Dear Robert Anton Wilson - The questionable benevolence of dogmatic paranoid anti-dogmatism
Actually written AUGUST 7, 2005
Dear Robert Anton Wilson,
How Benevolent Are You?
For me, it’s an honest and interesting question, ‘cause I really don’t know. And in my wondering I have an excuse to write about your benevolence quotient for my readers, and perhaps get them to wonder as well.
Essentially I’m wondering about the benevolence-value of what I call your “paranoid anti-dogmatism dogmatism.” Of course I need to explain what is “paranoid anti-dogmatism dogmatism”, why you possess this trait, and why its benevolence-value is uncertain, possibly ambivalent.
PARANOID ANTI-DOGMATISM DOGMATISM
Paranoid anti-dogmatism dogmatism (“PADD” from now on), comprises five basic aspects. First, a self-contradiction: a dogmatic denunciation of dogmatism. Second, a paranoid self-awareness of one’s own dogmatic anti-dogmatism as an instance of dogmatism. Third, a temporary loss of mind from trying to integrate this self-contradiction. Fourth, a temporary recoiling from this loss of mind via evasive apathy. And fifth, paranoia again from having had a lapse of concern about one’s own dogmatism (by having a lack of concern about anything).
The whole thing rests most fundamentally on the phenomena of “anti-dogmatism dogmatism”. Can one become dogmatically anti-dogmatic? Not really, but, as with all contradictions, one can sorta “approach it in spurts, from different perspectives” – in an “unstable” way. To see how, let’s first review some definitions. Dogmatism is a devotion to ideas in spite of lacking or contrary evidence. Anti-Dogmatism, on the other hand, is a lack of devotion to any idea, evidence regardless. (A third possibility, for clarity’s sake, would be objectivity, which would be the tentative acceptance, or rejection, of an idea in accordance with evidence.) Anyway, anti-dogmatism dogmatism would then be: an evidence-void devotion to the idea (or practice) of having no devotion to any idea (or practice). Right then. To be dogmatically anti-dogmatic, one must be devotedly against devotion to any idea, and be so devoted in complete disregard for evidence.
Now, one may object that one cannot be this way because it is a self-contradiction. But consider how this self-contradiction would be regarded as a form of contrary evidence, which would thereby be dismissed. Ok, so this seems like a trick with words and their definitions, I know. And this trick is precisely how one sorta “approaches it in spurts, from different perspectives” – in an “unstable” way.
It is the very un-stability that leads to paranoia. One is put in an irreconcilable bind, that to believe the “right” thing, one must believe the “wrong” thing. The contradiction continually needs “fixing”, continually needs mental acrobatics, as if jumping from one side of the contradiction to the next and necessarily forgetting the departed side of the contradiction. I imagine these acrobatics can be exhausting, and one can just give up and not care after a while. And here one can become paranoid that one doesn't care enough. So care returns and with it, the acrobatics. So you get a cycle of paranoia and apathy. The cycle probably repeats a lot.
To say the least, this is an interesting way to live.
R. A. WILSON AND PADD
But now, do your ideas, R. A. Wilson, endorse or otherwise lead to, PADD? Well, maybe, if the following assessment is correct.
We'll take it as a given that you embrace anti-dogmatism. Let’s not be “stuffed shirts” and “rigid sticks in the mud” and all that. Let’s be flexible and not so “serious” and all that.
But the tricky part is demonstrating your dogmatism about your anti-dogmatism. To be dogmatic about it, you must be so in disregard for evidence. And, yes, I suspect you disregard evidence.
Whatever your allegiance to evidence is undercut by your belief that we are all “stuck” inside epistemologically egalitarian “reality tunnels”, i.e. that none of us can be more “objective” than the rest of us. When “evidence” held valid in one reality tunnel gets contradicted by evidence found valid in another reality tunnel, there is no “objective” means to recognize which evidence is “more” valid. Judgments about the validity of other reality tunnels can only come from within one’s own reality tunnel.
Straight up, this is relativism. Relativism renders evidence subjectively meaningless and therefore makes (meta-)dogmatism necessary. Evidence becomes a personal or haphazardly collective matter, applicable only to those who have reality tunnels agreeable enough with your own. And if this is so, you would have no objective basis for even detecting someone else’s dogmatism. What evidence would you have for someone else’s dogmatism? Only the evidence available in your own reality tunnel. What if that evidence contradicts the evidence held valid in the other person's reality tunnel? According to that other evidence, the other person ain’t dogmatic at all. And if both batches of evidence are equally valid, then there’s irreconcilable contradiction in passing any judgment at all. What are you against? Dogmatism? Who's dogmatism? The dogmatism of those with some “different” reality tunnel. But you’ve got no evidence that can objectively apply to them. Therefore, to recognize dogmatism outside your own reality tunnel would be to do so in disregard for any applicable evidence. It would be a kind of dogmatism of your own; a self-contradictory meta-dogmatism.
Of course, you are free to interpret your own beliefs according to your own reality tunnel, not mine. What I call “dogmatic” in you, you may re-interpret as “radical flexibility” or something. Whatever. You’ll use that radical flexibility to do those mental acrobatics. I can only speculate that it might make you alternately paranoid and apathetic as described some paragraphs above. I mean, you do have a lot of self-awareness about your reality tunnel predicament. You do confess to being “stuck” in your own reality tunnel, and of not having objective evidence for much in the world. So, you are also likely aware of your resulting anti-dogmatism dogmatism. Hence my suspicion about the paranoia and all. And this may be no big deal. A little paranoia and apathy may just add mystery and fun to your life in a way otherwise impossible. It may be a source of that wonderful wit we all love about you. Hmmm. Whatever.
OK, but is it benevolent?
THE BENEVOLENCE-VALUE OF PADD
Well, shit. Here’s the tricky part. You see, there’s plausible arguments both for and against the benevolence of PADD. But it is from this situation that I render a cautious verdict that PADD may not be the way to enhance benevolence. If PADD is ambivalent regarding benevolence, why not go for something a bit less ambivalent, why not something a lot more overtly benevolent? Why not cut to the chase and try something like benevolism or the like?
But anyway, let me review those plausible arguments both for and against the benevolence of PADD, beginning with those “for”.
On the “for” side we have, obviously, the reduction of dogmatism. Even if PADD is a kind of “meta-dogmatism”, it does make some headway into reducing regular old dogmatism. And this matters because dogmatism is a likely cause of malevolence, or at least an inhibitor of benevolence. With a devotion to ideas to spite any evidence, one is freer to rationalize all manner of malevolence toward one’s fellows. If one wishes to oppress others, dogmatism allows freedom to invent reasons to do so, reasons free from any contrary evidence, free from lack of evidence. Just go. Make your own evidence as needed. Do it, man. Whatever. So yae for reducing regular dogmatism.
[Never got to the “against” part.]
[Here’s another stray paragraph:]
To help evaluate your benevolence quotient, let’s turn to your teachings, the spiritual “goods” you’re selling, as some kind of plan you hope humanity will buy. (We social commentators all have these spiritual goods to sell, don't we?) Looks to me like your spiritual goods have a lot of benevolence-value, but contain a few flaws that give me pause. You want to reduce elitist dogmatism. Well, hooray for that! Elitist dogmatism sure do hurt many a folk, near as I can tell. But I object to reducing elitist dogmatism by attacking logic, attacking the conceptual faculties of the human mind. You apparently equate a logical mind with an elitist dogmatic mind in all cases. And this to me seems like an overgeneralization, and worse, a potentially ironic expression of malevolence.
Comments
Post a Comment