, ineffective and obscure sex markets, taboos and everything that frustrates sexual awakening and experiment. This also helps in keeping people emotionally "dumb" and manipulable, just as was/is practised in the cognitive domain by corresponding variants
Second, the Western educational reforms of the past half-century all pointed in the direction of lowering the intellectual level: reducing general education, mixed-ability teaching, less coherence in the subject matter of history, grammar, mathematics and physics, emphasizing teamwork in producing projects, and stressing the social dimension more generally. Pupils should be encouraged "to discover things by themselves", which drinks time. Less discipline and far-from-silent classrooms complete the anti-intellectualist picture.
So multi-faceted anti-intellectualistic reforms cannot be a coincidence. They stem from an ideology, from intentions.
Third, European authorities purport that they do something about mass immigration from the Third World of lowly skilled (low-IQ) people. These immigrants give more-than-average problems in education, crime, poverty and welfare, inconvenience et cetera. Small wonder that most autochthonous people want less immigration. At the same time, not even illegal immigrants are massively traced and expulsed. The police has no authority for special search in border regions or to control those relevant intuition suggests to be suspect ("stigmatization"). The situation is so much a caricature that not even crime is a normal reason for extradition or detention until a receiving country has been found. For immigrants, there is no selection or control as to their faculties such as IQ and personality.
We see the (unconsciously?) conspiratorial content of this state of matters even clearer if we compare the above hyper softness and manipulation ("We need the immigrants", "Multiculturalism is good for us; it is an enrichment",...) with obvious self-interests such as these:
The above explanation of pro-multiculturalism is more simple and coherent than the relevant propaganda: "We need them", "enrichment"... It also coherently joins with the more general softness on crime, disinterest in human quality, relativism and other-directed conformism that characterizes the religion of Man.
Fourth, a final specimen of the pervasive conspiratorial features our society shows we see in the fact that whistle-blowers not only will often be fired but not seldom have much difficulty in finding a new job, too...
Earlier, we referred to Hayek's idea that (also because of their inflated number) present-day intellectuals will mainly transmit second-hand ideas (rather than find out something new) and, therefore, are very dependent on their peers. That is, they will tend to conformism (compare the clergy). We mention some other factors that compound this:
Of course, the "social", or market, dependence of truth holds true particularly for socio-philosophical sectors of science. Still, our society as a whole depends much more on interests and sentiments than rational argument. Most "thinkers" do not constitute exceptions as to such dependence: they became other-directed too, and, by this, fit in a long historical series of established ideologists who seldom sided with slaves, heretics, witches, or social, intellectual or sexual reformers and taboo-violators. Their reaction to this website is the umpteenth case in point. Simply,
they co-implement the ideological instruments of power, irrational power included.
We only summarize, and focus on one major point, i.e. that the fine instruments markets highly will be still fall short as to efficiency (that is, as to co-optimizing the fulfilment of wishes, or, in producing happiness) in five basic respects:
In the above context, the relevant proper market intervention should be various kinds of social legislation, in addition to fostering the rational solidarity we indicated.
Finally, there is one kind of market that has always been utterly inefficient, i.e., the sexual one: opaque, small-scale, irrational and deformed by taboo and female passivity. This market should be radically reformed, highly internet-based and completed by solid verification of the data offered by the "market parties".
Common sense suffices to explain why censorship on the intellectual level and on the instinctual-emotional one historically used to accompany each other, and were/are particularly applied by conservatives and their cultural ambiance. For, both censoring words and, say, sexual desires contribute to manipulating minds and souls into intellectual and emotional frames that help subduing and conforming them.
Inter alia, in The Scientifization of Culture (Van Gorcum, 1994) I explained how sexually restrictive morality amounts to an emotional censorship, also in generating anxiety and in facilitating instinctive manipulation (in behalf of tradition, religion, nationalism,...).
In this Section 8. we elaborate and complete the theory in question - that in itself is part and parcel of our general theory on anti-enlightened forces - by focussing on masturbation. Most young people are virtually impelled to it by conventional morality and inefficient sex markets during the sexually most sensitive and formative years of their lives. Of course "adjusted" psychology asserts this consequence of our cultural lore is harmless. Again common sense teaches us this not to be true. We consider a few aspects of "masturbation psychology.
Generally, we cannot but conclude that there are so many civilizations upholding so radical frustrating taboos and crazy attitudes with respect to the happiness sex is naturally attuned to, that this cannot be a coincidence: the relevant authorities pursue something hidden by means of them, simply because massive deviation from rational action cannot come from the blue... If someone has to offer a more plausible theory, please let him publish it.
In one more - radical - completion of our socio-cultural theory on the "studied frustration" of sexuality (as a component of anti-enlightened forces more generally), we start from Sigmund Freud's Civilization and its Discontents. It is a core thesis of it (and of most religions, of conservatism, of the adherents of "sublimation" and of most thinkers more generally) that it is a condition of culture to appear in the first place that, to a rather great extent, man should repress not merely most of his aggressive instincts, but much of his longing for lust too. This will be purported to be unavoidable also because the "lust energy" should be "sublimated" in order to be "transformed" into cultural energy. Or, lust strivings would "interfere with" cultural emotions and actions.
It is revealing of the primitive, not precisely awakened state of modern man's emotions that so far-reaching conclusions are drawn from so sloppy and vague arguments. For nobody teaches us (or even looks for) a plausible model of how the relevant sublimation or interference concretely works. Evidently, something vital is hidden, unconscious, repressed or taboo: who wants to get us where, and why? How can we fit the above sexual situations and ideas in a coherent theory? That is, how do they function in our master social theory that explains about everything that is socially and culturally important within the scope of an antithesis of enlightened ("red thread") and anti-enlightened forces (such as ideologies)?
We suggest a relevant model:
For the rest, the above inner division on a fundamental level cannot but foster cultural pessimism and scepticism with respect to progress and an enlightened attitude. In addition, self-confidence is not helped by the division at stake here. Actually, inner harmony corresponds with our experiencing our sources of non-aggressive lust to be associated with beauty, the elevated and coherent ideals. More generally, our model of the world - characterized by coherence, determinism and order, in and beyond human beings -, much better than the currently dominating one co-defined by "fundamental uncertainty" and incoherence, allows us to "fill in" the concept meaning of life in a roughly rational way. That is, it fits in our model typified by coherence to preliminarily posit: our lives and the world derive an objective meaning from a universal process of evolution in which more and more happiness is generated by conscious entities (like us) in their increasingly experiencing and expressing truth, beauty, moral and other quality and their coherence. (Think here of art, science, sexuality,...) Within this scope, the world's evolution may also amount to separate individuals' consciousness gradually being integrated in "Einstein's Mind" (compare 10. below).
Remark: Freud's and others' idea that "culture requires much sexual repression and "sublimation" could also be explained by our comparing Schelsky's explanation why ideologists will often distrust technology: because it opens more rational ways for people to reduce their dependence on nature (their environment) than the "religions" of the ideologists do. (See for this explanation Sect. 2.5 of this Site.) Well, similarly, those many deriving power, status, money,... from the myriad "games people play", from the emotional mazes, symbols, ambiguities and decorum that embody much of the irrational sides of culture, those many don't like "the more direct ways of satisfaction" of awakened, coherent and intense desires. They do so no more than the ideologists do with respect to the rationalization technology amounts to. Both kinds of subtle manipulators prefer our not getting to the vital points; they prefer the mazes of Heidegger, ideology, social games, manipulable symbols and the like to efficient love markets, "pornography", and awakened, coherent desires. Freud and the "sublimists" translated this into jargon.
Summarizing a part of the foregoing: sensuality should be fostered for the same reason why torture should be avoided. That is, for the sake of happiness.
My opponents don't realize that their not even trying to refute my arguments makes them losers on the moral level too.
Ignoring, repressing or tabooing rational arguments such as those of this website constitutes a mere tip of the iceberg. For, more generally, politicians and most other leaders will speak in very unclear and "manipulative" terms that are attuned to foster interests rather than serve truth and integrity by sound argument. About everybody knows this but will repress the sad circumstance that this also permeates socio-cultural science and, moreover, happens on a much more than ad hoc way, simply because the human unconscious shows a lot of intelligence, just as our conscious minds do. (Mere psychiatry teaches us much about this.)
The above causes almost the comprehensive general and specialized media to join in a mainstream thinking that is positive with respect to everything established. That is, one presupposes that our own powers that be, and major social actors, quite in contrast with those of history - from the slave holders to Louis XIV to the initiators of World Wars I and II - are in good faith rather than predators below the surface of consciousness. The media will be on their side in their virtually comprehensively shunning all cats among all pigeons in matters of substance, humouring all more-than-superficial taboos. A few specimens:
Within the above scope we see that current solidarity ideology, the religion of Man, political correctness, egalitarianism, relativism, other-directedness and the corresponding taboos highly amount to the same thing, and jointly result in shielding current vested interests and corresponding prejudices from radical rational argument. This occurs within the scope of how the Iron Law of Oligarchy operates on the psychological or ideological level too; the Iron Law that will define the generation of establishments. In the past, the then prevailing orthodoxies constituted similar instruments of irrational power, that is, of the prevailing anti-enlightened oligarchies.
Einstein felt that everybody who seriously occupies himself with nature becomes convinced that a Mind is operative in it, a Mind so much superior to ours that we should feel humble with respect to it.
We feel that an optimally coherent and simple scientific model of Einstein's Mind (or "God") may be found via some hypotheses that are by no means far-fetched:
The above does not exclude that at various occasions, and on the personal and the social level, some "paranormal guidance" may appear. Such phenomenon would then correspond (as to intelligence) with the many coordinated and intelligent "interventions" our individual psyches will give evidence of in co-coordinating our human organisms. From a rational point of view, we see a psychical dimension playing a part in nature more comprehensively than in our private lives. One can also say that, outside of our human organisms too, the psychic dimension of natural laws contributes to make the world more orderly than it would be without such dimension. Hence there may be some "guidance" in our personal lives and in history, and some "Intelligent Design" (ID) in evolution. We humans may be integrated in the macro evolution and in the works of Einstein's Mind that, in a scientific model, are manifestations of the subtle coherence of logic, mathematics and natural laws that we experience as their psychical dimension.
Actually, Einstein's Mind is only partially an hypothesis. In the paper Four-dimensional realism and understandable models: Contributions to the block universe issue, Physics Essays Vol. 23 No. 4 (2010) I demonstrated that in a realistically four-dimensional universe the existence of "group minds" ("God") is a fact on the condition of the rough correctness of the theory of consciousness elucidated in the reference given in point 1 above. The condition of a realistically four-dimensional world, on the other hand, has been satisfied because of several proofs of it have been given (see the start of Sect. 6.1 of this website).