First posted here.

Goodness is evil.  This will startle some, I know.  It sounds like a troll out of 1984.

The cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker, in The Denial of Death,  held that human culture is a defensive mechanism: human beings seek to invest their lives with heroic meaning because they are aware of, but reject, their own mortality.  "Man seeks his own heroism or meaning in the world.  To find and sustain an immortality project that transcends one’s own life and lives on forever.  In this light, Becker saw all of civilization, family, and religion as vehicles for man’s immortality projects.  Yet, all things in the world are conditional, arise, and vanish.  We seek to become Gods, to be unconditional…or at least seek someone or something that can be God.  Whether it’s science, a lover, a skill, or a religion."

There is a second, a religious dimension for me.  Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged." This has tended not to work out well, and seems to be one of his least obeyed teachings.  Our judgment is corrupted by sin.  Our moral judgments are not immune to this corruption, no matter to what extent we imagine that they are founded on holy doctrine.  As Bob Dylan says:

The preacher was talking, there's a sermon he gave
He said every man's conscience is vile and depraved.
You cannot depend on it to be your guide
When it's you who must keep it satisfied.  ("Man in the Long Black Coat")

One vehicle by which people seek to lend a heroic dimension to their lives is by causes and moralities.  By uniting with causes, they seek to give a heroic dimension to their lives that will transcend the fact of their certain death.  By affirming the goodness of their chosen cause, they allow themselves to believe that their devotion to it makes up for the wrongs they know they've done.  It's all about maintaining the illusion of a virtuous self, one that actively engages the world with great projects that transcend individual lives.  By maintaining the illusion of this virtuous self, they deny their own questionable past.  

Am I making any sense so far?  Probably not.

The problem is, this heroic self based on an illusion of virtue can only be maintained at the expense of our neighbors.  Virtue cannot exist in a vacuum; it requires a corresponding vice.  And since the illusory heroic self, by definition, manifests virtue instead of vice, vice must exist in some other person.  It's a game of pin the tail on the donkey where there is no donkey, only your fellow players.  

This is why goodness is evil.  I'm better than my neighbor because I recycle.  I'm better than my neighbor because I repress my homosexual urges.  I've enlisted in a heroic cause by going vegan, and not polluting my body with the unhealthy products of cruelty like my neighbor does.  I used to smoke but quit; therefore I have achieved mightily, but those who continue to smoke are weak and self-indulgent.  

All this moral bullshit is dangerous and evil.  It contributes to human misery.  We pin the evil we deny but know is still inside on our neighbor, and cry for his punishment.  All the causes that people kill and die for are ultimately about constructing the illusion of a virtuous heroic self.  

I say instead: be easy on yourself.  Be easy on your neighbor.  Stop pretending to be better than you are.  This is why the gospel that all men are sinners in need of a redemption they cannot earn by the cultivation of their own virtues is indeed good news.

If you are confused, there is, as the I Ching says, "no blame". 

Comments

Search

laika  - Apologies   |2011-11-25 20:40:18 So sorry - once again, SteveGus, your Journal submission languished unpublished for days. I always look forward to what you have to say, so please forgive the oversight. edit: Actually, it's not my fault alone; I'm not the only one with a set of keys to this place, so you others feel free to jump in and apologize, too.

emperorbma   |2011-11-25 21:35:11 An interesting take, albeit one presented a bit provocatively. The way I see it, it's not so much that goodness itself is evil, but rather it's that the illusion of goodness deludes us to the reality of things: that only God is truly good. To wit, any "good" we think is coming from just ourselves is really evil in disguise. Any time we think "I am better than someone because I don't do something," we are merely giving place to that sinful hubris. At any rate, I didn't see your post so I will rather sneakily claim that as my excuse.

laika   |2011-11-25 23:58:20 emperorbma wrote: An interesting take, albeit one presented a bit provocatively. Provocative? As in thought provoking? Because it most certainly is that. Oh, man, God is Good! You can't imagine how desperately I needed to hear this sermon today! In this hour! Sometimes, synchronicity is such an arrestingly beautiful thing!

emperorbma  - Maybe should say "misleading?"   |2011-11-26 00:37:05 I was trying to carefully word myself to say that while I don't disagree with what I think the person is saying, but I think that the way that it is said is liable to be misunderstood. Perhaps provocative carried the wrong sense. Maybe I should just say that the header "goodness is evil" is "possibly misleading." I found that possibility rather provocative. I don't disagree that it is also thought-provoking in a positive sense, though... To illustrate my concern with the presentation, I think that if someone sees "goodness is evil" without realizing what is meant by this, they might believe that it is implying that God is evil or that evil itself is somehow equal to goodness. I think, to be consistent with both faith and what Scripture teaches, it needs to be noted that this statement "goodness is evil" could NOT mean that good, itself, is evil. (Nor, by extension, would God, who is the source of all good, be either...) Having read the rest of the article, I see that God's own goodness is probably NOT included in this assertion, in which case I'm fairly sure that I agree with it. It's mainly the potential for misunderstanding by people who are unaware of the nature of Christian discourse and who have not read the content of the article which is my cause for concern, here. Indeed, if I am understanding the content correctly and it means that anyone trying to think that they are good apart from the grace of God is committing a great evil by their self-righteousness, then it is simply a presentation against legalism, which I certainly agree with. Indeed, anyone trying to make themselves "good" by their own deeds or acts or imposing these deeds on others or judging others apart from sincerely teaching what the Word itself strictly teaches and for the purposes of information and admonishment only (i.e. curb, mirror, rule uses), is, in fact, doing the opposite of what they intend... being evil.

SteveGus   |2011-11-26 00:27:40 It relates to a general problem that I've mentioned several times on the political / social forum this was written for, that I thought ought to get a general statement. Why do the various causes that people enlist in have a way of going so terribly badly? Why should I be wary of the next one that comes along? Why was the French Revolution such a fast train wreck? Why was the American Revolution a slower one? Why do I generally think it's not really that important for the guilty to be punished? Why do I think we need to walk a mile in Casey Anthony's shoes? (Even if I'll never be able to stand up if I try to wear them.) Why do I habitually defend pariahs, even to the extent of putting in a good word for cigarette smokers and drunk drivers? These opinions frequently perplex many and annoy quite a few. This is an attempt to define where I was coming from when I said that other stuff.

emperorbma   |2011-11-26 00:42:24 Certainly, it's that whole "theology of glory" problem again. Whenever we think that we're the solution, we become the problem. The answer lies in the Cross, not in our "good deeds." (P.S. Cleaned up GP a bit to present my thought more cleanly...)

laika  - Theology of Glory?   |2011-11-26 17:15:27 emprorbma wrote: Certainly, it's that whole "theology of glory" problem again. Whenever we think that we're the solution, we become the problem. I don't know what a "theology of glory" is, but it made me think of Horney's "search for glory," which is described on page 204 of this book about her. The first full paragraph on the page contains the meaty bits. (I don't know how to cut and paste from Google books.)

emperorbma  - Theologia Crucis versus Theologia gloria   |2011-11-26 18:04:17 I'm surprised you haven't heard it in all the years I've been talking because this distinction is one of the central points of Martin Luther's theology. The theology of glory is a theology which places emphasis on human works and merits.  This is contrasted with the theology of the Cross which places faith in Christ as the sole redeemer. Quoting the Heidelberg Disputation: Martin Luther wrote: 19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20]. 20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. 21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is. 22. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened. The original post pretty much reverberates with this same central theme.

laika  - re : Theologia Crucis versus Theologia gloria   |2011-11-26 18:27:36 Nice! Your Luther doesn't sound at all like the old crank obsessed with his own bowel movements that my Jesuit-trained friend describes him as. Maybe you could suggest a book about ML? emperorbma wrote: I'm surprised you haven't heard it in all the years I've been talking because this distinction is one of the central points of Martin Luther's theology. Well, the content of your explanation sounds familiar enough; maybe it was the label that I didn't recall. Interestingly, though it may be a bit of stretch to suggest a direct relation, a person caught up in Horney's search for glory is certainly a person as "completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened" as a person caught up in Luther's theology of glory. But that same page 204 linked to earlier suggest the search for glory can amount to a "private religion" that could nest inside "organized religion, so maybe it's not too unrelated a stretch...

emperorbma   |2011-11-26 20:02:00 Well, I'm not sure what kind of book you're interested in but I do think that the best way to get a handle on someone like Martin Luther is to read what they have to say about themselves.  Otherwise, you end up getting some kind of coloring from the historian or interpreter's own perspective on him. A few examples of Luther's work are the Table Talk, the Bondage of the Will, the Heidelberg Disputation and the 95 Theses. laika wrote: Your Luther doesn't sound at all like the old crank obsessed with his own bowel movements that my Jesuit-trained friend describes him as. Now, for what it's worth, your Jesuit friend isn't completely wrong that Luther made some racy works but most of those are a response to the treatment of the Catholic Church toward him and his observations. (Of course, I would contend that he is biased because of being on the Trentine side of the debate...) The Heidelberg Disputation was composed in 1518 and at that point the Catholic Church hadn't yet tried to stonewall, excommunicate and execute him at the stake. The interesting thing that is often missed is that before the Pope issued Exsurge Domine (1520), Martin Luther was extremely conciliatory in his understanding of the Papacy. It only became clear to Luther that the Pope was actually a part of the problem when the Pope responded with the bull of excommunication instead of trying to fix the concerns. If one reads the 95 Theses, he even presumed that the Pope, as a good Christian leader would address the concerns in a reasonable manner. This changed, of course, when the Church decided that it was easier to cover up the problem and then banish the messenger, excommunicate him and tried to coerce the Emperor, Charles V, to execute him for heresy like it did with Jan Hus 100 years prior. If people start trying to coerce your government to execute you, that's going to change how you respond to them. (N.B. The Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope, which reached the ultimate conclusion that "Pope is antichrist" wasn't written until 1537, after which the posturing and the atrocities left no doubt as to the conclusion that the office was acting "in place of" Christ; and even then Luther never impugned the man inhabiting that corrupt office...) An interesting note here is that Luther's "hostile" responses were limited only to these racy depictions and did not include advocacy of violence. In fact, there weren't any wars between Lutherans and Catholics in Germany until the man left this earth. See, Luther died in 1546. The Schmalkaldic War began in 1546, resulting in the Peace of Augsburg concession which setup a system of "him who reigns, let his religion be the law" that kept the larger and more devastating war (The Thirty Years' War) from happening until 1618. If one studies the Book of Concord, one can also see that the Schmalkald Articles were written (with contributions from the dying Luther, notably) as a part of an attempt to setup a council to present the Lutheran Church's grievances without a conflict but this gesture was rebuffed and ignored by the Catholic Church in favor of its disastrous council of Trent that anathematized the entire premise of the Reformation. (i.e. anathematizing "salvation by faith" and "grace as unmerited"; Canons 9, 12, 14, 23, 24, 30, and 33) One can only suspect that Luther and the early Lutheran leaders worked actively to contain the rising sentiment of conflict caused by the way the Catholic Church treated the early Protestant movement. So, a few ugly depictions of the Pope were probably the least of things that one could worry about considering how well the English Reformation and others went.

laika   |2011-11-26 18:05:15 Heraclea wrote: One vehicle by which people seek to lend a heroic dimension to their lives is by causes and moralities. By uniting with causes, they seek to give a heroic dimension to their lives that will transcend the fact of their certain death. By affirming the goodness of their chosen cause, they allow themselves to believe that their devotion to it makes up for the wrongs they know they've done.  It's all about maintaining the illusion of a virtuous self, one that actively engages the world with great projects that transcend individual lives. By maintaining the illusion of this virtuous self, they deny their own questionable past. So interesting. IIRC, instead of a denial of death, Horney sees the creation and maintenance of a virtuous self (or idealized self) beginning as a coping solution to a basic anxiety stemming from the neurotic's lousy early relationship to parents. The idealized self is a solution, but the particulars will vary with the individual. The virtuous self sounds like a more particular (but not uncommon) solution to an individual's basic anxiety. Basic anxiety seems kin to the denial of one's own "questionable past" from the quote above, maybe? Whatever the particulars of the solution, a child's creation of an ideal - or virtuous - self turns out to be a bad strategy, since the tremendous psychic investment of maintaining it leaves no time or energy for the growth of the authentic self (presuming that one exists in the first place). So, Becker and Horney see something similar (if I'm understanding it at all), but see the symptoms as arising from different sources. One wonders what a scientist with a background in evolutionary neurobiology might have say about it all?

emperorbma   |2011-11-26 18:11:06 Hmm. Perhaps we are seeing a secular observation of the same problem that Dr. Luther was criticizing in 1518?

laika   |2011-11-27 00:51:31 emperorbma wrote: Hmm. Perhaps we are seeing a secular observation of the same problem that Dr. Luther was criticizing in 1518? Could be. Where is it written that Christians are immune to bad solutions to problems of the psyche? Sounds to me like Luther could've been describing something very particular to Christian neurotics, anyway. And I don't see Old Nick hesitating to exploit or author bad solutions to an individual's foundational issues with their parents and society.

emperorbma   |2011-11-26 20:55:21 Well, I think the secular side is coming from it from the perspective that humans can somehow address this problem by themselves. Luther's answer is that this isn't possible because sin is present in all of our works. We need to rely on Christ. The two may be coming at a similar problem, but I think that the psychologist's answer, while insightful, misses the ultimate conclusion that this is a spiritual problem.

laika   |2011-11-26 00:43:13 SteveGus wrote: Why do I habitually defend pariahs, even to the extent of putting in a good word for cigarette smokers and drunk drivers? Well, for what little - no, what nothing - it might be worth, I've always trusted that you were on to something, even when I didn't quite get it. And this particular journal entry confirms my instinct yet again. This just about exactly articulates the slippery fish that I've been grappling with in a Big Way for over a week now. This piece of the puzzle will either let me sleep the sleep of a satisfied man, or, keep me up all night wild with excitement.

laika   |2011-11-26 01:23:54 Quote: "It's all about maintaining the illusion of a virtuous self, one that actively engages the world with great projects that transcend individual lives. By maintaining the illusion of this virtuous self, they deny their own questionable past." Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth leapt to mind when I read this. I know this guy, a, uh, a friend, you know, who was enslaved to the neurotic ideal self that Horney describes in her book. This "virtuous self" that this post describes would surely be recognized by Horney, but it's probably closer to a universal condition for humans than the different flavors and combinations of her neurotics.

laika  - re: Maybe should say "misleading?"   |2011-11-26 00:50:21 emperorbma wrote: Maybe I should just say that the header "goodness is evil" is "possibly misleading." I found that possibility rather provocative. I hoped that was it. It seemed that you were in near total agreement otherwise. And I didn't think that you were provoked by that instance of colorful language :-)

laika  - re:   |2011-11-27 01:07:05 emperorbma wrote: The two may be coming at a similar problem, but I think that the psychologist's answer, while insightful, misses the ultimate conclusion that this is a spiritual problem. Similar in the sense that a medical doctor might come at influenza differently than a faith healer? I mean, sure, all illness is ultimately a spiritual problem in the sense that all brokenness and disease are originally a result of sin. But that shouldn't keep me from getting a flu shot, should it? Or keep me from seeking the help of a good psychologist in recognizing unhelpful solutions in my approach to human relations?

emperorbma  - wires crossed, perhaps?   |2011-11-27 04:37:58 laika wrote: Similar in the sense that a medical doctor might come at influenza differently than a faith healer? With respect, though, we are (at least, I thought) coming at this topic from the domain of theology not psychology. What psychology has to say might be useful, but it is by no means binding on what theology teaches. Horney, et al, are coming at this from the perspective of psychotherapy and are using its analytical tools to make their assessments. Since these are not theological tools, their assessments won't be as theologically useful as a theologically-based analysis. I must apologize, then, since it is perhaps my fault for not clarifying what I meant by theology of glory so that this topic wandered into discussing psychological perspectives. (If you still want to do that, of course, I can shift mental gears but then we won't be talking about Luther's theology of glory versus theology of the cross anymore :P)  Where I'm coming from is a theological perspective as to the nature of the "theology of glory" and its detrimental effects on the soul. That is why I can say that psychology might be informative but it does not carry the intended conclusion. (P.S. In the interests of disclosure, being that it is an important building block on which the Protestant Reformation is founded, it touches rather closely to my "defend my faith" response-tree. I kind of had to hold back a gut reaction about this comparison... from my perspective it appeared like you are comparing Luther to a charlatan, although I know very well you aren't trying to. It's fairly obvious that we have crossed two different streams of consciousness at the wrong time.) laika wrote: I mean, sure, all illness is ultimately a spiritual problem in the sense that all brokenness and disease are originally a result of sin. But that shouldn't keep me from getting a flu shot, should it? Or keep me from seeking the help of a good psychologist in recognizing unhelpful solutions in my approach to human relations? It seems that Luther's Table Talk would be a good quote to illustrate that aforementioned difference that I noted: Martin Luther wrote: The physicians in sickness consider only of what natural causes the malady preceeds, and this they cure, or not, with their physic. But they see not that often the devil casts a sickness upon one without any natural causes. A higher physic must be required to resist the devil’s diseases; namely, faith and prayer, which physic may be fetched out of God’s Word. The 31st Psalm is good thereunto, where David says: “Into thine hand I commit my spirit.” This passage I learned, in my sickness, to correct; in the first translation, I applied it only to the hour of death; but it should be said: My health, my happiness, my life, misfortune, sickness, death, etc., stand all in thy hands. Experience testifies this; for when we think, now we will be joyful and merry, easy and healthy, God soon sends what makes us quite the contrary. When I was ill at Schmalcalden, the physicians made me take as much medicine as though I had been a great bull. Alack for him that depends upon the aid of physic. I do not deny that medicine is a gift of God, nor do I refuse to acknowledge science in the skill of many physicians; but, take the best of them, how far are they from perfection? A sound regimen produces excellent effects. When I feel indisposed, by observing a strict diet and going to bed early, I generally manage to get round again, that is, if I can keep my mind tolerably at rest. I have no objection to the doctors acting upon certain theories, but, at the same time, they must not expect us to be the slaves of their fancies. We find Avicenna and Galen, living in other times and in other countries, prescribing wholly different remedies for the same disorders. I won’t pin my faith to any of them, ancient or modern. On the other hand, nothing can well be more deplorable than the proceeding of those fellows, ignorant as they are complaisant, who let their patients follow exactly their own fancies; `tis these wretches who more especially people the graveyards. Able, cautious, and experienced physicians, are gifts of God. They are the ministers of nature, to whom human life is confided; but a moment’s negligence may ruin every thing. No physician should take a single step, but in humility and the fear of God; they who are without the fear of God are mere homicides. I expect that exercise and change of air do more good than all their purgings and bleedings; but when we do employ medical remedies, we should be careful to do so under the advice of a judicious physician. See what happened to Peter Lupinus, who died from taking internally a mixture designed for external application. I remember hearing of a great lawsuit, arising out of a dose of appium being given instead of a dose of opium. `Tis a curious thing that certain remedies, which, applied by princes and great lords, are efficacious and curative, are wholly powerless when administered by a physician. I have heard that the electors of Saxony, John and Frederick, have a water, which cures diseases of the eye, when they themselves apply it, whether the disorder arise from heat or from cold; but `tis quite useless when administered by a physician. So in spiritual matters, a preacher has more unction, and produces more effect upon the conscience than can a layman. ... and following what I see Luther saying here:  Yes, one can and should certainly entrust oneself to the care of psychologists for psychological matters. (... also, modern medicine is a lot more trustworthy than many of the physicians in Luther's day, so his air of skepticism is somewhat warranted) However, for matters of the soul's relationship to God, that is a matter for the preacher. This is why I think we may be getting our wires crossed here. I made the mistake of not clarifying that "theology of glory" was coming from the pastoral realm of thought. For that I must, again, apologize.

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 04:45:51 Also, to reword a quote from myself: Funny thing how a little lack of context sheds some darkness on all these things, isn't it..?

laika  - re: wires crossed, perhaps?   |2011-11-27 16:37:00 emperorbma wrote: However, for matters of the soul's relationship to God, that is a matter for the preacher. This is why I think we may be getting our wires crossed here. I made the mistake of not clarifying that "theology of glory" was coming from the pastoral realm of thought. For that I must, again, apologize. This may be less about crossed wires than it is about chickens and eggs - to wit, which came first? One of Horney's neurotics, in a search for glory, might very naturally latch on to a theology of glory in their religious life. A person out of touch with their authentic self and constantly trying to live through and up to an idealized self isn't any more likely to have a good relationship with God anymore than they would have a realistic relationship to their fellows. So, a psychological malady can also be a spiritual problem, leaving us to ask who best to consult, Pastor Bob, or Dr. Flicker? And no, I wasn't comparing ML to some sort of charlatan, or even saying that faith healers are always charlatans.

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 20:46:01 laika wrote: And no, I wasn't comparing ML to some sort of charlatan, or even saying that faith healers are always charlatans. Yeah, I thought I was misreading that. It's just connotation is a beast of its own making. laika wrote: This may be less about crossed wires than it is about chickens and eggs - to wit, which came first? Well, there is discussion at the Catholic Encyclopedia that tries to pass Luther off as someone with excessive scrupulosity. It is possible to analyze it from the perspective that Luther was doing a bit of self-diagnosis when he came to his conclusions. Part of might be why I'm so defensive subconsciously, since it seems to me like this article was patting Luther's story of struggling on the head and saying "here, have a cookie... now let the grown ups play" and was worried I'd have to drag in that resource... Alas, we're grownups so I'll deal with that reticence. :P The history the struggles with coming to find the Gospel's truth through the rigorous monkish lifestyle he had committed himself to more than likely provided ample basis for finding a rigid distinction between legalism and grace. He eventually came to the conclusion that the sum total of that kind of "merit by works" was vanity and merited naught but wrath in the eyes of God and that only through Christ's own completed work of Salvation was redemption genuinely received. The Law, then, Luther placed in a position of honor because he saw that it made amply clear to him the need for having the Savior Christ be our Redeemer from sin but saw fit to build a large wall around people trying to use it to justify themselves like he had done mistakenly during his younger days. In a sense, if he was coming at such a thing as Horney, et al, seem to be describing, it was in the sense of having seen how destructive and useless it really is in his own life. ... and, perhaps, he thought of himself heroically fighting against that destructive impulse to make oneself the hero of the story in lieu of Christ.  Notably, Luther is fairly consistent about decrying any attempts to exalt his person. If he had had his way, Lutherans would be called Evangelicals (if that title hadn't been coopted) and he makes many self-deprecating notes to discourage undue faith in him throughout his works.

laika   |2011-11-27 20:52:46 emperorbma wrote: It's just connotation is a beast of its own making. Ha! I like that. Is it from The Quotable Emperorbma? emperorbma wrote: It is possible to analyze it from the perspective that Luther was doing a bit of self-diagnosis when he came to his conclusions. And that would make his conclusions less accurate somehow?

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 21:04:54 laika wrote: Ha! I like that. Is it from The Quotable Emperorbma? I dunno, sometimes I just come up with something off the top of my head to fit the situation. Feel free to use it if you like, I suppose. laika wrote: And that would make his conclusions less accurate somehow? I implied neither way. Let the reader judge for him or herself. I'm just uncomfortable about that "here's a cookie" I saw going on with pigeonholing scrupulosity as if it's a silly thing... (It'd help if I linked that, wouldn't it?)

laika   |2011-11-27 16:32:06 Heraclea wrote: One vehicle by which people seek to lend a heroic dimension to their lives is by causes and moralities. By uniting with causes, they seek to give a heroic dimension to their lives that will transcend the fact of their certain death. By affirming the goodness of their chosen cause, they allow themselves to believe that their devotion to it makes up for the wrongs they know they've done.  It's all about maintaining the illusion of a virtuous self, one that actively engages the world with great projects that transcend individual lives. This relates to a recent discussion here about abortion; I don't think that many men are that interested in abortions, but the anti-abortion movement provides convenient passage to an epic battle between Good and evil, where heroic measures (but really just loud and easy measures) are taken in defense of the defenseless. Plus, it keeps uppity womens in their damned place, which is a very appealing bonus.

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 20:19:29 I doubt we can generalize it to just those, mind you. I layed out my rationale for having a similar perspective and it contains nothing about "uppityness" or a purported heroism. I'm just saying YMMV.

laika  - re: Generalizations   |2011-11-27 20:45:02 emperorbma wrote: I layed out my rationale for having a similar perspective and it contains nothing about "uppityness" or a purported heroism. And I don't get that kind of vibe from you. I have no reason to have anything but respect for you. It's not you or anyone in particular in this forum that I'm thinking of when I make that observation. It's mostly in local meat space that I observe a certain questionable shrillness and misplaced intensity regarding abortion issues. I lived close enough to hear one of Eric Robert Rudolf's KABOOMs at an abortion clinic a while back.

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 20:53:24 I think a lot of people take certain aspects of the religion far too seriously in the negative sense. There's nothing wrong with being concerned with orthodoxy, but rule-thumping literalism has been a detractor since long ago. Martin Luther himself decries the fanatical behavior of other Protestant sects and it has only gotten worse in many ways since then. One can pray that we, as a Communion in Christ can all learn to temper sincerity with compassion without compromising either. Perhaps it does tie into this "seeing yourself as the hero" as you seem to be suggesting. Alas, I am not well-read enough to have a fuller picture as far as psychoanalytical techniques go...

laika  - Somewhat randomly...   |2011-11-27 16:55:02 Heraclea wrote: It's a game of pin the tail on the donkey where there is no donkey, only your fellow players. I noticed that Heraclea mentions Rene Girard in a list of authors read. From what little I know of Girard, mightn't this be a case of pinning the tail on the scapegoat at a personal level? Obviously, I'm rather taken with this post and thread. The betrothed and I went down to the public library today only to find it closed for the holiday. Tomorrow, I'll be there with a list including Martin Luther and Ernest Becker. this business of hero systems and immortality projects sounds mighty interesting.

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 20:38:07 I'll be honest, you're much more well read on this topic than I am. I'm at Psych 101 by comparison. :P

laika   |2011-11-27 21:10:49 emperorbma wrote: I'll be honest, you're much more well read on this topic than I am. I seriously doubt that. I go on about that one book by Karen Horney because it literally changed my life. I can't imagine making any progress at all without having so agonizingly spotted myself in the pages of Neurosis and Human Growth. With maybe a little help from Karl Jung. But I'm not deeply read on any of it, and may be getting it all wrong as we discuss it.

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 21:14:08 Well, the most I've got on that is having taken a HS course and a college course in the matter and having visited a psychologist once in my life. Sure, I know the basic model of Id, Ego, Superego and that Horney took a lot of the male chauvinism out of Freud's theories but that's about it as far as Horney's form of psychoanalysis is concerned... :P

laika   |2011-11-27 21:30:31 emperorbma wrote: Well, the most I've got on that is having taken a HS course and a college course in the matter and having visited a psychologist once in my life. Well, being so maladjusted and so ill-suited for the company of humans, my drive to poke my nose here and there a bit on the subject of the psyche may have been a little stronger than yours :-) So, too much shouldn't be read into my dropping of a name here and there. emperorbma wrote: I know the basic model of Id, Ego, Superego... See, I know almost nothing of Freud.

emperorbma   |2011-11-27 22:08:20 laika wrote: See, I know almost nothing of Freud. Now Freud I can talk about a bit more knowledgeably. Actually you know more than you think. Horney was one of his successors and probably picked up on a few of his concepts concept. Concepts like libido (eros), death-instinct (thanatos) and the like, which I've seen you mention before, were some of his original contributions. Unfortunately, Freud was also a bit hostile toward the Judeo-Christian religion so his caricature of religion in general comes across as a flag of wariness. Unlike his other protege, Carl Jung, who took spirituality as a sign of the subconscious. Other than that, the guy's ideas are novel and rather interesting if a bit chauvinistic (e.g. girls suffer from "penis envy...") and somewhat strange (Oedipus Complex: "boys have a conflict with their father because they are jealous over their mother.") and strongly imply that sexuality is the core subconscious motive of everyone, probably as a strong reaction against Victorian morals.  The entire notion that children are more than just tabula rasa robots owes a major debt to Freud's contributions, for similar reasons.

laika   |2011-11-28 00:25:58 emperorbma wrote: The entire notion that children are more than just tabula rasa robots owes a major debt to Freud's contributions... Steven Pinker has convinced me that there is no blank slate where humans are concerned, so I guess I'm in some kind of agreement with Herr Freud there. I was aware that Horney and Jung were Freudians at some point or to some degree, but Freud's reputation of being too preoccupied with sex was off-putting, and I never actually tried to read anything of his. As for Karen Horney, his a nice description of what I know of her from the back of the aforementioned book: Quote: "Dr. Horney sees the neurotic process as a special form of human development, the antithesis of healthy growth. Under favor­able conditions, she believes, man's energies go toward realizing his own potentialities. Under inner stress, a person becomes alienated from his real self and throws his energies into creating and building up a false, idealized self, based on pride but harassed by doubts, self-contempt, and self-hate. Carefully and clearly Dr. Horney unfolds the different stages of this situation, describing neurotic claims, the tyranny of inner dictates, and the neurotic's solutions for relieving the tensions of conflict in such emotional attitudes as domination, self-effacement, dependency or resignation. Throughout, the author stresses the goal of liberation for the forces that lead to true self-realization."

emperorbma   |2011-11-28 14:07:08 Hmm. I see, this description of Horney almost leads me to think that she might have influenced Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The self-realization goal translates nicely to the self-actualization tip of Maslow's pyramid.  Also, the concept of stages of self-realization seems to suggest to me a precursor of Piaget's developmental stages... laika wrote: I was aware that Horney and Jung were Freudians at some point or to some degree, but Freud's reputation of being too preoccupied with sex was off-putting, and I never actually tried to read anything of his. In my opinion he was reacting against the excesses of Victorian era repression. The culture at that time needed to be made a bit more open-minded about investigating sexuality honestly. (... and in many ways, it still does...) Of course, Freud's "it's all centered around sex" concept of libido was a bit extreme. Nonetheless, the concepts of his psychoanalysis have proven foundational to modern psychological practice. It's more refreshing than the alternative theories based on B.F. Skinner's behaviorism, which tried to boil humans and animals down to reflexive responses. (Although, in reality, both perspectives are important for their own reasons...)

emperorbma  - Wait a sec... Kirkegaard   |2011-11-27 21:18:49 Oh wait a second, I think there IS something I can add to the discussion. It says that "The Denial of Death" has some basis in Kirkegaard.  Now, Soren Kirkegaard was a Lutheran philosopher and it may have incorporated part of Luther's life through his influence. Just a hunch, though.

laika   |2011-11-28 20:09:00 Heraclea wrote: By affirming the goodness of their chosen cause, they allow themselves to believe that their devotion to it makes up for the wrongs they know they've done. It's all about maintaining the illusion of a virtuous self, one that actively engages the world with great projects that transcend individual lives. By maintaining the illusion of this virtuous self, they deny their own questionable past. (bolding mine) This makes it sound like individuals caught up in their transcendent projects might be aware of what they're doing. Seems to me it would undermine it if they were conscious of what they were doing. Does Becker maintain that we know what we're doing when we attach ourselves to righteous causes or undertake heroic projects? Are we conscious of our denial of death?

emperorbma  - hence toward Theologia Crucis   |2011-11-28 23:04:36 This part you have highlighted is where it seems to eerily want to totter into a perspective that almost wants to finger the Christian as well... but yet somehow it can't. For one, we Christians devote ourselves to a righteous cause. We also believe that pursuing this course of faith serves as a remission of guilt. Finally, we also strive toward a virtue and avoiding a sinful past.  However, the similarity diverges at a point. This point is as follows: First, we Christians, if we understand our faith rightly, do not presume ourselves righteous. Secondly, our impetus to strive toward virtue and avoid sin should not be rooted in a presumption of merit but in a realization of our own debt and gratitude for the remission that is given freely by another.  Finally, we pursue a cause of righteousness not to extol ourselves or stave off death but in gratitude that our burden of death is removed for us already by the work of Christ. Thusly, if one ever comes to the conclusion that they can have a "virtuous self," it is clear that someone has wrongly understood a core premise of the Christian faith and have again returned to the perennial quest for the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life. If we presume that by following Christ that we are somehow any better by nature than the rest of the world, then are we not simply replacing one self-righteousness with another? This is why I see the necessity of the doctrine of "simul justus et peccator," in recognizing that we have sinned and that by God's grace alone is good being worked into us and this is despite our fallen nature, not pursuant to it. Therefore, one can argue, a properly understood Christianity is, in fact, the antithesis of this "heroic pipedream." It is the antithesis because the hero is not ourselves. It is also the antithesis because that goal of immortality which the dream strives for is already accomplished. "It is finished."  Christ has died and Christ has risen and we shall rise again with Him. The grave, therefore, has no victory for its sting has been lost. Thus, this law of sin and death and false virtue lies broken and shattered at the foot of a cross... Therein, I suggest, is why Luther berates the establishment of saints and penance works. He has done the philosophers' quest to death and found only death.  Then, he surrendered to Christ and found life...

laika  - re: hence toward Theologia Crucis   |2011-11-29 00:15:36 emperorbma wrote: ...it seems to eerily want to totter into a perspective that almost wants to finger the Christian as well... but yet somehow it can't. I'm beginning to get the impression that Becker doesn't hesitate to lump Christianity in with "...what is most distinctive about man - namely religion." (quoted from the introduction to his Escape From Evil.) Religion (a product of culture?), a man-made immortality project, distinguishes him from other creatures since "...man is cursed with a burden no animal has to bear: he is conscious that his own end is inevitable..." I don't know if Heraclea=SteveGus, but this Heraclea is also a self-proclaimed Christian. I'm assuming that Heraclea doesn't find that Becker's observations on the root of culture and its function in the human psyche have any bearing on the truth of Christianity.

SteveGus   |2011-11-29 09:32:51 Yes, I am Heraclea. (That forum came into being out of a game community that originally focused on City of Heroes players. Heraclea was the first character I created there.) From a purely agnostic perspective, it seems to me that Becker there is just belaboring the obvious. Foreknowledge and fear of death have something to do with the appeal of Christianity and its promises.

laika   |2011-11-29 23:19:45 SteveGus wrote: From a purely agnostic perspective, it seems to me that Becker there is just belaboring the obvious. Foreknowledge and fear of death have something to do with the appeal of Christianity and its promises. That's kinda part of what I meant in the Halloween poll discussion when I said that even our heavily secularized Halloween celebration might be a good thing in that it focuses on death. Christianity might be a part of some Halloweener's consideration in response to that focus. It would be odd, all things considered, if humans hadn't invented religion and ritual over and over again, but we shouldn't be surprised that one of them should be true, and/or that a Creator might engage humans through by way of their tendencies. Anyway, I found this journal to be very timely regarding some things in my life(spookily and specifically timely) and I continue to benefit from the discussion. So, thanks again.

laika   |2011-12-02 10:37:10 SteveGus wrote: ...Becker saw all of civilization, family, and religion as vehicles for man’s immortality projects. I was unable to get The Denial of Death at the public library the other day, but I did get Becker's Escape From Evil, and it doesn't take long to get a sense of where the above quote is coming from. Before reading it a bit, it was easy for me to imagine seeing individual immortality projects left and right, but from a civilization-wide standpoint it didn't feel as immediate and clear. Having read a coupla chapters, though, it starts to come together. SteveGus wrote: From a purely agnostic perspective, it seems to me that Becker there is just belaboring the obvious. It's probably true that there's never been a little knot of humans on earth that didn't try to keep the unseen PTB happy with ritual and offerings to keep the necessities of life rolling in - that much is pretty obvious, I guess. His explanation of how individuals in a group are given power by the group - how a gifted hunter or an epileptic shaman might get (by common agreement) a kind of cosmic power to represent the people and work the machine was not something I was not familiar with, and it became easier to see how Becker could imagine a civilization growing up around the death-defying and death-denying leaders to whom the group had given power. Interesting stuff, for sure.

holmegm   |2011-12-06 09:38:37 Don't forget "I'm better than my neighbor because I mock their attempts to do good and not evil."

emperorbma   |2011-12-06 12:26:42 Well, it's fine if they are attempting to do good themselves. It becomes a problem when they start telling everyone else how to attempt to do good or imagine "doing good" to include things that are hurtful to other people...

laika  - re: mocking good   |2011-12-06 14:29:32 holmegm wrote: Don't forget "I'm better than my neighbor because I mock their attempts to do good and not evil." I don't think that was the intent of this Journal, and I'll tell you a little bit about why it spoke to me so strongly when I finally got around to reading it through. I'm gonna take SG/Heraclea's example of recycling, since it's easy for me to relate directly: I do recycle, and sometimes I wonder why all the people on my street don't recycle. Sometimes I catch myself going from simply being a good Boy Scout to wondering why the heck some of my lazy neighbors can't do the Right Thing, too. This attitude can snowball pretty quickly in degree of judgement, with going from "lazy neighbor" easily morphing into "Bad People" without much conscious effort. Why can't I simply do what I think is the Right Thing without all the judgement? And I'm still limping from one of my rare instances of going from casual judgement into active judgement (I acquired my new limp just hours before thoroughly reading this Journal entry)! Maybe it says more about me than I'd like to share, but I also think this kind of thinking is more universal, and I think that's what SG was getting at. Heraclea wrote: I say instead: be easy on yourself. Be easy on your neighbor. Stop pretending to be better than you are. This is why the gospel that all men are sinners in need of a redemption they cannot earn by the cultivation of their own virtues is indeed good news. This really spoke to me, and I don't think that there was any intent to mock. Be easy on your neighbor and let God take care of any judgement that might be in order. Be easy on yourself and do Good as best you see it simply for Goodness sake

holmegm  - re: re: mocking good   |2011-12-06 14:56:24 laika wrote: Be easy on your neighbor and let God take care of any judgement that might be in order. Works for me :) Was just pointing out that pride is such a tricky beast ... for all of us!

laika  - re: re: mocking good   |2011-12-06 18:44:34 holmegm wrote: Was just pointing out that pride is such a tricky beast ... for all of us! Amen and indeed! I'm frequently susceptible to it in just the way this Journal describes. This was one of those moments when I feel like the preacher is speaking directly to me :-) Nice to see you back in play, BTW!

laika   |2011-12-19 22:54:11 Heraclea wrote: We pin the evil we deny but know is still inside on our neighbor, and cry for his punishment. All the causes that people kill and die for are ultimately about constructing the illusion of a virtuous heroic self. Projection and scapegoating. Having almost finished Becker's Escape From Evil and having listened again to the two radio interviews with Rene Girard that I have, I look forward to anything else you might have to say in this vein. So, Girard seems to think that mimetic desire is the root of all social evil, while Becker seems to blame the trouble that comes from the denial of death? They appear to agree that lynching or ritual scapegoating is what we wind up with over and over again, and that Jesus tried to bring all of this crap into the conscious awareness of mankind and break the cycle? Does that kinda sorta sound like what you get from your better read understanding of the two? If I'm not mistaken, Girard is a Christian, but I was surprised to find that Becker seems actually pretty sympathetic to Jesus and his early followers.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."