My Fundamentalist Reality Tunnel

[nemorathwald]

phecda commented in my recent LJ post, "Of course, when it comes to being reality impaired, you realize that you've just traded one fundamentalist reality tunnel for another, don't you?"

I have a very conscious and deliberate relationship with dogma which I previously did not. When I used the existence of a personal deity as my one and only absolute, this dragged in an entire holy book of statements by that deity, which I had to prop up and defend, resulting in what Robert Anton Wilson calls "The Cosmic Schmuck." The sense of relief I experienced when I switched to my current dogmas was like putting down a barbell I had been dragging around all my life.

These days I try to limit it to as small an amount of dogma as I possibly can. I have to have the bare minimum reality tunnel necessary to rely on my thought process for even marginally useful decisions. It's sort of putting it on a diet. What few dogmas of mine remain are specifically known to me. Numbered, even. Unlike the belief in God, they aren't arbitrary, and I only keep them around because I (and you, and Robert Anton Wilson, for that matter) literally possess no ability to do without them if we're to get anywhere with anything. Every statement that anyone makes is dependent on them. It's not closed-minded to assent to that which cannot be escaped. Want to hear the fundamentals of this fundamentalist?

1. There exists stuff.
2. I exist.
3. Wishing doesn't make it so. (Sure, we can act to change it, but whole planets don't turn into banana fruitcake by desire alone.)
4. A thing is what is is, and isn't what it isn't.
5. Non-contradiction. (I won't say anything that has been made to sound self-contradictory is wrong, but to the degree that it's self-contradictory it could stand improvement. In the parable of the elephant, it is untrue to say all the blind men were right. They were all mostly useless.)
6. Cause and effect.

I hate dogma as much, or possibly more, than anybody you know-- but "there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops." Were anyone to help me get around one of these six remaining dogmas, I happily would. Even just to prune one down. For instance, just the other day We The Thinking webzine pointed out that it's kind of misleading to phrase number one as "existence exists." Rather than raise a hew and cry of my closed-minded toes being stepped on, I happily acquiesced.

I eventually was surprised to realize that, despite their rebukes, this help is unlikely to come from the new-agers of my acquaintance. You know, I honestly thought it would. In fact, I was waiting. Most relativists are so placidly unscarred by dogma-- and so afraid of the psychological damage of hatred-- they can't actually oppose the problem. The movie "Merlin" came on TV the other day, and the ending reminded me of this approach, in which the protagonists turn their backs on Queen Mab and ignore her to death.

Too bad that didn't work on Michigan's anti-gay constitutional amendment, or Intelligent Design. But you know what? We have no right to be surprised. When relativists stand on the correct side of these issues and then say "all points of view are equally Truth" out of the other side of their mouths, this includes the contradiction of what they just said. Needed statements collapse under a tidal wave of mixed messages that fool nobody; at best, self-refuting and at worst, hypocrisy. Relativism is a self-serving tendency to make exceptions whenever one wishes to. I've only seen relativists talk about relativism when it'll let them get away with not changing, or when it would work to get somebody else to change. In the documentary about Robert Anton Wilson, I watched him get up and express outrage at that pro-marijuana rally, and though I agreed with his cause I realized he was a hypocrite. Every utterance relied on dogma. Why doesn't he just stop believing in his polio, or wish it away? At that moment he was undermining every message he had ever sent. A relativist tolerates differences over vital issues when it's more important to have a smoother relationship than to address the vital issue. Treating differences as equal is great, when those differences are truly unimportant.

Here's a relevant rant from a year ago about one of the reasons this is so important to me.

Comments

[lorrraine.livejournal.com]

Hi,

You wrote: "I (and you, and Robert Anton Wilson, for that matter) literally possess no ability to do without them if we're to get anywhere with anything. Every statement that anyone makes is dependent on them. It's not closed-minded to assent to that which cannot be escaped."

You may want to add this in some form to your list of dogmas. I think it qualifies as a dogma, perhaps even a meta-dogma if you will. And I respectfully disagree with it.

I choose to live in a universe which I acknowledge seems far stranger than my ability to comprehend it. Everything that I know about the universe is tenative and subject to revision. When I encounter new facts I revise my theories to fit the facts and not the other way around. I view my universe from multiple frameworks and perspectives many of which inherently contradict one another. I live with the contradictions. I don't let the lack of certainty in my life paralyze me. Instead I choose values and try to live within the framework of those values as best I can.

Dogmas provide a solid ground from which to act. I understand why you feel that you need them. I prefer to fly.

Thanks,
Lorrraine

PS. How do you personally define the word dogma, anyway?

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I keep as many beliefs as possible tentative and open to revision. I revise my theories to fit the facts and not the other way around. but the six axioms are the only things that are exempt because (to directly answer your question) they are the only tools I have ever heard of to revise my theories and observe the facts. If you have others, please present them for evaluation. Oh, but wait, what is evaluation? Testing against non-contradiction, etc. So, the claim that they are inescapable results from experience and observation. Let's take, for instance, the principle of non-contradiction. Try to demonstrate doing without it. In so doing, you declare yourself wrong and me right. You are playing a cute game, but why should I play?

[lorrraine.livejournal.com]

Hi,

Umm, you started this game Matt. You made some assertions that contradict my experience. And I wrote you back about them. That's all. Of course my experiences don't make sense withing your framework. that is sort of the point. And I don't expect you to believe anything that you don't experience. That's fine.

If you don't want replies you can disable them on your entry. If you don't want my replies unfriend my LJ and I will reciprocate.

Thanks,
Lorrraine

[brendand.livejournal.com]

I often forget how much Matt tends to come across as rude in some of his comments. I don't think it's at all intentional, however. :)

[(Anonymous)]

What I mean by game is that I don't believe you are serious. You are just playing with me, and with yourself. I can only play along with you so far. That is no reason, however, for me to shut off entries. I'll just call you on it.

Someone once did something similar to the Greek philosopher Zeno. Zeno once proved that motion is impossible, because in order to get from point A to point B, you have to cross through the point halfway between them. But in order to get from there to point B, you have to cross through the point halfway between them as well. And on and on, infinitely, which means it would be infinity before one reaches one's destination. A listener to this kicked a rock, pointed to it moving, and was finished with the conversation.

[lorrraine.livejournal.com]

Hi Matt,

I'm not a liar. I'm not making stuff up. I just don't fit within the parameters that you define. That's all. I don't expect you to believe me, but I really have no motive to lie to you. I don't really care about your beliefs or your opinions that much, no offense.

Best Wishes,
Lorrraine

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Hi Lorrraine,

There is a difference between an occasional act of lying or hypocrisy and a characteristic trait of being a liar and being a hypocrite; I have always been careful to observe this distinction in my choice of words, but you invariably overlook this.

You are a good person and follow a code that allows me to rely on you in societal transactions. My current tentative hypothesis is that there are certain magisteria cordoned off within your framework; in which context you find it harmless and beneficial to ignore truth criteria, and just call it by a different name than lying and making stuff up.

I trust you completely that you would never try to cheat me in commerce; that behavior would fall outside the magisteria. I do, however, hypothesize that you lie to yourself and make stuff up.

This hypothesis is still being tested. I'm always severely uncomfortable with a hypothesis that involves someone else lying. It seems too convenient for me, and I'm suspicious of myself in making it. I've watched it become the ultimate downfall of several otherwise successful and respectable people who I could name. There is an inner struggle between this hypothesis and others, and as much as I dislike the ugliness and social disadvantage of this particular contestant, its competitors are sometimes weaker.

Kindest Personal Regards,
Matt

Balls

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Dang, Matt. You've got some balls. You say the things I only think.

[lorrraine.livejournal.com]

Hi Matt,

Understand that I consider any claim that I am lying to be a very serious personal insult. I make mistakes. I say things that I later discover were untrue, but which I believed to be true at the time that I said them. I will even withhold information or refuse to answer questions that I don't want to answer. I will misrember things. I will have a character that I am playing tell lies in a role playing game. I will tell stories that are clearly stories and that are fictional. None of those things are lies in my opinion. I am not lying to you.

My father was a very nasty man who accused me of lying whenever what I said contradicted what my sister had said. Being accused of lying has deep personal emotional resonance for me, which is why I am so very careful with the truth. I spent most of my life feeling that I had to lie about who and what I was because I'm trans. I hated that. I would lie for a sufficiently good reason such as if someone obviously menacing asked which way you had gone, I would misdirect him. I have absolutely no reason to lie to you. Someone who would lie to you under circumstances like this stupid thread is pathetic.

I took some time to respond to this because your statement angered me a great deal. This is not entirely your fault, but it is not unreasonable to expect that if you say that someone is lying when they are not that they will be angry.

Matt, the degree of disrespect that you have shown to me now on more than one occasion is causing me to question our friendship.

---Lorrraine

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Lorrraine,
I understand that this matter carries a resonance that can distort how you perceive my words. Take a step back from your emotions and hear what I said and not what you think I said. I did not say you are attempting to deceive me. This thread is indeed trivial, but it's not what's at stake. The entire emotional life is what's at stake. That's a serious enough matter for any person. Not a "liar" person, not a "bad" person. Your mailman, your doctor, your teachers, your next door neighbors, all people, good people, trustworthy people. It's a serious enough matter to be worth the vast majority of good people on this planet lying to themselves. Repeatedly, daily, hourly if necessary, for the span of their entire lives.

Not to me. To themselves. That way when they speak to me it is with complete sincerity.

I am now going to reveal another truth to you that you need to hear about yourself. You can't take criticism. But I'm a far truer friend to you than a sycophant would be. If I acted the way you wanted, that would be a pointless and shallow "friendship." If your definition of a friend is someone who will pretend there's nothing wrong with you, obviously I'm not eligible to be your friend. My definition of friendship is when someone's able to tell me what I need to hear.

[lorrraine.livejournal.com]

Hi Matt,

I can take criticism, but not the way that you choose to give it. You say things in ways that are very disrespectful and expect me to sit there and take them. Nope, isn't gonna happen.

---Lorrraine

[lorrraine.livejournal.com]

Hi,

One more thought. When other people are saying things like, "I often forget how much Matt tends to come across as rude in some of his comments." "Dang, Matt. You've got some balls. You say the things I only think." The problem may not be entirely mine. I give you a lot of slack because I know that you are still somewhat socially feral. I do have limits on what I am willing to put up with and when you cross them I will speak up.

Thanks,
Lorrraine

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I've carefully observed your set of social rules, and my deliberate choice to defy them is not due to negligence. I intend to never stop crossing you in this regard. If the worst you will do is point out when I break your rules, that's great. I'm very comfortable with the kind of relationship in which people continually call each other on their mutual bullshit, but previously I was getting the impression that you were not.

[brendand.livejournal.com]

Have you ever seen Dogma? We watched it recently here, and I don't think you were here that night. I am curious to your thoughts, if you have seen it, and if you haven't, I invite you over to see it. :)

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

It was weak from a film-making standpoint. Selma Hayek's acting was cringeworthy. Chris Rock and Alan Rickman were funny. I enjoyed the Miltonian plot elements about the war in heavan and angelic motivations. As with most movies that attempt to raise controversy through blasphemy, such as Bruce Almighty, the film-makers are incredibly reverent towards generic spirituality that offers few details and spells out few demands. Another feature of such films is expression of what 20th century theologians termed the "noumenous" and which skeptics termed "hand-waving woo-woo." This involves the ineffable sensation of awe at something so large you can't even figure out what it is exactly, sometimes involving both pleasure and pain, best portrayed by the idea of God's voice coming out of Alanis Morissette at the end of Dogma. :)

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Debating New Agers is like trying to reason with my cat.

[(Anonymous)]

Is the following what you were referring to?

[(Anonymous)]

Your cat has a good reason....cat nip....you see their faces on that stuff. Awake!