Collectivism and The Order
BETRAYAL AT THE IVORY TOWER
Ex?-Catholic Philosophy Chick, whom I shall now dub TJ, has betrayed the order! Rather than construct a purely Atheist organization (secretly, with bizarre occult style secret society rites), she has returned to her original goal of creating an AOL philosophy group that meets regularly.
But she said she might still help. In any case, my work still lies ahead of me.
A VISION OF THE FUTURE OR MEGALOMANIA?
Roughly simultaneous with the desire to discredit (and eventually destroy) religion in the U.S. is the desire the create a Utopia. This Utopian idealism was especially fierce tonite. In a way I see establishing a powerful Atheist organization as a step towards my Utopia. So to sowing the cultural undercurrents that will hopefully enrich Atheism and swell its ranks is a step towards it.
But then it occurs to me: I am taking this really seriously. I am pumped about creating a moral unity of all people. And slaying superstition and divisive identity-constructions.
It was not immediately obvious to me that this is easily some sort of megalomania. While I don't explicitly want to set myself up as God-King or anything... I do believe that I can make this happen. Inspire the right people and they will recruit and subvert. Devour existing Utopian movements (hippies, communists) and unite them. I feel like I could end religion and war in this generation.
I suppose this is unreasonable. But I simply don't feel discouraged. Failure is hardly a deterrent if my actions might yield the Perfect Society.
Well whatever, perhaps I will become discouraged later? For the moment, it's interesting to wonder if this Utopia business is not some terrible vanity.
HOMOSEXUAL AND CHINA-(wo)MAN DEFY PERFECT ORDER
Upstarts refuse participation in Utopia in advance
So the Philosophy discussion wound on. It started off with my question which was, more or less:
"The typical handling of offensive or potentially-offensive subjects or language usually involves the active person simply never saying anything that might be offensive. First, this is self-censorship. Nothing at all like free, honest expression.
Second, it occurs to me that this way of thinking - "offense avoidance" - gives the offendee (be they some minority, or woman, or any kind of person at all) the ultimate authority to determine what is or is not offensive. How then, is a person to rationally determine when an individual who is offended is themselves acting irrationally? It seems that if a person or representative of a group claims something to be offensive, it is automatically believed to be a true and valid greivance.
Or if not automatically assumed to be valid, than the validity is evaluated by some sort of 'intuition' or simply by societal standards of conduct. These are, you can see, grossly imprecise.
And I would never use any of those three methods to make a moral determination. (Although in practice, intuition works to anticipate what is or is not offensive. Not if you are a crazy person though.)"
The consensus that was reached was uh.. two.
1] Say whatever you want as long as you are honest and it is an expression of your true self.
2] Say whatever you want, don't let other people make that decision for you.
IDIOTS. I mean, they're not literally dumb. But they lack the subtle understanding that is necessary here. 1] There is no true self. You are what you make yourself. 2] Saying whatever I want gets me called a racist and a sexist. I'm sure its not just me that is vulnerable to those shame-attacks. Invariably these attacks ensure that I do not say what I want. Or at least that I do so with minor mental anguish.
That is unworkable.
So it is still unresolved. Wasn't this what the previous post was about? Yes.
Anyway, so we got to talking. They were incidentally a homosexual teenager and an American-born Chinese woman who was still partially connected to the more collectivist society of her family. It's really irrelevant, although it is interesting how these facts seemed to influence what they said in predictable ways. (At least, predictable in retrospect.)
IN ANY CASE, I began describing my Utopia. Perfect world harmony brought about through subversive moral change. Religion would be destroyed. Race would be destroyed. Cultural identity would be destroyed. And certain moral determinations which were irrational would be prohibited.
They immediately didn't believe it could be done. !!! How is that? I am extremely pessimistic except for two things: I believe an adult human being can do essentially anything. I belive there is no reason why people cannot get along. But somehow, I was the OPTIMIST. Well, that's really not so surprising.
One interesting argument was: "Cultural diversity enriches and informs. A single Utopia would restrict this. Diverse cultures cannot mesh." It was only after this that I began insisting that "All culture must be destroyed". More on that later.
In any case I presented my view: "What good is cultural diversity? I have never found anyone from another culture to say anything particularly unique." Perhaps I should say informative. Andy may be an exception. His description of how the US, compared to Ghana, seemed rather full of luxury and freedom for leisure was moderately inspiring. [I do recall hearing that Andy's family was hella rich. But that doesn't change his ability to observe the state of his surroundings.] Also, Eva might count insofar as her family was not as wealthy as mine. But then, that didn't really enrich or inform me. It taught me that you can get much more financial aid than I got [I got like 3k in grants, and as a result depleted my college fund by ~30-40%. At that rate leaving no room for Grad school.].
Odd, I was hesitant to even mention Eva's economic status. It is obvious that she (Hi There) is the only one who reads this, and I did not want to offend her. I dimly recall her being sensitive about other people having ridiculous gobs of money, at least in one context. [How ridiculous are my modest-seeming gobs, I wonder?]
It seems I am willing to compromise my ban on self-censorship. I must remember that it has long been my position that money makes no difference, except insofar as it allows you to do what you want with your life. [Which is, in a way, a major difference. But it doesn't change the value/perspective of the person in any meaningful way, I think. Sorry if you have self-identified with your finances/earning potential, Eva.]
So in any case, these differeing viewpoints are crap. Any person can adopt any morality - and that's the bottom line. It's like Modonna's "Vogue". You know the lyrics.
WHERE WAS I? HELLFIRE!
Confused Ex-Genius Forgets Place
But these two people kept dissing the Utopia. The woman said "Asia is really different" and "I integrate both sides of my upbringing". It was tricky. I was partially convinced. But NO, Asia does not own moral concepts like "collectivism" and "respect for family" and "inferior status of the individual over the group" (collectivism again). ANYONE can hold these viewpoints. And ANY GROUP can put them into practice.
In order to smash exclusive group-identity and replace it with all-encompassing 'species-identity'... it is clear that THESE CULTURES MUST BE ERADICATED. I use harsh words. There can be no 'Chinese culture'. Perhaps I would allow it to be renamed 'Chinese values'? Probably not even the word 'Chinese' should remain. In the end, anything that connotes owenership or the non-universal-applicability of a set of moral values must be eliminated.
I was pretty satisfied with that, but they still insisted that there was something to be learned from different cultures. Perhaps they didn't understand my general usage of the word 'morality'. For to me, they were simply saying 'there is something to be learned from different moralities'. YES. ABSOLUTELY.
But I can be as culturally "Chinese" as a Chinese peasant. Learn from me if you must. Learn from yourselves. I don't think you need to see a different society in order to really get an objective perspective on your own. [That does sound *slightly* goofy. Maybe I am mistaken?]
To summarize my point again, but in a better way: Nationalism inhibits Universalism. Racial, Cultural, Sub-Cultural, and Economic identity inhibits Universalism. It must come down to The Individual and The Species. The invidiaul can be different, bizarre, and revolutionary. The raw technological wealth of my Utopia will enable any means of life, as long as that life remains cooperative and committed. While the Individual remains independent, the Species is united, and mutually cooperative.
The guy in the chatroom then mentioned (Chinese) art and music. Whoops! :( Although I tend to prefer my music European, that was a very good point. 'Cultural' art and music will be preserved in the Utopia. But eh... a sense of personal heritage and pride in that art (conceptual ownership?) - I dont think that would be appropriate.
IT COMES DOWN TO COLLECTIVISM
So it ended, and they left saying "You will never convince people to give up their religion." "Utopia cannot happen" "Good luck on your Utopia" "That sounds like Totalitarianism" "I would probably not join out of spite ^0^" "Me too". [Cynical Assholes. They need inspiration and a self-actualizing morality.]
15 minutes later I thought: "Holy shit I am a damn Communist!"
Background: I have made mild efforts to distance myself from Communism. I never made much effort to learn about it. And this avoidance is intentional with Marxism. After reading Benedict X??'s account of Christian theology hopelessly converted by Marxism into liberation theology, I began to fear Marxism. Perhaps it had powerful memetic properties and would infect my ideology with its seductive dialectic? :) It's true, I really do think that. In addition to that, the idea of American or European "college marxists" plotting The Revolution but getting jack-shit done, makes me dismiss Marxism out of hand.
But what little I know about Communism is strikingly similar to what I propose.
Witness:
I propose a secular state. With an inspiring state-sanctioned humanist ideology replacing established religion.
I propose the destruction of nations and political parties.
I replace these organizations with a very collectivist 'species-identity'. [This is, I think, quite similar to universal identification with 'The People's Party'. The species owns it, ja?]
In the event of uncooperative or non-integrative persons or moralities, I suggest they inhibit the Utopia.
There is the very real possibility that 'unconvertables' and supporters of anti-Utopia ideologies would need to be killed. [Yikes!]
That sounds very much like what I know of Communism, yes?
If it is, so be it. I certainly would never advocate violence. I think "we" can convince people to change their religion and values. And those that resist, will simply be allowed to die of old age. With tweaking, the youth will eat this shit up. And so the old values will not be transmitted.
And by comparison, I think the important difference is that I propose a massive overhaul of technology and implementation of robotics. In that case, there would be no need for redistribution of wealth, since every need would be provided for by the technology. Of course, it would not be right for anyone to horde resources and use them to rule over anyone else. So if there were any scarcities in the Utopia, it would essentially be Communist.
If Communism is any indication, then corruption may slow and cripple the efficient order of my Utopia. Hopefully, the proper moral... indoctrination... (haha) will prevent this sort of selfish anti-species behavior from cropping up. Hmm.
Not very hopeful.
I will attempt to initiate the first moral changes: Seperate morality from culture and religion. Weaken religion, strengthen rational spirituality. Move group-identity to species identity. Foster secular humanist altruism.
But signs suggest it is not adequately thought-out to effectively run all world government. I will collect information to try and discover the correct method. I will also try to get my own shit in order so I am not stuck here for another year.
THAT'S IT. WEIRD STUFF.
Ex?-Catholic Philosophy Chick, whom I shall now dub TJ, has betrayed the order! Rather than construct a purely Atheist organization (secretly, with bizarre occult style secret society rites), she has returned to her original goal of creating an AOL philosophy group that meets regularly.
But she said she might still help. In any case, my work still lies ahead of me.
A VISION OF THE FUTURE OR MEGALOMANIA?
Roughly simultaneous with the desire to discredit (and eventually destroy) religion in the U.S. is the desire the create a Utopia. This Utopian idealism was especially fierce tonite. In a way I see establishing a powerful Atheist organization as a step towards my Utopia. So to sowing the cultural undercurrents that will hopefully enrich Atheism and swell its ranks is a step towards it.
But then it occurs to me: I am taking this really seriously. I am pumped about creating a moral unity of all people. And slaying superstition and divisive identity-constructions.
It was not immediately obvious to me that this is easily some sort of megalomania. While I don't explicitly want to set myself up as God-King or anything... I do believe that I can make this happen. Inspire the right people and they will recruit and subvert. Devour existing Utopian movements (hippies, communists) and unite them. I feel like I could end religion and war in this generation.
I suppose this is unreasonable. But I simply don't feel discouraged. Failure is hardly a deterrent if my actions might yield the Perfect Society.
Well whatever, perhaps I will become discouraged later? For the moment, it's interesting to wonder if this Utopia business is not some terrible vanity.
HOMOSEXUAL AND CHINA-(wo)MAN DEFY PERFECT ORDER
Upstarts refuse participation in Utopia in advance
So the Philosophy discussion wound on. It started off with my question which was, more or less:
"The typical handling of offensive or potentially-offensive subjects or language usually involves the active person simply never saying anything that might be offensive. First, this is self-censorship. Nothing at all like free, honest expression.
Second, it occurs to me that this way of thinking - "offense avoidance" - gives the offendee (be they some minority, or woman, or any kind of person at all) the ultimate authority to determine what is or is not offensive. How then, is a person to rationally determine when an individual who is offended is themselves acting irrationally? It seems that if a person or representative of a group claims something to be offensive, it is automatically believed to be a true and valid greivance.
Or if not automatically assumed to be valid, than the validity is evaluated by some sort of 'intuition' or simply by societal standards of conduct. These are, you can see, grossly imprecise.
And I would never use any of those three methods to make a moral determination. (Although in practice, intuition works to anticipate what is or is not offensive. Not if you are a crazy person though.)"
The consensus that was reached was uh.. two.
1] Say whatever you want as long as you are honest and it is an expression of your true self.
2] Say whatever you want, don't let other people make that decision for you.
IDIOTS. I mean, they're not literally dumb. But they lack the subtle understanding that is necessary here. 1] There is no true self. You are what you make yourself. 2] Saying whatever I want gets me called a racist and a sexist. I'm sure its not just me that is vulnerable to those shame-attacks. Invariably these attacks ensure that I do not say what I want. Or at least that I do so with minor mental anguish.
That is unworkable.
So it is still unresolved. Wasn't this what the previous post was about? Yes.
Anyway, so we got to talking. They were incidentally a homosexual teenager and an American-born Chinese woman who was still partially connected to the more collectivist society of her family. It's really irrelevant, although it is interesting how these facts seemed to influence what they said in predictable ways. (At least, predictable in retrospect.)
IN ANY CASE, I began describing my Utopia. Perfect world harmony brought about through subversive moral change. Religion would be destroyed. Race would be destroyed. Cultural identity would be destroyed. And certain moral determinations which were irrational would be prohibited.
They immediately didn't believe it could be done. !!! How is that? I am extremely pessimistic except for two things: I believe an adult human being can do essentially anything. I belive there is no reason why people cannot get along. But somehow, I was the OPTIMIST. Well, that's really not so surprising.
One interesting argument was: "Cultural diversity enriches and informs. A single Utopia would restrict this. Diverse cultures cannot mesh." It was only after this that I began insisting that "All culture must be destroyed". More on that later.
In any case I presented my view: "What good is cultural diversity? I have never found anyone from another culture to say anything particularly unique." Perhaps I should say informative. Andy may be an exception. His description of how the US, compared to Ghana, seemed rather full of luxury and freedom for leisure was moderately inspiring. [I do recall hearing that Andy's family was hella rich. But that doesn't change his ability to observe the state of his surroundings.] Also, Eva might count insofar as her family was not as wealthy as mine. But then, that didn't really enrich or inform me. It taught me that you can get much more financial aid than I got [I got like 3k in grants, and as a result depleted my college fund by ~30-40%. At that rate leaving no room for Grad school.].
Odd, I was hesitant to even mention Eva's economic status. It is obvious that she (Hi There) is the only one who reads this, and I did not want to offend her. I dimly recall her being sensitive about other people having ridiculous gobs of money, at least in one context. [How ridiculous are my modest-seeming gobs, I wonder?]
It seems I am willing to compromise my ban on self-censorship. I must remember that it has long been my position that money makes no difference, except insofar as it allows you to do what you want with your life. [Which is, in a way, a major difference. But it doesn't change the value/perspective of the person in any meaningful way, I think. Sorry if you have self-identified with your finances/earning potential, Eva.]
So in any case, these differeing viewpoints are crap. Any person can adopt any morality - and that's the bottom line. It's like Modonna's "Vogue". You know the lyrics.
WHERE WAS I? HELLFIRE!
Confused Ex-Genius Forgets Place
But these two people kept dissing the Utopia. The woman said "Asia is really different" and "I integrate both sides of my upbringing". It was tricky. I was partially convinced. But NO, Asia does not own moral concepts like "collectivism" and "respect for family" and "inferior status of the individual over the group" (collectivism again). ANYONE can hold these viewpoints. And ANY GROUP can put them into practice.
In order to smash exclusive group-identity and replace it with all-encompassing 'species-identity'... it is clear that THESE CULTURES MUST BE ERADICATED. I use harsh words. There can be no 'Chinese culture'. Perhaps I would allow it to be renamed 'Chinese values'? Probably not even the word 'Chinese' should remain. In the end, anything that connotes owenership or the non-universal-applicability of a set of moral values must be eliminated.
I was pretty satisfied with that, but they still insisted that there was something to be learned from different cultures. Perhaps they didn't understand my general usage of the word 'morality'. For to me, they were simply saying 'there is something to be learned from different moralities'. YES. ABSOLUTELY.
But I can be as culturally "Chinese" as a Chinese peasant. Learn from me if you must. Learn from yourselves. I don't think you need to see a different society in order to really get an objective perspective on your own. [That does sound *slightly* goofy. Maybe I am mistaken?]
To summarize my point again, but in a better way: Nationalism inhibits Universalism. Racial, Cultural, Sub-Cultural, and Economic identity inhibits Universalism. It must come down to The Individual and The Species. The invidiaul can be different, bizarre, and revolutionary. The raw technological wealth of my Utopia will enable any means of life, as long as that life remains cooperative and committed. While the Individual remains independent, the Species is united, and mutually cooperative.
The guy in the chatroom then mentioned (Chinese) art and music. Whoops! :( Although I tend to prefer my music European, that was a very good point. 'Cultural' art and music will be preserved in the Utopia. But eh... a sense of personal heritage and pride in that art (conceptual ownership?) - I dont think that would be appropriate.
IT COMES DOWN TO COLLECTIVISM
So it ended, and they left saying "You will never convince people to give up their religion." "Utopia cannot happen" "Good luck on your Utopia" "That sounds like Totalitarianism" "I would probably not join out of spite ^0^" "Me too". [Cynical Assholes. They need inspiration and a self-actualizing morality.]
15 minutes later I thought: "Holy shit I am a damn Communist!"
Background: I have made mild efforts to distance myself from Communism. I never made much effort to learn about it. And this avoidance is intentional with Marxism. After reading Benedict X??'s account of Christian theology hopelessly converted by Marxism into liberation theology, I began to fear Marxism. Perhaps it had powerful memetic properties and would infect my ideology with its seductive dialectic? :) It's true, I really do think that. In addition to that, the idea of American or European "college marxists" plotting The Revolution but getting jack-shit done, makes me dismiss Marxism out of hand.
But what little I know about Communism is strikingly similar to what I propose.
Witness:
I propose a secular state. With an inspiring state-sanctioned humanist ideology replacing established religion.
I propose the destruction of nations and political parties.
I replace these organizations with a very collectivist 'species-identity'. [This is, I think, quite similar to universal identification with 'The People's Party'. The species owns it, ja?]
In the event of uncooperative or non-integrative persons or moralities, I suggest they inhibit the Utopia.
There is the very real possibility that 'unconvertables' and supporters of anti-Utopia ideologies would need to be killed. [Yikes!]
That sounds very much like what I know of Communism, yes?
If it is, so be it. I certainly would never advocate violence. I think "we" can convince people to change their religion and values. And those that resist, will simply be allowed to die of old age. With tweaking, the youth will eat this shit up. And so the old values will not be transmitted.
And by comparison, I think the important difference is that I propose a massive overhaul of technology and implementation of robotics. In that case, there would be no need for redistribution of wealth, since every need would be provided for by the technology. Of course, it would not be right for anyone to horde resources and use them to rule over anyone else. So if there were any scarcities in the Utopia, it would essentially be Communist.
If Communism is any indication, then corruption may slow and cripple the efficient order of my Utopia. Hopefully, the proper moral... indoctrination... (haha) will prevent this sort of selfish anti-species behavior from cropping up. Hmm.
Not very hopeful.
I will attempt to initiate the first moral changes: Seperate morality from culture and religion. Weaken religion, strengthen rational spirituality. Move group-identity to species identity. Foster secular humanist altruism.
But signs suggest it is not adequately thought-out to effectively run all world government. I will collect information to try and discover the correct method. I will also try to get my own shit in order so I am not stuck here for another year.
THAT'S IT. WEIRD STUFF.