Gays In the Locker Room: No More Room for Bigots...?

Ladies and gentlemen, it's come to my attention that we homosexuals have finally broken into the hitherto exclusively straight "wide world of sports." Oh what an honor, and a privilege, to know that one openly gay man is possibly entering the locker room as I write, to observe in all candidness the cornucopia of well-sculpted bodies in the nude! It all seems so fresh, so new, like the scent of Irish Spring being wafted on a cloud of steam - it's almost too perfect to be true. And so the Internet tells me today that it is: our breach of the arena walls has not come without its consequences. Haters have arisen on all fronts to throw in their two cents and possibly reverse the coin toss. But let's drop the metaphors for a moment and look hard at what I'm referring to - if you know me at all, it probably isn't what you were thinking.

First, the source: from the Huffington Post. There are many others besides, which can be obtained by a quick Google search. For the most part, they read the same.

In the days after NFL defensive end Michael Sam went public with his predilection for the male physique, a 20-year-old Kent State sophomore was suspended indefinitely from the school's wrestling team for referring to Sam as a "fag" via Twitter. The boy's name, incidentally, is Sam Wheeler (I'll refer to them both by their last names from here on out, to avoid confusion); he made a name for himself at Copley High School, where he won a Division 1 state title his senior year and was also a "first-state all-Ohio" linebacker in football (whatever that means). This is all I was able to find regarding his athletic accomplishments. His crimes against humanity, however, include three tweets subsequent to the first, in which he addresses some unnamed fellow tweeters as "queer" and finally, with an elegant variation on his first slur, seals his fate by referring to them collectively as "fag boys." Having never heard or used this term myself, I have to give Wheeler points there for originality.

Now let's pause a moment for a look at the scoreboard. In the course of this "event," the gay community has suffered - well, to be quite frank, negligable losses at the most. A couple of its members were called "queers" by an athlete via Twitter. Nothing new here. Wheeler, on the other hand, has taken a real beating: his career as a wrestler is very potentially over (and we all know how limited the career possibilities of high-school athletes can be), but to add insult to injury, his name has now been dragged through the public mire for the sake of enciting public outrage (Outrage DC, incidentally, is the monicker of the gay publication that published Wheeler's comments). I'll come back to that point here in a bit, my fellow fag boys.

Back on the playing field, aforementioned Outrage DC brought pressure against Kent State to do something about the "problem." The school's head wrestling coach tapped in to defend the great university against the potential public smears: he claims to have been "surprised [...] by what he read on Twitter." Really, Mr. Andrassy? (if that really is your name...) You were "surprised" to hear the words "queer" and "fag" come from the mouth of a male college athlete? If this kind of language is truly shocking to you, you probably haven't been in the coaching business long enough to deserve your position. But the athletic director Joel Nielsen also stepped up to the plate, claiming that the university considers the comments to be "ignorant" (as though we needed confirmation of the fact), and that Wheeler's suspension "is an educational opportunity for all of our student-athletes." I'm sorry, what? An educational opportunity, you say? I thought you and Mr. Andrassy were just giving lip-service to the LGBTQs. But since you've made the matter an "educational opportunity," I'd like to know what lesson this opportunity is to teach them. As far as I can tell, it's teaching everyone to keep their opinions to themselves; because if they speak them, the consequences will be grave.

Now obviously this is a good lesson to learn: people must be willing to bear the consequences of speaking their mind. I will personally receive a lot of heated Facebook posts as a result of this article (if anyone actually bothers to read it), but I know this and am prepared to endure them for the sake of voicing my opinions. But the more important matter, i.e. the practical consequences of Wheeler's suspension, is as follows: 1.) this will not stop people from disliking gays, and 2.) it will encourage those who do to keep quiet about it.

As regards the first point, it's elementary: you can't change people's tastes by chastising them. Gay-haters exist, and will continue to exist as long as they keep breeding and bringing up their children in that tradition. The majority of the last century showed the rise and widespread implimentation of aversion therapy for the cure of homosexuality; it didn't work, and we gays are fortunately (for me at least) more widespread than ever before. What it did do was teach us to keep our sexuality to ourselves, with devastating psychological consequences - and this is precisely what punishing homophobia will accomplish. I personally do not want to live in a world full of closeted gay-haters. I want to know they hate me before I get back to their apartment, where they keep their hammers, baseball bats and guns.

I seem to be diverging here, so I'll get us back on track by conceding that Wheeler's suspension doesn't in any way represent a legal enfringement of his First Amendment rights. The boy was not emprisoned for his comments, nor was he fined by the state; he was simply dismissed from an athletic institution of which he was necessarily a representative. As a server, I should hope my boss would fire me if I called one of my customers a nigger: bigotry is not the kind of image that anyone wants to promote for their organization.

What is truly upsetting, however, is the manner in which the "progressive" media is gloating over the boy's predicament. The two heads in the Huffington Post video (whose accents and mannerisms betray, if not an outright Uranian disposition, at least a latent inclination to fraternal frotting) are quite unabashedly kicking the man when he's down. Look at yourselves, fag boys. You're self-righteously justifying another person's misery by attributing it to their beliefs. I'd ask you to put yourselves in his shoes - or better yet, try on those of Oscar Wilde, whose exile and ultimate demise was accompanied by no shortage of self-justifying literature commending that very exile and demise. And just as Wilde's detractors before you, you seem to think that these justifications will stop the ideas and dispositions you hate from spreading - and I pause here, to pick up an Oxford edition of Wilde's collected works and rejoice for a moment in his brazen appreciation for nimble-lipped, golden-thighed boys.

As a fag boy myself (I have a feeling I won't tire of using this expression for a good while), I hate to be the one who stands to defend a bigot who probably hates me; but the hypocracy of this "intolerance for intolerance" obliges me to do so. Remember where you come from, fellow man-lovers. Remember the intolerance from which you so recently escaped, and the shame that has only recently been shrugged off your shoulders. Now that you have a voice, a voice specifically gay and specifically tolerated as such, it would be wise not to use it to admonish and condemn others; the public outrage you incite today may very well be incited against you in the months and years to come. And remember, at least, that Sam is the first openly-gay member of the NFL - and that our community has used this occasion to kick a straight man out of sports.

For the moment, it seems that the political pendulum has swung in our favor - we are tolerated more and more every day, and have just been granted access to the locker room - but that does not mean that society will stay on our side. While it is, I suggest you work to build a positive and lasting contribution to the world - because your hate and intolerance will only come back around against you in the next season.

"Turn the Gays Away" and the Demise of America's Freedom

My Facebook has been blowing up these past few days: apparently the gays are unwittingly under attack again.  Every well-groomed, professionally-photographed, bare-chested Facebook friend I have is posting, sharing, and re-posting links that tell the story of yet another outrageous Republican conspiracy to crush our same-sex-loving rights under their cold, heartless bootheels.

"Turn the Gays Away" - this is the term social media have disdainfully applied to SB 2566, a bill introduced by Sen. Mike Bell to the Tennessee State Legislature on Feb. 6, 2014. The news networks claim that the bill will "allow people and businesses to refuse to provide goods and services to homosexuals." Holy fuck. Really? I feel a sit-in (or more appropriately, a "sit-on" - let your imaginations run wild with that one) is in order.

I must admit, I was shocked to hear the news - but I was also a bit skeptical, as I usually and rightfully am when a major media outlet actually manages to shock me. I began reading the pertinent articles and watching the relevant newsreels, something we should all get in the habit of doing more often, and I found that there was a little more to the story than the headlines dared to report. The unfolding of this "little more" (which is actually a "great deal more") requires me to become a little more cerebral than I've allowed myself to be up to this point; I hope my readers will bear with me, or jump ship now if they're not up to the task: I hate it when people disagree with something without understanding it. But I'll come back to that presently.

The summary of SB 2566 can be found at this location: Summary of SB 2566 - read it, and read it well. In fact, read the whole damned bill if you have a knack for legislative jargon, because it spells out quite succinctly, without the enticements of sensationalism, what this bill is all about.

The summary clearly states that the bill's goal is to "permit persons and religious or denominational organizations, based on sincere religious belief, to refuse to provide services or goods in furtherance of a civil union, domestic partnership, or marriage not recognized by the Tennessee Constitution." Let me say that again, in a more literary style: it permits each and every Tennessee citizen to uphold their beliefs in each and every aspect of their private lives - which includes the way in which they conduct their business with others. It is, quite simply, a defense of the First Amendment.

I started laughing when I read this, I must admit; not because of the sheer pretension of a twenty-first century Tennessee senator to presume that he can do anything to defend the constitution, but because of the rather amusing scenario that popped into my head. I imagined two men entering a hardware store in Cannon County - there are three elderly gentlemen besides, probably farmers, wearing overalls and trucker caps and eating boiled peanuts on the porch. Our two men get through the door and, realizing through context clues and general practical wisdom that they've entered an environment that may in fact be hostile to their worldview and way-of-life (the two men are a gay couple, if you hadn't already surmised), they nevertheless act contrary to all prudence and practical wisdom and proclaim to the owner of the shop: "Gooday sir. We two are homosexually in love with one another, and seem to have misplaced our allum wrench, which we purchased, of course, with money from our joint bank account, an account which we have on account of our being, as I said, homosexually in love." They pause for an affectionate kiss, after which: "Could you be so kind as to point us in the direction of a replacement?" The owner of the store, eyeing the couple from under two grey caterpillars on his forehead, spits a spittle of dip and replies: "I don't think we can help you kinda' folks." The shocked couple huffs, exits noisily, and gets furiously back into their jointly-purchased Prius; they easily acquire an allum wrench in nearby progressive Murfreesboro, but decide to sue the offending shopkeeper for discrimination. Old Jedediah (this is the shopkeeper's unfortunate monicker) is forced to hand over the ownership of his shop to the Tractor Supply Company in order to pay the legal fees, but he faithfully returns daily at sunrise, in melancholy and nostalgia, to gnash peanuts on the front porch with his friends.

Ladies and gentlemen, our dear Jedediah - however bigoted and old-fashioned his views on sexuality may be - has done nothing more than inact his right, as sole proprietor of a privately owned business, to sell his wares to whom he likes. And while I've obviously dramaticized here, for the sake of rhetoric and point-making, it does not change the fact that the bill being introduced is designed specifically to uphold an individual's right to conduct his business as he sees fit. 

Now it will be pointed out that the bill stipulates as one of the rights it's defending that no individual must "provide employment or employment benefits" to people who offend their deep-seated religious convictions, and on this point I must admit things get a little hairy: the bill is essentially saying that homosexuals may be turned down for a job because of their gayness, which is obviously retarded. But this touches on the other point I raised in my little imaginative exercise, which is this: remember, at all times, where you are. Unless you're Thoreau, and can afford a few years of seclusion and self-sufficiency, you are always going to find yourself in some form of human society; and if that society has a great disdain for buggery, it would be best for a buggerer to keep his private life to himself. 

In other words, a potential discriminator can only discriminate if he knows he has something against which he can act discriminately. We homosexuals happen to have an edge here: our predilection for the same sex doesn't visibly manifest itself in our appearance. We can enter a hardware store, a grocery store, a bank or a Taco Bell, and unless we greet the patrons thereof with "Hullo! I'm a homosexual, in need of your services," then we can usually avail ourselves of their services without fear of discrimination. The bill under dispute, when considered in the light of the humdrum and everyday arenas in which discrimination actually takes place, is practically impotent: it cannot encourage nor diminish it. I hate to say it, friends, but no piece of legislation ever will. 

And I have to stop here and ask my gays a sincere question: do you honestly want to work for, do business with, or give money to someone who hates the way you love?

But back to the point: what this bill does in fact do (although it shouldn't have to - I oppose it simply on the grounds of its redundancy) is re-establish the constitutional rights of the individual to interact with his society in any benign way that he sees fit - sodomites in particular should be fond of this right's preservation. If there are individuals who truly believe that gays worship the Satan (and I can assure you that there are), this bill means for them that they can refuse to do business with the devil without fear of terrestrial litigation. The bill in no way promotes such refusals - a tolerant and understanding person can't be changed into a bigot by a piece of legislation any more than a heterosexual can be homosexualized by the sight of a gay pride parade. What is at issue here is freedom: the freedom for me to love who I love, and the freedom of others to deal professionally with whom they wish. When it comes down to it, my freedom to pursue butt-sex as an enjoyable pasttime and method of intimacy is no more important than a redneck's freedom to hate faggots. It's just two sides of the flimsy and mottled coin we call modernity.

Now I've been somewhat calm, collected and even flippant up to this point, but I have to stop now and express a real fear I have for our society: this sensationalism in America is getting out of control. There are chasms growing on all fronts, born not from real and profound differences of belief, but from simple misunderstandings - this is just one more chink in the crevasse. Trenches are being dug every day to defend ideologies that haven't been thought through, against opposing ideologies that have only been assumed to exist. Ladies and gentlemen, you're allowing CNN and FOX to define the relationship you have with your next-door neighbors. You're allowing your hatred to be fanned to a fever pitch, a hatred directed against nothing and everything at once - you're losing, day-by-day, your humanity, and you can't get it back by re-posting hyperbolic headlines onto your news feed. But more importantly, you're being pursuaded by P.R. specialists and marketing campaigns to relinquish the freedom that two-and-a-half centuries worth of effort has been spent to establish; and now we come to a generation that can loath and revile a small, quaint, and misguided attempt to save it, by letting a talking head tell us that those attempts are nothing but "evil." You all need to pause, collect yourself, and take a good look at your intentions and the intentions of others (you can start by reading the summary of SB 2566, if you've gotten this far without doing so); you may find out that neither are exactly what they seemed to be. 

In any case, I wish all my fellow homosexuals a long and happy same-sex-love-life - I say this, since I know the above-stated opinions will be considered bigoted by not just a few readers. And I send out also my request that, in the unlikely event that this bill does pass, all the patrons of all the places I love to spend my money go on accepting it in return for their services and wares. You only stand to benifit thereby, and so do I. 

America isn't a Coke commercial.

American society is quickly losing any real claim to the term "society" (if by that we mean some sort of unity), and American "culture" is rowing happily along in the same boat. It's becoming something weird, friends, and we can't deny it: Miley Cyrus is generating more controversy than the war that still hasn't ended, and a trivial, pathetic advertisement campaign is actually generating concerns about racial predjudice. These things are pop icons, people - they flash up and then fade to gray, much like the emotions we feel when we experience them. The French once described us as "quick to attach and quick to forget" - the accusation has never been more just than now.

There are two (for the sake of simplification and rhetoric) tendancies today in this strange American society we've built. One embraces and espouses the mutilated culture that has grown out of consumerism, and follows it to its terrifyingly logical conclusions - these are the littéraires prétendus that read Nietzsche as a nihilist, because he happened to use the word "nihilism." The other clings hopelessly to the culture that America was able to ferment before the age of mass-upon-mass production, in the hopes that those of us who have any sensibility and refinement will have something to cling onto - something that's been preserved - when the whole shitted mess falls to pieces.

The "quick to attach and quick to forget" are the unfortunate representatives of the very same mass-upon-mass culture that they decry: they've been raised consumers, short-witted, and can't find the time to look into anything else. They alone have time for Ritalin and Xanax, because they don't have time for anything else. They have hours to comb through YouTube, Twitter and Facebook without gleaning anything meaningful therefrom - because they simply don't have time to be bothered by anything-fucking-else. The past, for them, is a wasteland - because they don't have the buttfucking time for it.

The poor souls at the other end of my tidy little dichotomy are equally preoccupied: they've been raised to think that Emerson is sacred, that the constitution is flawless, and that a good story told by a charming, weathered face is all a person really needs or should aspire to. They forget that things are changing, that life is changing, that we're in the growing pains of one of the greatest changes ever to face World Civilization - they forget that information is suddenly everywhere. They forget that cynicism is therefore necessary, if we indeed still aspire for Truth; they forget that the mystery didn't end with their generation; they forget that their children might seem very weird to them.

And so I say to my friends, my contemporaries, my "quick to forgets": WAKE UP, YOU SHITS. There's a whole world lying beneath your feet, one that you've never experienced, one that's completely alien to you - you're standing on the shoulders of giants, and you've yet to even acknowledge their presence. I'll tell you right now, a dramaticized NPR documentary doesn't equate to reading Faulkner, or Hemingway, or Poe; and if you think it does, you're a dick, and we'll all be happily reminded of your existence when it undramatically and quietly ceases.

And to my parents, my parents' friends, and all those who are full of vitriole for the generation at hand: GROW UP, YOU OLD FUCKS. You have the benefit of experience, and you should know that wisdom only comes with it! The more you patronize, the more you alienate the ones you want to convince; the more you insist that you're right, dear Aged, the more you convince the dicks and shitasses of my generation that you're not - because no matter what you think, they are against you. Assume your proper place and learn to advise - but advise with the tact and craft that your age has to you imparted.

There is a time and place, my friends, for responsibility and experimentation. Ours is that time, and ours is that place - for it is never the time or the place to get riled up over a Coca-Cola commercial. So let's get weird - and let's do it responsibly.

The Scientist (As Artist)

When we imagine "the scientist," what exactly do we call to mind? No doubt there are lab coats and spectacles involved, but I'm wondering here about the nature of the person we picture, his character, his personality - and I wonder, all nonsense of lab coats aside, whether there is in reality - that is, outside our imagination - a True Scientist.

Well, the question brings us back to the first one, namely what we would imagine this True Scientist to be. Science itself is a way of knowing things; therefore, in order to understand this Scientist we must understand his way of knowing the world. Scientific knowledge at its purest and simplest is an attempt at universal knowledge; i.e. facts which are recognizable as "true" at any time or place, who don't owe their truth to chance circumstances or subjective considerations. A purely scientific mind would know all aspects of his world in this way; it would perceive objects, masses, forces and all other things in their relation to the sum total of objects, masses, etc. At bottom, we seem to be looking for a man who perceives reality without giving preferential treatment to any of its parts, a man without predilections, affinities, peculiarities or fancies - in short, a man without taste.

Now of course we can only imagine such a man, for as a pure archetype he is very unlikely to exist (although I'm sure we all know at least one person like him). The archetype itself sounds not very different from a man suffering from severe schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, whose inability to experience pleasure affords him no inclination to favor one thing over another. All experience would enter the purely scientific mind democratically, each part being equal and carrying just as much weight as all other parts. Each experience would be discretely labelled - "Fact #00103472," for example - and placed in its proper (and observable) relation to all the others, regardless of its color, weight, ethnicity or political bent. Indeed, the space we're seeing is absolutely devoid of aesthetic considerations: facts of religious import are strung together with and determined by summer acidity levels in the tropics, while Stacey's opinions on abortion are linked inextricably with her mother's inability to properly digest gluten. The only important connections to be made here are the observable factual links between informations, and all are made with absolute adherence to the rules of logic - in other words, the end result of these connections, the "ultimate Idea" of the True Scientist, is completely and perfectly determined by the World. The man himself is passivity incarnate - he is a receptacle (a very well-built one), and nothing more.

But we know that such a man cannot exist, and if he does, he is certainly not a scientist; for in reality, there is no man without opinion, without belief, without taste and affinity and a preference for one thing over another. Each of us, be ye a secretary or a military strategist, has choices to make at all times, and each of us makes our decisions based on a little reason and a lot of desire. To exclude the scientist from the human condition is absurd, for it would mean that scientists existed in the vacuum described above - and yet popular mythology represents scientists as pure, detached, impartial and disinterested. We, however, know better: we know the scientist as artist. 

We know the scientist whose eyes prefer green to blue, whose ears prefer music to noise and whose noses prefer lilies to shit. We know the scientist who prefers logic, not because he has to, but because he chooses to - because logic is beautiful. We know the scientist who arranges nature according to reason, rather than letting reason be rent asunder by the chaos inherent in nature. We know this man, because we know the work of this man: the theory, the hypothesis, the system, the paradigm. We know these products as products of the imagination, as products of creativity, as products of spontaneity - we know these products as works of Art. And like works of Art, we admire the theory and the paradigm, and we learn from them - and then we improve upon them.

If science were nothing more than the cold, disinterested collecting of facts, then science would be nothing more than an incoherent maze of unintelligible information - it would, quite literally, mirror reality. But science no more mirrors reality than Art does, and we know this because we have different words for all three - science is not reality, art is not reality, and reality is not on MTV. The more we fool ourselves into thinking that science equivocates truth, or that observation necessarily trumps meditation, the more we will view science as the world once viewed religion: absolutely.

Eulogy One

Dear Murfreesboro Musicians,

I would first like to thank you all for Friday night: the Music was exquisite, and really, isn't that why we all came out to the bar? Surely we all left our houses around nine o'clock with only one intention: to be seen with - I mean, to see - that is, TO LISTEN TO - some great bands. It was our enthusiasm for the Music that led us to shower, and some of us to do our hair; it motivated many of us to trim our mustaches before donning some of our best thrift-store threads (for how can one honestly listen to good music when they're wearing something from the Gap, or worse - Old Navy?). And finally - why else would the Murfreesboro elite have bothered to mount their seven-foot-tall bicycles without helmets - if not for their passion for the Music? Our community's enthusiasm is like the spring-board from which the rich musical culture of Murfressboro has launched itself into the highest realms of artistic integrity.
Indeed, it is the artistry of our Music that keeps the city of Murfreesboro alive. We enjoy a purely aesthetic form of art, that has arisen from a recognition of the difference between superficial style and profound substance. Our musicians have boldly opted for the latter, and this is evidenced by their artistic selflessness. We see this selflessness manifest in the way they slavishly dress up for us: while their clothes and gleaming guitars vie for our attention, it's obvious that, in their hearts, they don't give a damn. Their attitude clearly shows us that the clothes are just part of the surface - and that their real concern lies in the Music itself. It is indeed unfortunate that the spectators must be drawn in by flashy garments and vintage hats; but then, let's not be too hard on them - the spectators have their own role to play.
We would be missing the point if we dwelt too long on the musicians themselves, for in our town, it's the audience that counts. These are the people who actually hear the music, and this they do very well - how else could we explain their ability to talk about the band and listen to it at the same time? Simon and Garfunkle describe this phenomenon as "people hearing without listening" - but I beg to differ. I myself can only be humbled by such a magnificent gift as they have, which itself bestows such respect upon the performers in question. Even the most attentive Nashville audience cannot compare to the way in which a typical Murfreesboro crowd can simultaneously process the Music and carry on a serious discussion with their neighbor about the magnificent quality of the band. And you can quote me on this: if that is not respect, then John Lennon was never on drugs.
So now we know: it is enthusiasm, selflessness and respect that have made the Music of Murfreesboro what it is today. And while I thank these musicians for all that they have done for me, I must also apologize to them. I was not as enthusiastic about the show as I could have been; I did not even shower beforehand, and, God forgive me, I showed up at the bar wearing Old Navy. Nor was I as respectful as the rest of your audience - but for this you will have to excuse God, for I was not blessed with that awesome ability of auditory multitasking that would have allowed me to sing your praises while you sang for me the wise words of Stevie Nicks. But if you will only accept my gratitude and forgive me my shortcomings, you will be more than repaid for all of your diligence and hard work - for my gratitude itself is indeed immense. Without you, our clothes would be nothing but clothes, our mustaches mere facial hair - and where would we all be then? So I thank you with all my heart for the Music - and for one more excuse to go to the bar.

Liberalism - A Critique (?)

I started this blog as an arena in which I could vent frustrations - frustrations in my personal life, with politics, with religion and with society at large. It seemed that I was spending too much time (and far too much money) discussing these matters in the bar; and of course, I was pushing away a number of friends by doing so. So I decided to air my consciousness online, away from the distractions inherent in social situations and through a medium that might actually reach more people.

So far I've done very little blogging. I wrote a few pieces on the nature of faith and its relationship to reason; I published a couple of numbers on the "politics" of sexuality; and I certainly spilled my emotions here and there. But throughout all this probing and digging, I've been missing the root of a number of problems that affect my day-to-day life. After a very enlightening experience I had last night, I think myself able to dig up that root.

I watched a documentary by Adam Curtis called "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." It was an extremely interesting exposé on the Neo-Conservative movement in America, as well as the radical Islamic movement in the Middle East. It traced the philosophical growth of both movements and their political implementations from the middle of the 20th century up until just a few years ago. The main thrust of the argument (and very well made it was) is that both movements employed very much the same means to achieve (or fail to achieve) their goals, and that both movements grew out of the same philosophical assumptions. It is the philosophical assumptions, discussed but not explored in the film, that I wish to explore here.

Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb - an German-American academic and an Egyptian civil servant, respectively - are the originators of the political philosophies that have grown into American Neo-Conservativism and radical Islam (again, respectively). Both of these men were avid critics of American society during the post-war period, and both established a cause and root for the problems they perceived: it was Liberalism.

Now let's make one thing clear here: by "Liberalism," I do not mean, and they did not mean, "leftist politics." That is a very contemporary definition of the word, and a very bad one at that. By "Liberalism," I am (and they were) referring to "Classical Liberalism" - the unquestionable freedom of the individual, the worship of democracy, the belief in equality and the critique of traditional values. They believed that Liberalism had led to a veritable decomposition of society: a relativistic, morally decaying heap of self-centered individuals, all of whom were constantly engaged in selfish, superficial, unproductive activities. I ask you to momentarily consider the "sins" with which radical Islam has charged America, and the "sins" with which the Religious Right has charged America - they are almost identical, and can be summed up in a few words: Jersey Shore, Toddlers and Tiaras, midget wrestling, daytime television, "Forever Lazy," Brittany Spears, O.J. Simpson, ready-to-eat bacon - etc, etc, etc. It was believed by these men that Liberalism, in its classical formulations, was the real and hidden sickness of which these few examples were mere symptoms.

This is the point in our exploration where I am going to go further than Curtis's documentary (again, it was superb and should be watched) - for I am going to join the two aforementioned men for a moment and dig up that root that's been evading me for so long. I wish to criticize, for just a bloody second, the concept and logical conclusion of Classical Liberalism itself; because, though we as a society still wholeheartedly embrace the concept, we refuse to admit that we are living in its logical conclusion.

Though Wikipedia will tell you that Classical Liberalism was developed in the 19th century, one must look back another three hundred years to find its earliest formulations - we see them in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon, René Descartes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume and Adam Smith, to name only the most famous authors. And while Descartes believed in freedom of the mind, whereas Locke promoted freedom of action - there are a number of such discrepancies - one can read the entire catalogue of the Enlightenment philosophers (and their progeny) as a vast break with the dogmatic tradition of the Middle Ages in favor of a more modern, individualistic perspective.

There are three tenets on which Classical Liberalism rests, and they are all developed in the philosophical movement (called "Modern Philosophy") that stems from the Enlightenment. Reason - that which Descartes claimed is the most common trait shared among men - is first and foremost, and is praised at the expense of Faith; Science is its logical outcome, and is increasingly viewed as a more "reasonable" replacement for Religion; and Democracy, finally, steps in to replace the age-old concept of God.

Let me take a minute and explain the last of these three, for it seems odd to compare a political ideology to the most sacred word in the history of Western society. Let us take as our first instance the concept of "truth." In the philosophy of the Middle Ages and Antiquity, "truth" carried many of the same connotations it does today: it suggests a bundle of ideas, including "irrefutable fact," "that which is known certainly," "that which is right and not wrong," etc. The difference between "truth" in the Liberal sense and "truth" in the pre-Enlightenment sense is the source from whence truth comes: in olden days, Truth came from God; today, Truth comes from the Majority. How many times have you seen an argument settled by Wikipedia; how many times have you seen a poll of x-number of individuals cited as a credible source? And how many times - this is a hard question, because it will make you uncomfortable - how many times have you seen the beliefs and principles of men change, in favor of the beliefs and principles of the Majority?

One last digression on Democracy as God, and we'll get back to the critique of Liberalism. In old-timey politics, a king or queen was respected as such because they were believed to receive their power from God himself. In today's democratic societies, a President or Prime Minister is respected as such because he is believed to receive his power directly from - the Majority vote. With respect to the art of yesteryears, an artist was thought to receive his talent from God; in today's world, an artist is talented based on the sole fact that he is popular. I leave it to you to think more about this matter - my digression is becoming lengthy.

So throughout the past five hundred years, we have the three tenets of Classical Liberalism - Reason, Science and Democracy - growing to fill the roles once filled by Faith, Religion and God, respectively. And if we wanted one word to describe the very human trait that Classical Liberalism sought to eradicate, we would be quite right in saying that Reason, Science and Democracy are three grand steps on the road to eradicating piety.

This thing, this "piety," was something the Enlightenment philosophers rightfully viewed as dangerous: an overly pious society could be easily subjected and ruthlessly taken advantage of - for "piety," of course, is another word for "respect." Plato describes piety as a self-serving, self-aggrandizing mode of thought and behavior: to think piously did nothing more than to make one more pious; to act piously made one more likely to commit pious acts. Karen Armstrong describes religion as a thought process as well as a practice, the one reinforcing the other and making one stronger in one's faith. Finally, South Park suggests (from the mouth of an otter) that perhaps the mere belief in God makes God exist. These are all different descriptions of the same phenomenon, namely that one's having respect for something reinforces one's respect for that something - a positive feedback loop in its most simple manifestation.

Both Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb were distressed by American society, and their distress stemmed from this observation: they saw that Americans had almost no sense of piety or respect. But this is where these men were wrong. It is true that Americans don't have any piety or respect for traditional, pre-Enlightenment values - Liberalism saw to it that piety of that sort was eliminated. But the goal of the Enlightenment philosophers - to eradicate piety itself - was not achieved by any means. For what we have today is Faith in Reason; Science as Religion; and Democracy as God. Strauss and Qutb made the mistake of believing that Liberalism's original intention of destroying piety had been achieved; but what has actually been achieved is a momentary displacement of piety from the mystical to the rational.

It is my contention that piety, in moderation and in harmony with a sense of individual freedom, is not at all a danger - it is, in fact, an extremely healthy mode of operation. Neither is a healthy respect for the mystical and the unknown, with an equal respect for the concrete and the known - both form parts of the human condition without which we cannot function. What is dangerous - what the Enlightenment philosophers knew and saw as dangerous - is too much piety, unchecked by freedom of thought and originality. But what is even more dangerous - what I see as dangerous today - is the pious belief that piety itself is poisonous. When men put their Faith in Reason, and then turn around to decry Faith; when men follow Science religiously, and decry Religion in all shapes and forms; when men follow the edicts of the Majority as though they were the edicts of God, and scream at the top of their lungs that God does not exist - well, then these men have become hypocrites.

Liberalism has redirected our sense of respect from the sphere of the divine to the sphere of the human. And this would be quite alright if you would all realize that we are all mere humans - all too human.

Ignorant Savants

For all the benefits that come with our living in the Age of Information, human beings have yet to step beyond the great hindrance that is our personal bias. For over a century now we've lived with daily updates concerning our communities, our nations and our world as a whole - and yet we still cannot believe, standing upon the Great Inauguration of the 21st century, that the "world" we know through the media is any closer to reality than the one described a hundred years ago; and this, for the very simple reason that reporters have always preferred certain truths.

It's very easy for an individual to believe that the media is simply lying to us: all that person has to do is shut his ears and disregard everything reported. But for those with more refined tastes and intellects, the job is much harder: we have the job of digging, sifting and sorting, i.e. of interpreting the information we receive. The source from whence it comes, the audience for which it's intended, the form through which it is transmitted and the minuteness of its detail - all of these factors and more must be brought to bear upon the fact being considered, until it appears within and alongside the web and tissue of relations with other facts, points of view and situations, as "science," "journalism" or "propaganda" - in one word, until we get the fact situated in its proper context.

In short, a person who wants to really live in the world presented to him, who wants to go beyond the statistical abstraction and dry facticity that make up the landscape of the "global picture" - such a person must undo and thereby escape the influence of precisely that which got him access to the information in the first place: the purely individual bias that led someone to pluck it out of context and report it to the world at large. Not able to flat-out refuse the information received, unable to erase the existence of a fact experienced, he must nevertheless place it "in suspense" - and carry on about his day.

Indeed, the only drawback to the plethora of information today is that too many of us are so partisan with our use of it. We accept what we accept, reject what we reject, and then stand in full-fledged self-righteousness to praise or condemn that which we really know nothing about. The facts pile up beneath us, dry and gray, and the more we have the higher the soapbox on which we can stand - and still our lives are as dry and gray as the mountains from which we preach. We have lost the art of interpretation, the slow and ponderous skills required to transform empty assertions into colors, sounds and impressions - we have, my friends, lost most of the art of Living.

If you Americans want to use the word "democracy" as much as you do, you should probably know a few things about it.

"Democracy" was first brought into theory by the Greeks. The Greek theorists were familiar with, and put into words on many occasions, the idea that the majority of people were not capable of "running things" - but they were also familiar with the fact that the majority of people are prone to violent revolution when they feel they are being overtly manipulated (this being a matter of pride). So the most idealist Greeks came up with this idea of "democracy": a system in which a "bunch" of people - landowning Athenian males of reputable standing - established the laws that were to apply to "all" the people. It practically implemented the cherished idea of the Just Mean, and at the same time gave comfort and security (i.e. complacency) to those whose voices were not heard - because surely their opinion would be shared with someone in the aforementioned "bunch." Surely someone would represent their voice.

And here I have to stand up, my fellow Americans, and reiterate this tedious fact once again: that "democracy" is just as much an idealism as socialism or Marxism, despite what the British would have to say; that it was devised, and exists today, as a fig leaf under which can safely and undetectedly operate the mechanisms of despotism and unnatural aristocracy; and finally (and most importantly), that it promises equality where there is none, so that us individuals will fight against ourselves rather than take responsibility for the state of our Union.

This, my fellow Americans, is the state of the Union: you're all riled up and scared shitless. And you probably have "democracy" to blame.

Sodomy à la mode

You know, as a gay guy I've never really had a problem with fucking someone in the ass. It's often a really enjoyable experience - sometimes on both ends - and "anti-sodomy" people have quite frankly become a joke in recent years. What's so wrong with fucking someone in the ass?

Oh - oh dearest, cock-handling me, and excuses all around. I forgot about the goddamned Liberals. We all know these guys are sensitive people, and we wouldn't want to offend their sensibilities. Let's see what those sensibilities are, because God knows that Liberals can get nasty when Liberals get offended.

For starters, there's things like Enron, or Wall Street. Those are bad words, because they mean a bunch of rich people fucking a bunch of not-so-rich people in their not-so-rich asses. I can understand the case against sodomy there, although I think we have better things to worry about. But let's take Catholics - Catholics is another bad word, because a flock of frocked middle-agers decided that little boys were easy prey - and by "prey" I mean, "fuck-in-the-buttable" - by little boys, I mean "Damn, they're only thirteen." - by "frocked middle-agers" I mean a bunch of weird guys, blessed with dicks that God "told" them never to use. No wonder they took the easy prey...

But now I'm sidetracking, and probably offending the Liberals (are the Conservatives queasy yet?). The point is, if an Enron or a priest or a babysitter fucks someone in the ass, it's wrong and against the law. If a man like myself - with all my own dirty little quirks and quinks and quibbles - if a man like myself actually fucks a person in the ass, it's really cool. It's actually awesome. It's protected by laws and lobbyists and pressure groups. Feminists jump around us and tell us how spectacular we are for doing it. The President himself comes down from his world-rearing perch and kisses us on the cheek - and all I can think is "Fuck. that. shit."

If you want to tell me that having a cock, or a carrot, or a cucumber rammed up your asshole is a pleasurable experience, well hell, I'll listen to what you have to say. I bet it is, and I'd try it if not for my hemorrhoids. But if anyone with a virgin asshole - and by that I mean "anyone who has never been fucked in the ass by a cock or a carrot or cucumber" - if any of them tries to tell me that being fucked in the ass is a horrible thing metaphorically, and a human right when actually done physically (with cock, carrot or cucumber) - well damn. That kind of person has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and shouldn't be talking.

Fucking is part of Life. Being fucked is also part of Life. The ramming of something up somebody's somepart has been an established human practice for millions of years, and our primate predecessors still do it today. But this new thing, this "legislation" - for or against anyone fucking anybody - is stupid, and boring, and pointless: because people will keep fucking each other in the pooper, regardless.

So I have an idea (we'll call it an alternative): let's take all those good intentions and stick them up our asses - or better yet, since I have hemorrhoids, let's stick them up the Liberals' asses, and we'll at least spare me the pain (sorry if you're a Liberal with hemorrhoids). Take your laws against sodomy, and stuff 'em right up. Take your pressure groups in favor of, lube 'em up all slick, and slide 'em right on in. Because the truth of the matter is, people are going to fuck people - in the ass - and they're not going to feel any better or worse about it because of You Self-Righteous Pricks.

And if anyone was wondering, I will fuck you in the ass to prove my point. If you buy me dinner. And snuggle afterwards.

Hey, boy. Hey.

I'm scared to say that I love you. I'm scared of all the little things that could go wrong, and the things I could lose. I'm scared of the things I could gain - but mostly I'm scared of being embarrassed. In fact -

I'm embarrassed.

Let's be honest: I'm just all-around inside/outside embarrassed. I'm embarrassed of the way my heart moves, or that part of my brain I like to call "my heart" - it's way down in the bottom and way up at the top, and it leaks around the sides and gets gooey in the cracks. I'm embarrassed of the little nosey-snuggle things it wants me to do to you, and the stubbornness, and the silly way it laughs. I'm embarrassed, because it thinks you think that I think too much. Too little.

I'm embarrassed.

I'm not even sure you could handle that part of me. I think it's too fat, too sweaty, too fuzzy and sticky. It's got too many tongues, not enough fingers, and two big, rosy cheeks that would smother a cute little face like yours. I think it probably wants to smother your face. It wants to lick you, and tickle you, and poke at your belly. It wants to walk up behind you while you're eating your breakfast and put its head on your shoulder, so it can see what you're eating. Maybe you'll feed it some yogurt. I think it really hopes you will.

It probably doesn't want to hold your hand in public, although it might. It definitely doesn't want to go down on you in a movie theater.

I'm embarrassed.

I have a part that doesn't get to see daylight very much. It could be my own fault, and it could be yours - do you have to be so intimidating? It keeps trying to come out and play, but it's scared of the big boys and the bullies - it thinks you might be one. It's scared of "No," and "Maybe," and "I don't think so." It's scared of rejection.

I don't know all the things it would do if it got out. It might go shopping, but I don't think so. It would probably snuggle up with you and watch a movie, but I don't think you would let it. It would certainly stare at strangers from across the room, and forget to file its tax returns, and eat its own boogers. On Saturdays it would dress up as Charlie Chaplin and dance with jiggaboos in local Irish pubs, and on Sunday it would go to church as Hitler so it wouldn't have to shave. It would keep both costumes clean and pressed. Shoulder pads on Sunday.

I'm embarrassed.

It wants you to know all these things and more, but it can't seem to make me tell you. It wants you to love, and be loved, and it's jealous enough to want me to be the loved and the lover - but I'm scared of it. I'm scared of it, I'm scared of my sticky-fluffy part - and that's why I'm embarrassed.

But I do think you'd like him. And he'd like you.

Dissociating Thoughts and Actions

I often wonder whether the depravity of a thinker's life - be he a Descartes or a Pierce, a Berkeley or Bacon - I wonder whether their depravity incriminates their thinking. As a sort of existentialist, I must confess that I'm convinced of the indissoluble unity between thought and action; but as an elitist (and a principled one, to be sure), I also think that that kind of reasoning is just an easy way to discredit an unappealing argument - in fact, such reasoning is only employed to discredit those people who make really good arguments.

Bobbedy Bob-Bob-Booger

The feeling of alienation is common, all-too-common, for us humans. I suppose we have to get used to it; I suppose we have to fight it, as well. With all our strength.

It's been a few days now since I was forced (or since I forced myself?) to forsake the only person I've ever really "loved" in my entire life. I don't mean "love," in the sense that I love my parents; and I don't mean "love" in the sense that I love my friends. I think you understand, now, what kind of "love" I mean.

This - and I'm forced, emotionally, to be prettily (prettily) extravagant here - this was a man who, when I first saw him for the first time in my life, made my head cave in. This was a man who, when I finally met him for the first time in my life, made my guts swim around in a very most fanciful way - a tickling, giddy way, and you know the feeling. This was a man who, when his loving-turned-heroic-turned-loving again (and pretty!) of a mother so suddenly disappeared, told me that we were going to perform a Talking Heads song at the oldest church in Springfield with electric guitar action. At the funeral. This was a man to whom I said "Yes. Fuck yes." Without reserve.

This was the man who taught me logic. This was the man who taught me technology. This was the man who, despite all my feelings for him, would freeze my emotions, and force me to Think - and then my heart, my heart of hearts, would melt all over the floor and I'd have to clean it up.

This, my friends and family, is the man who's forsaken me.

I said before that I'd forsaken him, I know. The truth of the matter is that I don't know what has happened. He has forsaken me, I'm sure, and I have forsaken him to some degree. But I don't know who has said what, and I don't know why it was said - and I certainly don't know what's happened between us that can't be forgiven. The only thing I do know - and this I know with all my Think and Feel - is that I want to forgive - but I can't, until I'm forgiven.

I've done something terribly wrong. Like I said, I don't know exactly what - but I'm quite assuredly sure it was something terribly wrong, because I feel like a vacuum sucked out of a vacuum sucked out of a syphilitic cock. I'm not even sure that I should be feeling this way, but I do. And he's the one that's made me.

Is "love" something to be adored? Is "friendship" something to be cherished, when the losing of it makes you feel so empty? so directionless? so lost? Is - and I think this is a question we should all ask ourselves from time to time - is anyone really worth that..?

I kind of think he is. And sweetly, at that.

Suck My Dick

I would really, really appreciate it if the lot of you would suck my dick. While I do understand that individuals have individual ideas, opinions and "ways of thinking" about things, I must stop myself and say: Fuck You.

That, my friends, is my individual. That, my friends, is my way of saying "fuck you" (to reiterate). That, my friends, is the only liberty a fag can pretend to have these days. And you - or should I say "You" - can stop pretending to be my friend.

I despise your sympathy, because it's not real. I loath to hear myself "included" in some part of your "community," because it's not real. And I HATE - HATE, to reiterate - the way you dickwads try to console me -: because it's not real.

I am, and I am the way I am. If you think there's a problem there, speak up. I want to hear you, I want to understand you, I want to crush you. Because there isn't a problem there. There's just ME. Your problem, my friend, is only and simply that: your fucking problem.

Gnome Chawmskee

I do believe I made a bit of a Facebook row by posting a description courte of my feelings for Mr. Noam Chomsky. I offer this, then, as an attempt at clarification.

My distaste with Chomsky - my disgust, really - stems from the same problem I have with Richard Dawkins, Jean-Paul Sartre and a number of other "leading intellectuals" - namely, that they have all used their well-deserved renown to peddle some anti-intellectual agenda that, in the case of Chomsky and Dawkins, runs quite contrary to the work that earned them their renown in the first place.

Let's take Dawkins: a brilliant scientist who has single-handedly made some of the greatest advances in the theory of evolution that have ever been made. And what do we find him doing now? What have all his rigorous, admirable contributions to the empirical method of observation brought him to? Well, he's now made a name for himself in the anti-scientific, anti-empirical field of theology: he is attacking "god."

Now it should be recognized that intellectual integrity forbids a genius of such rank to engage in argumentation with minds that are so absolutely deprived of the ability for critical thinking, analysis and logical continuity as those with which Dawkins debates - the entire spectacle is really just comical, and does a great injustice to the scientific work he has produced. What is abhorrent, however, is the nature of his new "line of work." To see a man, whose unflenching adherance to the scientific method of discovery is so widely applauded, suddenly become engaged in arguments for and against the existence of God; to watch the spirit of Bacon, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley put to use in service of the spirits Tarsus, Augustine and Aquinas - this, my friends, is not comical in the least, but tragic.

So what is my problem with Chomsky? Well it's just this: the destruction of rational, meaningful discourse by the very mind that threw so much light on the structure, possibility and origin of rational, meaningful discourse; the rhetorical, unintelligable mashing-up of facts (to use a musical term) by a man whose best work was meant to illuminate, standardize and concretize the very concept "fact." The problem I have with Chomsky is that he has sacrificed reason to passion - and what makes it all the worse for the wear is that he has no sense of style.

I mean really: it's all good and well to renounce one's adolescent preoccupations with words in favor of more suitable "adult" themes - politics, injustice, consumerism, etc. But if one is going to commit themselves to discussing such garbage, one could at least be pretty about it.

Grandstanding for Nihilism

I doth object: to the mind-numbing timeliness of every movement, work of art or piece of legislation; to the way our society seems to run down an unflinching track of cause and effect, thesis and antithesis, without ever bothering to stop off and change the oil; to the unbearable smugness with which men condemn the culpable and criticize all that is ripe for criticism - and all of this, as though we should applaud! "On your knees, boys and girls!" they cry. "I have come to demonstrate once and for all the hollowness of your institutions, the banality of your interests, the meanness of your idols - my words will be that breath of fresh air you seek, and the revolution you await!"

In all honesty and good conscience, we cannot pretend that we are any more than entertained by such demonstrations - no more, at least, than they can pretend away their hollowness, meanness and yes: their banality.

Absolutist Atheism..(?)

I find it baffling that the first philosopher to be an outspoken atheist should describe the entire inner being of our world as will. For those of you who don't know, I'm referring to Arthur Schopenhauer: 19th century "pessimist" philosopher, who believed that the reality we are aware of is merely an "appearance" (and that derived from Immanuel Kant), and that the other side of things - the reality of which we're not aware - is a seething, undifferentiated mass of will.

What's so puzzling to me is this: to be called an atheist, one must have renounced the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful totality of being that would normally be called "God." Granted, Schopenhauer did describe that underlying "will" as blind (i.e. it is not "all-knowing") - but the implications of the way he describes reality are in a very obvious sense theistic.

This all brings to mind an idea that I and many others have had, namely that human nature is actually incapable of true atheism. It may be that Schopenhauer outgrew the idea of "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term, or that Richard Dawkins renounces the idea of "God" in any of its multi-cultural manifestations - but did not Schopenhauer simply replace God with will? Has Dawkins actually conquered the metaphysical need for absolute reality - or has he simply filled this need with science instead of God? Considering the nature of what we call "God," it's easy to see that one "God" has simply been replaced by another: no man can do without.

I suppose the real purpose of writing this down is to warn my fellow men: the idea of a "practicing atheist" is truly absurd. Try and find one - at best, you will find some decadent excuse for a neo-nihilist that wants some good-old-fashioned attention. In all honesty, an "atheist" is nothing more than someone who has replaced the Christian "God" with some other absolute principle or ruling idea - in other words, someone who has found a new God. Unfortunately for us (and them), they've yet to find anything better.

Demystification: Phase One

Scientific atheists and Christian theologians alike contend that the crux of Christianity rests on the belief in Christ's resurrection - it's become the modern day litmus test that will once and for all establish whether someone is a Christian or not. 

I, for one, pose to both parties this question: since when did belief in someone's teachings require belief in said teacher's immortality? The first Christians - those who accompanied Christ before his death - were obviously oblivious to the "fact" that he would rise from the dead - and yet they were still Christians. Similarly, your present-day Cartesians, Darwinists, Marxists and Maoists entertain no illusions concerning the death of their respective idols - must we then say that Cartesians are not "true Cartesians," because they have not enough faith in Descartes to believe that he transcended death? Must the Maoists believe that their portly premier still haunts the streets of Beijing in order to call themselves Maoists? I think not. 

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has set up a series of requirements that believers must meet before they can call themselves Christians has no bearing on the true meaning of the word "Christian" - to be a Christian is to adhere to (or at least attempt to adhere to) the teachings of Jesus Christ. Proving that corpses do not reanimate in no way disproves that humility is a good quality to have, or that love of one's neighbor is generally a good thing; and conversely, a man is not made humble and loving simply because he places his belief in a physical impossibility. A Christian is first and foremost a follower of Christ - the superstition is no more than icing on the cake. If you believe it, that is. 

Aside: A Word to a Loved One

I suppose it's something like luck that brings friends into our lives, and cruel fate that takes them out again. A man can never do enough planning, make enough efforts, or arrange enough circumstance to establish a relationship with someone; similarly, he cannot fight hard enough, work long enough, or give more than enough to maintain a relationship that's running through his fingers. The only thing over which he does have control is the place he makes in his heart for those central figures in his life he calls friends - and he should take care not to misplace them. But then I'm telling the moral before the story:

I knew somehow, and long before we met, that you would be a part of my life. I knew somehow, when we did meet, that you would mean more to me than anyone else I'd ever known. And I knew, after you'd stepped away, that I'd shown you too much. I let you know exactly what role you played in my life, and you weren't happy with the part; I let you know how much you meant to me, and you were overwhelmed with the responsibility; and I let you know that, in spite of all your shortcomings, I still loved you. That, I think, is when you realized exactly what it meant to take advantage of people - and you felt guilty for doing it.

It would be wrong to say that I begrudge you all the insipidity, insult and indifference that you've shown me over the years; in fact, I do believe I've grown from them. At the very least I can say that I've come to know a little better exactly what place in my heart you must occupy (it's somewhere near the ground floor, most probably in the maintenance closet) - perhaps the role suits you better? Come now, and do be honest: is that not the room I occupy in yours?

Faith vs. Reason: An Attempt at Reconciliation

This post is an extension of a train of thought begun in the post "Reasonable Rhetoric," and followed upon in "Specificity Contra Art." The upside-down, read-from-top-to-bottom, inverse-Chinese aspect of the blog's chronological layout means that the commencement of this argument is to be found somewhere below this one. I would change that, if I knew how.

The apparent manifestation of the "unscientific backlash," as we will call it, directs us back to our concern with the New Synthesis of faith and reason. It's quite obvious that these two world-views have time and time again established paradigms in every field of human activity; that they have been all-too-often paraded as mutually exclusive criteria for Truth, despite the intrinsic mutual dependency that exists between them; and that contemporary social phenomena evidence a strong inclination towards the reconciliation between their adherents. All that is left to be done is to bring some of these exemplary phenomena to light, so that the hypocrisy that feeds the perpetual battle between the two might be exposed and eliminated.

Reason in Faith: Let's begin with the adherents of faith. The Roman Catholic Church is the most influential faith-based institution in the world, and as such represents the greatest threat to reason that has ever existed: I refer you all to the fates of Galileo and Descartes, whose scientific milestones were assailed with the stinking muck of heresy, insubordination and atheism before finally reaching their public's awareness. More importantly, I ask you to examine the "dogma" that stands as a prerequisite to the "profession of faith": it includes such bizarreries as Virgin Birth, Immaculate Conception and Resurrection After Death. Obviously, none of us were there to witness these miracles - we are instructed to accept them upon faith alone. 

But then what, according to the instructors, is this faith? From what I have seen, their "faith" consists of argumentation, syllogism and vast cobwebs of cold, calculated, often circular - reason. Take a listen, if you will, to the subterranean rumblings emanating from the caves of the Vatican: you will hear an army of apologentsia, devising rudimentary Aristotlean equations in order to prove that Christ rose from the dead, after having been conceived by a Virgin. They are out to devise geometrical proofs for the very mysteries that are to be accepted upon faith, and the laboratories in which they work are of a decidedly Frankenseinean nature. 

It should be clear to anyone without conceptual cataracts that the miracle-mystery dogmatism of the Catholic Church is nothing more than a crooked spinning wheel of social control, designed to keep even the most astute intellects occupied so that the political pressure-cooker might go on boiling undetected. But what concerns us here is the fact that reason has been employed to buttress faith - even in cases where the faith has gone bad. Despite their cries against the scientific community for trying to introduce reason where reason doesn't belong, the bedrock of Christian dogmatism is being reinforced with logical rebar. 

Faith in Reason: The scientific community represents humanity's immense investment in the power of reason; let us then address their method, for as we will discover, faith plays a critical role therein. 

The first assumption - that reason is capable of arriving at Truth - is an assumption which must be accepted upon faith alone. There is no way to prove that the products of reason are in any way congruent with what we call Truth, no more than we can prove that Truth actually exists independent of human consciousness. The attempt to drive out faith from the scientific realm is a pipe-dream; if this purging were actually realized, the vast bodies of knowledge that science has accumulated would fall into the same irreparable senselessness in which the theologians anguish daily. We require an immense amount of faith in our own reason to even arrive at the possibility of employing the scientific method.

The second assumption - that the Truth arrived at by reason is justified by experimentation - is also a faith-based assumption. In order to assert that, for instance, the theory of relativity correctly predicts the bending of light around high-mass astronomical bodies, one has to put a great deal of faith in one's eyes and instruments - how else would we then know that we are even witnessing an eclipse? What in the hell would the term "observation" mean, if we didn't trust the proper functionality of our cornea-lens-retina-nervous-system combo? The entire undertaking which we call "experimentation" has been constructed on these two basic assumptions - that reason leads to Truth, and that our observations of the world are reliable. And I thought I heard the scientists say that assumptions were to be left to the religious..?

The Backlash of Irrationality: It is clear (I hope) that the two most prevalent world-views, pronounced the one by the other to be antithetical and mutually incompatible, are indeed intertwined in ways that would lead us to believe that they are in fact mutually dependent - i.e. faith cannot exist without reason, and vise versa. The eventual synthesis of these two perspectives has already begun - has been underway, perhaps, since their conception - but is being achieved through a number of successive oscillations, at the extremes of which one of the two is demonized, and the other glorified. At the moment, as I stated in a previous post, we are witnessing a shift away from the cold logic of the twentieth century to a more aesthetic perspective that values the multifarious, the vague, and the ability to interpret. What I hope to have shown here is that, even during the periods of extreme faithfulness (during which rationality is demonized), there is a great deal of rationalization employed in the service of faith; and conversely, that when rationality is held to be the only method of attaining Truth (to the exclusion of belief), there is much faith required to justify that position. 

I cannot at this point determine whether or not these two tendencies will ever coalesce into one unified paradigm from which we may move beyond their respective limits; nor can I really imagine what such a paradigm might resemble, or what will be raised up against it as the New Antithesis. All I can ask - and I ask this of the Scientist, the Priest, the Politician and the Everyman - is that the idea of a synthesis be seriously entertained. With all the current limitations on knowledge and epistemology, it seems reasonable to assume that an alternative criteria for Truth would be welcomed.

Specificity Contra Art

In a society that has spent almost a century now observing Reality through a hyper-scientific monocle, it's often worth the time to examine the aesthetic value-judgements that run, if you will, in a countercurrent to the empirico-deductive mechanism that powers the sciences. 

The Division of Labor amongst Words: Some words, like "cat," "cake" and "limb," do not carry a heavy load of concepts along with them - they mean what they mean, and as such are specific enough to accurately describe natural phenomena. Other words, however, pull their weight: "his," "freedom" and "love" come to mind. These are words that have taken on a heavy burden, that fight for (if I may) the ability to communicate volumes quite briefly.

The Specificity of Words and their Value: The problem with these "heavy words" and their application is this: that words lose their specificity - and thus their immediacy, as far as comprehension in concerned - in direct proportion to the increase in their richness of meaning. The more weight a word has to carry naturally makes that word more cumbersome, or what is the same, open to more possibilities of interpretation; such words are inimical in the highest degree to the scientific spirit that has dominated the past hundred years. 

The Aesthetic Preference for Interpretation:  Interestingly, current aesthetic preference tends to place a high value on these more cumbersome words and the opportunity they afford us to make various interpretations. If we want to make an equation of this observation for all the scientific minds out there, it seems that the aesthetic value we place on words increases in direct proportion to the number of possible significations they may have.

In a world that is trying to become exclusively scientific - or, which is the same, as specific as possible - it is interesting to note that human beings are placing more and more value on that which is vague. Could we be experiencing the beginning of a backlash against science?