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

[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.