nemorathwald: (flying spaghetti monster)
[personal profile] nemorathwald
The phrase "the Alpha Male Monkey" may be the most useful new explanatory tool I've encountered in years. [livejournal.com profile] paranthropus gave it to me in a recent LJ post about primate group psychology. It was an inspirational and motivational insight into the evolutionary biology of my psychology which has kept me up at night thinking of the implications. I wrote about it in this subsequent LJ post, but it occurred to me that this is valuable for explaining myself to bible-believing Christians.

We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:


Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"

Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."

Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"

Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."

Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"

Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:

It looks like this:

We're all equally at the top."

Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."

Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."

Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."

Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"

Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"

Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."

Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"

Me: *facepalm*


As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.

Date: 2006-11-25 01:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] phecda.livejournal.com
Or to restate in Crowleyian terms: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will." Although, I prefer the wiccan rede -- it's a bit more forthright and plain.

Date: 2006-11-25 08:45 am (UTC)
metalfatigue: A capybara looking over the edge of his swimming pool (chainsaw of natural selection)
From: [personal profile] metalfatigue
Well, Crowley's maxim assumes that one is able to align one's Will with Universal Will. The obstacle to that is ego. Crowley's version would work just fine for a boddhisattva; it didn't work for Crowley, who was by many accounts pretty free about fists and noses.

Date: 2006-11-25 01:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matt-arnold.livejournal.com
Yeah, Crowley's formulation sucks big time. I've never liked it at all.

Date: 2006-11-25 09:22 am (UTC)
metalfatigue: (angry Zot)
From: [personal profile] metalfatigue
The first "Will" in my earlier response should've been a mere "will." Oops.

Date: 2006-11-26 04:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tlatoani.livejournal.com
Crowley, as I understand it, wasn't attempting to restate the Wiccan principle. He was stating his own operating principle, which deliberately removed the bit about not harming others.

Thelemite ethics

Date: 2006-11-26 08:06 pm (UTC)
metalfatigue: (spooky druid)
From: [personal profile] metalfatigue
It would've been fascinating if Aleister Crowley had managed to restate the "Wiccan Rede" in 1904, since Gerald Gardner didn't invent Wicca until 1939.

People usually omit the second sentence and cite just the first, which is exactly backwards. "Love is the law, love under will" is the more significant part; "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," if read in context and according to Crowley's commentaries, are admonitions that each person has to interpret his or her own morality, rather than receiving it from others—including Crowley.

Stripped of its ceremonial vestments, this is just Intuitionism: each person relies on his or her own clear judgment of right and wrong, and no one can tell anyone else what is right for them. Anyone who takes "Do what thou wilt" as license to act without thoroughly contemplating their own moral intuition is acting immorally.

Intuitionism has some pretty severe and obvious problems. It's at its least effective when applied by Ceremonial Magickers, Thelemite or otherwise, who go to great lengths to disengage their own common sense and disorient themselves to the mundane world. Nonetheless, "Do what thou wilt" is not at all the same as "Do whatever you feel like."

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6 789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags