Walla Walla Bing Bang

In the 47-page essay that makes up the first third of her short book For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand makes much use of two archetypal terms coined by Nathaniel Branden. Two kinds of human, one a figure of force and the other a figure of faith.

For a completely slanted (and often vitriolic) summary of the history of philosophy, FTNI is an interesting read. It was with good reason that a friend of mine once remarked, "Miss Rand should always be read with one eyebrow permanently raised." But even if it's not much good for anything else, the essay makes great use of the two archetypes played against each other, and against mankind. The rubric used lends a compelling perspective to certain cultural trends, both throughout history and in the present.

So, the archetypes. The first is called Atilla. This is the psychological symbol of blunt might, of violence as the solution to all problems, of destruction of one's enemies as an ideal. The second is called the Witch Doctor. This is the human who eschews reality, who retreats "into his emotions, into visions of some mystic realm where his wishes enjoy a supernatural power unlimited by the absolute of nature." They might seem like polar opposites, but Rand plays them as two sides of the same coin. Both are interested in forcing reality to conform to their desires; and while Atilla strives for physical conquest, the Witch Doctor seeks to rule the soul. The muscle of Atilla can take purpose from the values of the Witch Doctor, and in turn the Witch Doctor gains protection from and power over "any recalcitrant who may choose to challenge his authority." Rand plays both as the enemies of reason, and as proponents of the precept that wishes are superior to reality.

From page 17:

Since the clash [between reality and wishes] is constant, the Witch Doctor's solution is to believe that what he perceives is another, "higher" reality―where his wishes are omnipotent, where contradictions are possible and A is non-A, where his assertions, which are false on earth, become true and aquire the status of a "superior" truth which he perceived by means of a special faculty denied to other, "inferior," beings. The only validation of his consciousness he can obtain on earth is the belief and the obedience of others, when they accept his "truth" as superior to their own perception of reality. While Atilla extorts their obedience by means of a club, the Witch Doctor obtains it by means of a much more powerful weapon: he pre-empts the field of morality.

There is no way to turn morality into a weapon of enslavement except by divorcing it from man's reason and from the goals of his own existence. There is no way to degrade man's life on earth except by the lethal opposition of the moral and the practical. Morality is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions; when it is set to oppose his own life and mind, it makes him turn against himself and blindly act as the tool of his own destruction. There is no way to make a human being accept the role of a sacrificial animal except by destroying his self-esteem. There is no way to destroy his self-esteem except by making him reject his own consciousness. There is no way to make him reject his own consciousness except by convincing him of its impotence.

The damnation of this earth as a realm where nothing is possible to man but pain, disaster and defeat, a realm inferior to another, "higher," reality; the damnation of all values, enjoyment, achievement and success on earth as a proof of depravity; the damnation of man's mind as a source of pride, and the damnation of reason as a "limited," deceptive, unreliable, impotent faculty, incapable of perceiving the "real" reality and the "true" truth; the split of man in two, setting his consciousness (his soul) against his body, and his moral values against his own interest; the damnation of man's nature, body and self as evil; the commandment of self-sacrifice, renunciation, suffering, obedience, humility and faith, as the good; the damnation of life and the worship of death, with the promise of rewards beyond the grave―these are the necessary tenets of the Witch Doctor's view of existence, as they have been in every variant of Witch Doctor philosophy throughout the course of mankind's history.

The secret of the Witch Doctor's power lies in the fact that man needs an integrated view of life, a philosophy, whether he is aware of his need or not―and whenever, through ignorance, cowardice, or mental sloth, men choose not to be aware of it, their chronic sense of guilt, uncertainty and terror makes them feel that the Witch Doctor's philosophy is true.

In contemplating such forceful rhetoric, I think of our culture and the tag-team of the Religious Right and the Republican party over the past couple decades. It isn't a perfect match for Rand's perspective in the early 1960's, but in some ways it fits remarkably well. Perhaps where I differ from Rand's formulation is in my questioning of whether the two archetypical characters must necessarily be joined as a team. To wit: what happens if Atilla and the Witch Doctor are no longer able to get along?

My current hypothesis is that, should the tag-team continue to be stressed by Giuliani's leading in most polls, and should the stress be maximized if/when Giuliani wins the nomination, and if that were to result in the evangelical/fundamentalist "base" of the conservative party actually refusing to vote for Giuliani because of their myopic view of a few social issues, we will see two things happen. One, the Democratic candidate will win the White House; and two, the tag-team of religious conservatives and the Republican party will be (permanently?) damaged, perhaps dissolved. If our culture and our discourse and our politics can all three step together into the 21st Century to join the rest of Western civilization, the modern Republican party might only remain relevant to the extent that it marginalizes the evangelical/fundamentalist block that it has so long courted. We may very well be staring at the cusp of a political and cultural shift as it is about to happen, with the result being that we finally escape some of the ancient social taboos that we've so long been shackled to.

Letter to the Editor

I had a letter to the editor get published in LEO (the local independent paper) about two weeks ago. It's the final letter in the Erosia section of the Derby week edition, published on 05/02/07.

The background leading up to my letter includes certain statements made by Al Mohler first being mentioned in Brown's column on March 20th, and Ray Rieck's letter a week later defending Mohler, appearing in the same edition as George's full article on the topic. Both Brown's column and George's article are worth reading. Two weeks later, on April 10th, a letter to the editor critical of Mohler and Rieck appeared, written by Michael Lenhart, and a week after that two more critical letters appeared, written by Bryan Hurst and Richard Hodge. Two weeks after that, on May 2nd, they printed my letter, which I'll reproduce below.

With that context in view, and keeping in mind that the Erosia section of LEO has a pretty small word limit, I offer the letter I wrote as my blog entry for today. The only editing I've applied to it has been to restore my original spacing and instances of emphasis (which were correctly reproduced in the print edition but not the online version), and to add links for clarification and convenience.

I can already see the fundamentalist retorts to last week's letters from Hurst and Hodge. In defending Rieck and Mohler, we'll get the standard party line: "Oh, that's the Old Testament, but we now live under the 'new covenant'!" Or, they'll turn to their misogynist hero Paul, and say "The NT condemns homosexuality too, it's right there in 1Corinthians6:9 and 1Timothy1:10!"

They'll forget, of course, that those verses don't say anything about lesbians. They'll ignore, in a stunning feat of cognitive insouciance, that the Old Testament makes up nearly 80% of their Holy Bible, and contains a couple versions of their beloved "10 Commandments" and that neat fairy tale about Noah living within walking distance of all the animals on the planet. While rushing to force their particular literal interpretation on everybody, they will continue to hypocritically ignore the parts that they don't really like as much. Oppressing gay people is easy, but it's hard to run a communist church (Acts2:44-46, 4:32-37). Biblical homophobia fits right in with their modern fundamentalism, but most happily ignore the commands for women to be absolutely silent in church and only submissively ask questions of their husbands at home (1Corinthians14:33b-35). It is instinct to defend Mohler or to argue for outright discrimination against homosexuals everywhere, but it's easy to forget The Rules when it comes to men never having long hair and women always having both long hair and prayer hats (1Corinthians11:2-16).

Which is more astonishing? That such people want to force others to live by 2,000-year-old bigoted social taboos, or that they so obviously pick-and-choose which parts to pontificate about, conveniently ignoring the parts that don't serve their hatred?

The Louisville Eccentric Observer (LEO) has been in publication for 17 years and is distributed every Wednesday. It is available for free at over 900 locations in Louisville and Southern Indiana, and also online.

Sam Harris on the radio

A certain Sam Harris wrote a small book recently, a sequel of sorts to a larger one from two years before.

A radio show that I like then proceeded to have Mr. Harris on for the first half of a two-part series on religion and public policy. During his interview, Harris explains his position and reasoning regarding politics and religion. In the second half, two clergymen are interviewed in order to represent an opposing perspective. (Note: radio-haters or YouTube addicts may prefer the other Sam Harris links at the bottom of this entry.)

You can listen to the first half, with Sam Harris, by going here.

You can then listen to the second half, with Pastor Russell Johnson and Reverend Timothy McDonald, by going here.

Read no further if you want to have the opportunity to listen to the series without the influence of my opinion. After listening to both sides for yourself and considering them thoughtfully (hopefully without my comments introducing bias), you can then read the following for my take......

First, some comments on the second half of the series.

Pastor Johnson was incredibly frustrating to listen to. For instance, the host has a very hard time getting him to actually answer questions as they are asked. So much so that she actually re-asks one or two questions at least three different times, which still results in Johnson refusing to give a direct and honest answer. He uses the word "candidly" so many times it becomes humorous. Then he uses it even more and it becomes insane (and makes him sound just plain dumb).

Pastor Johnson displays a constant misunderstanding of the issues Sam Harris has raised: he consistently gives misdirected answers, and relies almost exclusively on the same fundamentalist rhetoric that Harris is trying to criticize. Somebody even chuckles at him around the 22:08 mark.

Pastor McDonald is a bit more sensible. He criticizes rigid literalism and the extreme religious right, pointing out that such a position has always resulted in harm in the past. He is also critical of the present problem of religious belief that tries to impose laws that discriminate against the freedom of individual people.

But McDonald's responses have their own set of problems. He too is unable to actually respond directly to several questions raised by Sam Harris. One defense he offers is that moderate Christians can act as a check-and-balance against fundamentalist Christians. But this defense doesn't seem an adequate answer, in light of the actual issues raised by Harris concerning moderates actually helping foster the problem of fundamentalist religion. McDonald also claims, boldly but ignorantly, that atheism is a religion. He is also quite wrong in his attempt to make the defenders of religious liberty (and the separation of church and state) seem identical to Christians who want to legislate their "morality" across the board, forcing those who do not share their belief to obey their edicts. The two positions are distinctly different (diametrically opposed, even), and both he and Johnson are apparently blind to the difference.

The few people who call into the show during the second interview are, well... Their contribution to the discussion speaks for itself.

Now, to quickly comment on the first half.

Harris' comments, introducing the thrust of his books and summarizing a few points from them, are succinct and cogent. He's clearly prepared to give short and understandable explanations that both answer the question(s) raised and invite the listener to read his book to view the entire argument. He even deals well with Mrs. Martin's somewhat sloppy interview.

For a shorter chat with Harris that aired a few days earlier and on a different NPR program, click here; for yet another program's short report from a few weeks later, click here (both are handled more professionally than the interview by Mrs. Martin). However, if you're interested in a longer and more sustained presentation (or if you're just more visually inclined), you can click here to watch Harris talking at ideaCity for about 19 minutes, or you can watch his lecture at the NYSEC (click right here for part 1 of 4).

What do you think:
After having listened to the two-part radio series, what are your thoughts? What are your reactions to the issues Harris raises? Are you satisfied with the answers given during part two? Or, if you watched the videos instead (or listened to a different radio clip), what is your response? If you choose to be generous enough to take the time to respond, please specify which radio/video clip you're talking about..

The Autumn Reading Summary (part 2)

Vivekananda said: "We put our hands over our eyes and weep that it is dark."

Here are a few more snippets from what I've been reading lately. I promise that my next "Reading Summary" installment will be more focused, with longer passages of text and probably a single author. Until then, peruse the following...

First, I've been reading through the intellectual journaling of an online author named Daniel (starting with the oldest entries and working forward from there). Here's a few excerpts, each with a link to its origin, for context.

"...From there I realized that the more fundamentalist the basis for a person's stance on certain issues, the less interested he is in being objective to reality..." click

"When I was a Christian I read Christian books to find out the Christian views on all things non-Christian. How quickly my knowledge turned on me once I decided to learn of issues for what they are, as opposed to what all Christians want them to be." click

"The most serious demand for unquestioned belief is, of course, the atonement..." click

"...The more desperate one becomes for the very voice of God, the literal words from His heart and mind [that would best answer] our unique questions, the louder that silence becomes..." click

"Either God elects or he does not, but the surest way to reveal that he doesn't is for Christians to acquire their flock by indoctrination." click

Also, here's a quote that Amy and I both liked: "Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found."
–Miguel de Unamuno

She and I also just read through a novel by Hermann Hesse, called Demian. First, two quotes from the pen of the main character, and then two quotes from the mouth of his mysterious friend, whom the novel is named after.

Emil Sinclair wrote, "All I really wanted was to try and live the life that was spontaneously welling up within me. Why was that so very difficult?"

And later, he wrote, "And very many are hung up for good on this reef and for the rest of their life cling painfully to the irretrievable past, to the dream of the lost paradise, which is the worst and most murderous of all dreams."

Once, Max Demian said to Emil, "They cling to ideals that no longer count, and they cast stones at everyone who proclaims a new one."

At a different time, Max also told him, "Only the thoughts that we live out have any value. You knew that your 'permissable world' was only half the world, and you tried to hide away the second half from yourself, the way clergymen and teachers do. You won't succeed! No one can do that when he has once begun to think."

If these brief glimpses (from a story about a two-world dichotomy, and a journey of individuation and finding one's self) spike your interest, Demian is a pretty short novel that can be obtained on the cheap, or for free at your local library. Or, because Project Gutenberg is so wonderful, you could read Siddhartha, which is probably Hesse's best-known work.

Attention Republican Party

Dear GOP,

The cost of obtaining my vote has gone up. The new price requires rational and logical support for planks in the platform, and policies that are honest, accountable, and responsible.

My vote will no longer be obtained by appeals to neo-Fundamentalist values. I will not be swayed by a "pro-life" banner that contains mutually contradictory positions (anti-abortion but pro-death penalty and pro-war; anti-stem cell research but pro-invitro fertilization, et cetera). My vote will not be won by religiously-motivated "abstinance only" campaigns that have spent billions on an "education" program that has been proven (time and again) to be ineffective, and that often includes overt lying to children.

Furthermore, the trumpeting of conservative "family values" that represent nothing more than bigotry, thinly veiled oppression, fear, religiously-fueled discrimination, and hatred, will absolutely not convince me to vote in your favor.

I will no longer vote for a party who has shown repeatedly that it has no respect for scientific integrity.

My vote will not go to a party who's leadership has consistently engaged in illegal activities (secret military tribunals, unconstitutional wiretaps, blatant cruelty and torture and seemingly endless violations of the Geneva Conventions) and steadfastly refuses to admit to any wrong-doing. In fact, rather than own up to its deeds, the administration had instead asked for "clarity" in an attempt to re-write the rules and legalize the torture they've been caught doing. Such behavior is completely appalling and absolutely unacceptable.

Speaking of illegal activities... How many people in the current administration have been indicted now? Libby, Noe, Safavian, DeLay, and soon Frist, and others? My vote will not be had by any Republican who ignores or approves of such wide-ranging problems.

I will not vote for any candidates that engage in their party's new "strategy" of using name-calling and made-up-words to marginalize opposing views and obfuscate legitimate matters of importance. The new fad of using empty transitory slogans, one-liner (or recently, one-worder) epithets, and divisive polarizing rhetoric will simply not earn my vote, and should be recognized for what it is: childish and an obstacle to progress.

My vote will not be given to the party that repeatedly attempts to cancel programs that hold it accountable for its policies. Examples, such as trying to silence the SIPP because it proves an increase in US poverty, railroading the OSC by dispensing with whistleblower protection, and granting the Pentagon arbitrary immunity from the FOIA, are indicative of Orwellian government and should be exposed and decried, not tacitly approved of.

I will not vote for a party who's fiscal and economic policies have encouraged or caused one of the largest deficits in history (including a nearly 9 trillion dollar national debt), and promoted the enrichment of the rich. Furthermore, I will not vote in favor of an administration that seeks to increase spending on propaganda while cutting support for real reporting from PBS and NPR.

The above is a brief explanation of the many reasons I have for reconsidering how I spend my vote. It should be clear that even without considering the increasing problems and mistakes of the "war on terror" (and the administration-leaked NIE report that says invading Iraq has made terrorism worse), the reasons are plentiful. I would encourage others to think carefully and weigh the value of your vote, and join me in my resolve not to give that vote away for far too cheap a price.

The Summer Reading Summary

Among the joys of married life, I've found time recently to get some reading done. Here's a glance at what I've enjoyed so far.

Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility by Dewey M. Beegle

This was one of those accidental and exciting finds you sometimes come across while browsing through a rummage shop of old odds and ends - antiques, used furniture, miscellaneous books. After starting to read through parts of it, imagine my surprise when I realized that along with McKinsey, Beegle is the main target of all of the inerrancy reading I've done for classes at college. Of course, my schooling tells me that these two men are scoundrels - how dare they question inerrancy, let alone have the audacity to list case after case where errancy is proven. Beegle's text is lucid, and he cogently presents individual cases as well as he summarizes general problems, such as the New Testament's heavy reliance on the (often wrongly translated) Septuagint when quoting from the Old. Later, in reflecting on results, he wrote...

"From beginning to end, history warns us that theological Maginot lines or fences fail to achieve their purpose. Not only do they fail to protect, but they also restrict the outreach of the truth being guarded. This is the ultimate tragedy of all legalism."

Later, in explaining the authoritarian reasoning behind inerrancy, he quotes James Smart:

"Doctrines and practices soundly based on an infallible Scripture could not be subject to any essential change. There could be no error in them. Thus has man in different ages used Scripture to establish his own or his own human church's authority over men."

The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac

Buddhist philosophy, hitchhiking, and living out of a rucksack as Kerouac wanders 1950's West Coast America. I laughed at his recounting of a time when he was living in a small shack with his friend, a shack that neighborhood kids thought was abandoned. The kids snuck up to the tiny house to peek inside, but just then Kerouac opened the door while holding a big black cat and said "I am the ghost." The kids were quite frightened, ran away and didn't return.

Towards the end of the book, describing time he spent as a fire lookout on Desolation Peak in Washington state, you will find one of my favorite parts of the story.

"Standing on my head before bedtime on that rock roof of the moonlight I could indeed see that the earth was truly upsidedown and man a weird vain beetle full of strange ideas walking around upsidedown and boasting, and I could realize that man remembered why this dream of planets and plants and Plantagenets was built out of the primordial essence. ...But let the mind beware, that though the flesh is bugged, the circumstances of existence are pretty glorious."

Situation Ethics: The New Morality by Joseph Fletcher

The strength of this text lies in it's attempt at systematic destruction of two other kinds of ethics - legalism and antinomianism. Early in the book, he wrote:

"[Plain legalism] may reveal a punishing and sadistic use of law to hurt people instead of helping them. How else explain burning at the stake in the Middle Ages for homosexuals (death by stoning, in the Old Testament)? Even today [1966] imprisonment up to sixty years is the penalty in one state for those who were actually consenting adults, without seduction or public disorder! This is really unavoidable whenever law instead of love is put first..."

Later, two small points that Fletcher makes are of large importance in my mind. The first is the simple (and fully adequate) response to reactionary arguments such as the "slippery slope" and "abuse of freedom" tacts. Simply: Abusus non tollit usum - abuse does not bar use. Second, he questions the ubiquitous maxim "the end does not justify the means." To this oft-assumed statement he asks: then what does? What else but the end could justify the means? Certainly, he makes sure to be clear that the ends do not justify any old means we can think of, but in the final analysis his reasoning is compelling: if means are not justified by their intended end, then they are not good means.

In a shorter dose, I also recently read an excellent article (and subsequent discussion) concerning bad religion. It was written by Mark Isaak and is called "The Larger Issue of Bad Religion." You may find it interesting.

My intention now is to read yet another book. This time, a book by some silly scientist named Stephen Hawking, called "I know more than everybody."

"Quixotic Quotes"...not for the faint of heart.

ID (intelligent design) is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we're asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution". [click]

We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end. [click]

ID is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Just last year, over 100 scientists signed a statement which does not support ID, but does say that they are "skeptical" of Darwinism. The opinions of tens of thousands of other scientists don't count, because they're all biased. [click]

Mainstream scientists dare not disagree with the monolithic block that is Darwinian orthodoxy. However, here are a number of mainstream scientists who disagree with each other on some issues, which means that they can't agree on anything. [click]

Darwinists are driven by religious and ideological motivations. But since we've removed the picture of God and the phrase "Cultural Renewal" from our website, everyone knows this isn't true of us. [click]

Absolutely everything wrong in society is caused by dogmatic Darwinian atheistic materialists. Including stereotyping, demonizing, and scapegoating. [click]

Since the peppered moth case has been proven problematic, natural selection is disproven. The other 1,582 studies of natural selection in the wild, as well as the numerous laboratory studies, don't count. [click]

And peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks. The actual datasets of moths found in natural positions in the wild, off but also on trunks, are irrelevant because researchers have captured thousands of moths over the years in their moth traps, and not once has a moth in a trap been found on a tree trunk. [click]

As demonstrated above, moths don't rest on tree trunks, which means that the photographs showing the contrasting conspicuousness of moths on tree trunks found in textbooks are FRAUDS. All the other staged animal photos in textbooks are however unobjectionable. [click]