Imperative Categories?

Imperative Categories? It is far more important to answer who one is than what one is.

    What am I? How one answers this simple question can reveal a lot about a person. However it would still be possible to give an honest answer to this question and not illuminate in any way who one is. The two questions seem to ask the same thing but the way they can be answered displays the incongruity between them. While it would be relatively easy for nearly all people to list off numerous replies to what they are. I think it is far more crucial to answer who one is. I want to explore the reasons for this assertion as I see them.

    Before I look into why; knowing who one is holds a key to the well-being of individuals; it will be helpful to look into the pitfalls involved in asking only what one is. When confronted with such a question a person can easily find numerous replies. Invariably they will resemble categories more than identities. Examples taken from my life would be something like; I am a cyclist, a father, an American. While these descriptions say something about me this is a poor foundation for establishing personal identity. If a person forms their sense of identity solely by the categories they identify with problems quickly follow. The dysfunctions surface both internally and externally.

    Upon placing oneself into a category, to the exclusion of others the world is transformed. Relationships to others become defined by the group or category we have allied with. In more benign arenas this is mostly harmless. A good example of this is in sport.

    Throughout the world groups of people come together under the flag of their chosen team or participants. Much of the time this is fun and harmless, though on occasion even a form of entertainment such as this can turn tribal and violent. Think college sports in the U.S. or Futball (Soccer) in the rest of the world. There are numerous other examples in sport. Frequently fans of a particular team can be found to say something regarding the performance of their team by describing it as, "We played well." or "Our defense wasn't very good." This seems odd when considering that the person speaking likely played no part in the play of the game.

    I chose the previous example because I think it displays very well Humanity's tendency to in-group loyalty and out-group hostility. When the stakes are relatively low, as is the case in sport, this impulse usually carries very little consequence. However, given the propensity for even this particular venture to become hostile, if the risks and rewards are increased, so does uncertainty. With this uncertainty comes greater reason to fear. As the proportion of fear increases the tendency toward tribalism and intolerance for other groups becomes greatly heightened.     People in general are fearful of what they do not know or understand. Thus, if one draws all or most of their view of the world from a select group who holds similar perspective the outcome is an inability to experience and therefore understand other ways of being. This is made exponentially worse if the reasons for avoiding exposure are rooted in fear of contamination. This form of intolerance usually begins with some form of indoctrination. In the majority of cases this takes place during childhood and is perpetuated by adults who were taught the same things. Once this cycle of fear and indoctrination begins it can become rather difficult to break free.

    So the first problem with forming one's identity through the categories one identifies with is that it increases the inclination for hostility aimed at groups not of similar practice, belief, colors, flag, geographic region or whatever the case may be. The main cost of this is paid by societies in general. Though there is a price to be paid by the individual as well.

    On an individual level the cost comes in a myriad of forms. One being that one's growth as a complete human being is stunted by this lack of exposure to other viewpoints. Homogeny on a cultural level stems in part from an arrogant assumption of infallibility. This assumption allows one to assume that they (or the group) already possess everything they would need to know. It is not hard to see why this could be a problem. When a person or group of people shut themselves off from all outside influence they are deprived of valuable information and experiences.

    Another cost which the individual foots the bill is that he/she may suffer deprivations which are unnecessary. If practices are prohibited by an outside force of opinion then one cannot have fully formed as an individual. Their behavior being limited not by personal choice but by the coercion of others. Not doing something because others restrict its practice prevents one from developing personal opinions about the question at hand. The individual has been deprived of either the pleasure of the practice or the discovery of its unworthiness. Once a deed has been pronounced as unworthy, the individual can discard it or master it as the case may be. Anyone who is deprived of this opportunity is limited in certain ways.

    By far the highest cost one pays for this lopsided and incomplete sense of self comes in the alienation experienced on almost every level. It is seems clear that the thing most desirable by all humans is a connection to others. This is not only stunted by building an identity within categories, on many levels it is made impossible. When one places (or is placed) within an illusory bracket it becomes difficult to see other persons who are not allied to the same ideology or practices as deserving of attention. Closing off in this way is destructive to individual emotional growth. Not to mention the cost in resources and opportunities.

    Once these imaginary boundaries are fully established in an individual's mind. The tendency for fear and repulsion toward what is not understood compels the expenditure of vast amounts of energy, time and initiative aimed at   guarding against pretend enemies. The cost to the one concerned should seem clear enough. All of this effort is wasted on a pursuit that would not even be necessary were the groupings seen for what they are, insufficient substitutes for selfhood.

    Individuality is robbed away when one finds their primary purpose and fulfillment in the status-quo of a particular group. Especially when the group one has chosen is a conglomeration that differs very little from one another. Once identity is fully enmeshed with a particular society, even questioning the ideology therein becomes rather hard on the individual. Humans are extremely prone to biases on almost every front. This becomes even more pronounced when the issue in question is tied to a person's selfhood. This is where cults flourish, trying to leave the very thing that forms one's notion of what they are is nearly impossible without a firm concept of who one is.

    On the surface of it individuality takes effort. It is difficult and uncomfortable to think for oneself, to question authority, to be a rogue. However, far more energy is required to continually fit oneself into a crowd. Thoughts to the contrary must be stifled bringing tremendous cost to creativity. Being free to be what one is naturally allows one to spend valuable energy on pursuits that truly build self-esteem.

    Being a grouchy curmudgeon who is chronically dissident is not the requisite to being fully individualistic. On the contrary one is fully able to love others (all others) with independence at the root of their self-image. Once the crucial selfhood is fully established independent of groupings, one is fully equipped to select the correct alliances which will bring about the life they desire. After establishing who one is, proceeding to attach the cart of associations would be prudent remembering always to put the horse of individuality in front.

    The path to establishing individuality is much less rubble strewn than the one traveled by the collective of divided factions warring over who is right and wrong. The ones who are best left to decide the correct path are those individuals who allow no group to do their thinking for them.



    











    

SLAYER CHRISTMAS LIGHTS LIGHTORAMA 2009

Coffee Shop Debate Part 1

 

    "Damn, I didn't want to be late." said Freely Paterson as he swung his 64 Ford Fairlane into the first parking space he could find. He had planned on arriving early so he could do a little reading. Freely never went anywhere without a book in tow, he loved to read. Actually it was not the reading that appealed to him as much as the knowledge that came with it. There would be no reading at this venture. He was meeting with Anna Bruskavits, who is never late. They had started to call their weekly meetings "fix the world on Friday". Over coffee much discussion would ensue regarding the problems they are the most incapable of altering anyway

    These debates with a respected friend had become a highlight of Freely's life. He had come to love the way Anna challenged him in his presuppositions. She seemed to be able to key in on the weaknesses in his ideas and had a talent for pointing them out. He held a strong view that good ideas deserve pushing and having withstood pushing he could call them worthy. He was confident that no one was better suited for this job than Anna. Although they disagreed on many points one thing was clear, both of them thoroughly enjoyed trying to sort it all out.

    As he climbed the rickety steps of the old building that housed the local's favorite coffee house, he wondered what would be the topic on her mind tonight. There was no doubt what was on his mind. Yesterday he had just finished reading a treatise on secular ethics and his thoughts were stirred.

    "Can I buy your coffee" Anna said as she snuck up behind him.

    "Sure" he said hesitantly.

     She seemed delighted with that answer. He never liked letting anyone buy him anything. This resistance was more out of habit than principle. As they stood in line waiting to order she asked generically, "How was your day?" She hated uncomfortable silence even more than he did.

    "Pretty average" he answered. "I hope you didn't wait long, traffic was terrible with all of the holiday shoppers out."

    "Likely excuse" she said playfully.

    Though she was not what he would consider beautiful, she had a plainness about her that made her seem overwhelmingly attractive. He had never once seen her wear make-up and light freckles dotted her cheeks below her eyes and her shoulder length brown hair bobbed as she moved. Maybe it was her unassuming nature or how she was so approachable and non-threatening. Whatever it was he had never been able to figure out what made her seem so appealing. They had been friends for years and their friendship remained platonic despite an obvious attraction between them. Both of them held distracting lives which prevented either of them from seriously pursuing a romance.

    Ordering and receiving their drinks they found a secluded table in a corner overlooking the bustling street outside. Freely had always felt awkward in social situations, especially with women. Anna held a peculiar ability to put him at ease and comfort; it was as if he could fully be himself with her. Tranquil was the feeling he most had when with her. Even when she was challenging him on some philosophical point or they were having a heated disagreement he still felt at ease. There seemingly stood between them no desire to be anything other than who they were. Sometimes the conversations they had would become charged with emotion and vigor. They still maintained a deep respect for each other in a way that is often absent from discussions containing so much disagreement.

    "Have you seen this?" she asked, showing him a newspaper article she had taken from her backpack.

    "Yes!" he replied with an obvious disdain in his voice. "I can't understand why people can be so quick to condemn the actions of other people when those actions do no harm to anyone. Then at the same time and in the same breath, proceed to propagate hatred which is truly harmful."

    "Surely you can see the irony of what you are saying."

    "What are you talking about?" he said inquisitively.

    Anna rolled her eyes and replied, "I just find it funny, it seems like you are expressing intolerance of that very thing, intolerance."

    "You are misunderstanding both the thing that I am objecting to and the situation as it stands. Let me explain, I think that certain things are not to be tolerated. Think slavery, you would not think the abolitionists were being intolerant would you?"

    "Of course not."

    "See the thing that I am opposed to in general would not be intolerance, as I think that is a perfectly reasonable response in some situations. I am talking about a group of people preaching wholesale derision of another group of people for what they are, apart from any demonstrable wrong doing on their part."

    "I see what you mean. I still think that there is a large amount of hypocrisy in what you are saying."

    "Can you show me why you think this?" asked Freely. He did not want to be a hypocrite he had held for some time that he was on the side of truth, wherever that was to be found. He desperately wanted to be redirected if he was wrong.

    "I'm willing to try to show you though I am not even sure if I am convinced of your error now. It's just that you seem to be very quick to judge the people condemning Gays and Lesbians without considering why they are taking this course in the first place."

    "Really, I'm not, I think I understand both sides very well."

    "That's just it, assuming that you possess the truth. I could call it absolutism. That is the very thing you seem to be railing against in the fundamentalist groups. On the one hand you are saying that these groups are wrong to say that another group is in error and condemn their behavior. Then you turn right around and do the exact same thing in reverse."

    "No, No, No. I am talking about liberty, freedom of choice. Each person is under no moral obligation to anyone else unless their actions directly inhibit the liberties and freedoms of another person. That is where the anti-gay movements have gone off the rails."

    "Hum!" Anna sat for a few moments before responding. "Do the actions of gays and lesbians take from the rights of other people in a society?"

    Cutting her off, Freely blurted, "I can see this one from a mile off. You're going to say something about the moral degeneration of society or some such nonsense."

    "That may be a point someone else would make but it's not one I would use though. I was thinking more that your position on the liberty of gays and lesbians to do as they please causes you to impose on the liberty of those who are opposed to gays having equal rights, namely their right to say so. Don't you think that if either side has liberty and freedom then both sides must have it?"

    "I can see your point." By this time Freely's brow was furrowed and he looked as if he was trying very hard to find the right words to convey his meaning. He paused and took several sips from the strong black Arabica coffee. "So the question comes down to, when two opinions are necessarily going to infringe on the rights of one another. How do we decide which side to silence?"

    Anna's affirmative smile quickly changed to a look of contemplation as she replied. "Or maybe; is it ethical to silence either side at all?"

    "See Anna, this is where we get to the impasse. Clearly the words and actions of those opposed to the rights of any group of people can influence law makers and even society as a whole. By this process the liberty and freedom of other groups can be limited; if not fully taken away."

    "I think you're onto something there. If the opinions, actions and especially speech of one group are seeking to limit the rights of another group who is doing no harm then it becomes an ethical imperative to step in and silence or censor."

    "Maybe, I'm not sure I like that either." Freely said skeptically. "Hold that thought I need to use the restroom."

    "I'm going to get another coffee. Do you want more? Anna asked as he got up from his chair.

    "No thanks, I need to sleep tonight and two cups might be too much."

    As he walked away toward the long hallway leading to the restrooms Anna refilled her coffee at the stand and added liberal amounts of cream and sugar. She had loved this coffee shop ever since her first time coming here. This was not a unique thing. At all hours of the day and night this place bustled with conversation and laughter. The coffee was superb and the atmosphere even better. Interesting local artwork hung randomly throughout. The music was varied in a way that always held one in suspense as to what would come next. She would often hear songs that would compel her to go and ask the baristas what was playing. Inevitably she could leave with two or three new musicians to check out.

    As Freely returned he found her staring out the window obviously in deep thought. "What are you thinking?" he asked. This was one of his favorite questions to ask anyone, especially Anna.

    "Mostly just how much I love this place."

    "Yeah I know pretty unique. That's unfortunate though every city should have a spot like this."

    "There you go again, trying to impose your opinions on everyone else." She said sarcastically.

    "You are determined to label me an absolutist, aren't you? He asked and without giving her a chance to answer he continued. "I don't think I can be called a relativist either. I do think that objective answers can be found to all questions. I just don't think we possess all of them yet. So I don't know what category that qualifies me for."

    "A provisionalist, maybe." She said half joking.

    "No, I like that. Did you just make up that word?"

    "Well, yes and no. I read something of a description on what the author called provisional ethics."

    "Provisional ethics, I like that a lot. It conjures up all sorts of things for me. To think that ethics and morality are neither set in stone or left to individual whim and can be adjusted to new information. Sounds like the scientific method as applied to how societies and people should behave. But, we shouldn't get to far off from our previous topic. We are finally getting it fixed." He said sardonically.

    "Oh I almost forgot what we were talking about before."

    "I thought about it a little while I was in the restroom. I don't like the idea of censoring or silencing an opinion at all. Because if the view is false then it will be shown that way by honest debate and in turn strengthens the truth, by letting it confront falsity. Even more if the view is correct then anyone who holds an opposing view chances to be redirected to the truth. So silencing a dissenting opinion brings about harm as I see it."

    "So you are saying that all sides of every issue should be absolutely free to express their opinion?"

    "I think so, though I don't like the ramifications of it."

    "Exactly, you see when the speech that is protected comes up against someone or something you hold as more valuable than those liberties. You rationalize the silencing of speech by describing it as stealing the rights of people. Can you see the hypocrisy?"

    "Ouch. I can see this and don't like any of the positions at all. Really it's the classic, damned if you do damned if you don't."

    "Well maybe. It makes the wisdom of those who influenced the constitution seem amazing. Crucially freedom of speech and personal liberty must be protected above all else."

    "Again it comes back to trying to decide when and how one person's freedom of speech robs another of their personal liberty. Then when does the liberty of one person infringe either on the safety or liberty of another. It seems we have found a rabbit hole my friend."

    "You're so quickly despondent tonight. Maybe you should have another cup of coffee." She suggested again.

    "Maybe you're right, I'm mostly confused now. You have a knack for upsetting my perfectly arranged set of ideals."

    "It's what I do. Steal away the idealism of youth. Now if I can figure out how to replace it with some mature wisdom, but that may be too much to ask."

    This joking banter is probably what had allowed them to maintain such a calm demeanor in the face of disagreements much more severe than this. It was clear that they both had a tremendous amount of fun with conversations like this one.

    After a brief pause in the conversation Freely continued, "I don't know if I had any idealism left to steal away. I have concluded happily that our species faces some major problems that our tiny brains might be incapable of sorting out. I guess you can call me a masochist because I actually enjoy trying to figure it all out and trying to find solutions where there may be none is my favorite pastime. But deep down I am have really come to terms with not having all of the answers."

    "Not me, I'm still looking for concrete answers." said Anna.

    "It seems to me you should claim that you have already found your concrete answers in your holy book. As I see it many of the problems society faces are brought on by groups or individuals trying to fit everyone and every situation into a neat little category. This impulse is I think rooted in fear. Fear of the dark, fear of other people, fear of death, fear of whatever we don't understand. Humans are so prone to tribalism and hostility. We are also so blinded by our own biases and wishful thinking that we are usually searching for clear cut solutions to our fears. This leads groups to oppress what they do not know and to attempt to force their solutions onto everyone. When fear rules like this reason is abandoned and all kinds of things occur."

    "Sounds like relativism to me. You seem afraid of absolutism yet you're attempting to avoid relativism as well. Commitment issues maybe?"

    "No, I don't think that's it. I am just reluctant to come down on the wrong side of the issues."

    "Not to beat a dead horse but I still don't see why it matters to you at all, considering your metaphysical convictions. I still can't see why any of it matters to you if there is no God, no afterlife, no soul or any of the things that have made ethical issues matter to people. I mean why not just follow your instincts and do whatever you can to get what you want?"

    Rolling his eyes and smiling a wry smile Freely said, "I have said several times that religions give people bad reasons for being good when good reasons exist."

    "Yes, I know it has become somewhat of a mantra for you. If I didn't know better I would think it was a tenant of your religion. And it just seems that your reasons for being good just don't hold up."

    "I really don't believe in Gods; if you believe anything I say, make it this. And you don't see me even being rude to other people let alone going around committing murder or rape." He paused briefly sipping his coffee and considering what to say next then continued. "This is the situation with me I have no reason to think that I will receive anything more than this brief life. This awareness compels me to make this life as full and complete as possible. In a very reasonable way I look at my actions and decide if they are going to produce more harm and suffering. From this I determine what is ethical. I am frankly terrified of people who only do good and avoid evil because of a divine parent watching over their every move. I strive to be good for goodness sake. Why should I need another reason?"

    "That's just it. You are seeking a reward for your behavior, albeit a reward this side of death." She said with much emphasis. "The real problem with your stance is that you serve as the judge and jury over what is ethical and just. Surely you can't think that you are going to be able to be impartial and unbiased about your own behavior? It would be very easy to adjust your standards based on whim and what is convenient."

    "Don't be silly Anna everyone does this to some degree. Even the people who have a book containing the edicts of their God select the passages that make sense to them and disregard the ones that don't. Only the most radical fundamentalists adhere to every command and directive. The difference is that I base my morals on current data, so to speak. Like your 'provisionalist' word. If it works I use it and if it doesn't work I discard it. With the fundys they have their book which tells them what to do or not do and it does not change no matter what the evidence. I have even heard it said; 'if the evidence disagrees with the Bible then the evidence is wrong.' Talk about absolutism."

    Her face morphed to a look of pity or condolence Freely could not tell. Then she replied, "I have never said anything like that."

    "I didn't say you did, I don't consider you a literalist"

    "Good, because I don't think it needs to be taken literally at all in order to consider it truth. But the point I have to make sure you understand is that Christianity is not a system of morality; whoever started to say it is fucked up. If Christianity stands for anything it is grace."

    Freely chuckled good naturedly and said, "Well the absolute majority of your co-religionists have gotten it totally wrong."

    " 'Narrow is the way and only a few find it.' Was what Jesus said." Came her reply.

    "Can't you see the hypocrisy in what you are saying? I mean you say that the message of your religion is grace then you turn right around and quote your messiah saying the way is narrow."

    "I think you have a valid point. I also think I can answer it."

    "This should be good, I like watching you try to make circles square." He interrupted.

    "HaHa" she laughed sarcastically and continued, "The way is narrow and only a few find it, yes, but all are still saved by grace. Back to my point about Christianity not being a moral system, it's a message that states we can't be good, not at all. That even one slight dooms one to death. This is humanities plight we can't be good no matter how hard we try. So Jesus steps in on our behalf and saves us by grace."

    "Only those who believe it are saved, right. So that excludes the majority of humans who have ever lived."

    "Freely, even our ability to believe is tainted, so grace covers that as well, humanity is saved by Jesus's sacrifice once for all, everyone for all time."

    "Sounds like pluralism to me, I have read the New Testament enough to know that you are stretching it pretty far with this stuff."

    "I don't really need scripture to back this stuff up. I am just convinced that God loves all of humanity and would not sentence anyone to hell. No one is good enough or believes it well enough by themselves. So, God picks up the slack."

    Freely just sat there and looked out the window for a good long while trying to make sense of what she had said. Then he replied, "You know?" pausing, and then he continued, "That is certainly an interesting way of dealing with the problem of evil. I suppose that I have wrestled with the same questions quite a bit. I still don't see any justification for your interpretation. I think it is really just wishful thinking. Occasionally I have been asked, 'Where do you find your meaning? If there is no afterlife, no heaven or hell why does it matter' invariably this comes from a religious person, you included. I have been too modest to reply the way that I want to, which is to call attention to the utter suffering which will come to nearly all of the people who have ever lived if there is a hell. This to me is far more alarming than annihilation." Again he paused to catch his breath and thoughts, "So we have both come to grips with the problem of evil and suffering in our own ways. Yet I still think that your imagination plays to large a part in your system."

    "This is not my system" she emphasized.

    "Maybe not, you have to admit though that what you are describing is hardly recognizable as the religion founded by Saul of Tarsus 2000 years ago."

    All things considered he admired her persistence. In all of their conversations she had maintained her positions on most issues, although he had done much the same. At some unacknowledged level there was a desire to convince her of what made perfect sense to him. Many times at an impasse such as this one he would be thinking; "why can't I convince her? I have put forth the best reasons for why I hold these things as truth and she seems unable to grasp it." He often walked away from these conversations questioning his ability to describe his position and her ability to understand and even the validity of his position in the first place. They had never discussed this and he wondered if she ever felt this way.

    "Do you ever feel like you are wagging my tail and expecting it to make me happy?" she said in a desperate tone.

    "What do you mean?"

    "Sometimes I think that people like you and I start from a deeply emotional place when we come to our convictions about most of this stuff. Then we go around looking for rational reasons to back up a decision that we have already made. This is why I am not persuaded by the arguments you make and mine can't persuade you either."

    "Well, yes…in fact I think that all the time. I hadn't thought of it as wagging your tail, but I guess that works. I really enjoy trying to sort it all out with you it forces me to consider all of my suppositions. It can be rather confusing sometimes but like I said before I am a masochist. A masochist who is restless and tired of this view. Do you want to go for a walk around and see if we can get into trouble?"

    "As appealing as a jail cell sounds I do have a term paper due on Monday and could use the time tonight to work on it."

    "Well you have fun with that then. If your phone rings it might be me calling you to come bail me out." Freely said jokingly.

    She stood up and gave him a big embrace as she said, "Thanks for challenging me."

    "The feeling is mutual." He said passively.

    As she walked away he felt relief and at the same time melancholy. He asked himself, "How can such an intelligent person be so misled?" He had thought this before yet this time (for the first time) he realized she was probably thinking the same thing, and was not without reason to think so.