I do not advocate socialism, and I do not advocate communism. I
advocate something that builds on the status quo, based on what has
worked well in it. I am applying here two concepts that have worked
wonders: The concept of competition and the concept of
checks-and-balances. I take it to a higher level. And that is as
follows:
For there to be multiple paths based on fulfillment of multiple forms
of self-interest and other-interest, is to achieve, through these paths
struggling among each other, the optimal outcome for the people -
As they check and balance among each other, for them to prevent any
form of nature or mindset from being tyrannical and thus to create
meaningful freedom -
And in the process allowing people to find the place in these paths in
which they, according to their talents and propensities, contribute
their best toward that outcome and thus have fulfilling lives.
Now I am saying this based on the computation that, as far as a
people's good is affected - the good that is a result of the
natures that are present in them and thus of the form of interest that
is to them most significant - there are many forms of good that can
be created, which serve the totality of human nature and thus the
totality of human happiness.
The multiple levels of human nature means this: That there are many
forms of good that people are capable of fulfilling; and many others
that they would demand. The multiple natures and multiple intelligences
mean that there are different things that people legitimately may
demand, and different things that they may be equipped to supply.
"Things" here do not merely mean consumable goods; they also mean
anything that can fulfill one or another form of nature, mindset and
interest. They mean everything from physical, intellectual, emotional
and spiritual nourishment, to addressing common concerns, to educating
the youth, to improving relation****ps, to creating embodied artistic,
architectural, technological and literary legacy of the civilization.
To address which are created multiple paths, in which people contribute
the intelligence that they have most present to fulfill the interest
they are most suited to fulfill and most interested in fulfilling, and
from addressing which interest the people derive most meaning and thus
arrive at most meaningful life.
And as they struggle among each other - as do branches of American
government within the context of checks-and-balances - they ensure
that none of them (and with that, neither interest; neither approach;
neither intelligence; neither nature) becomes omnipotent and
tyrannical, and that true liberty of people is served.
With there being multiple forms of interest, and there being paths
catering to those interests, it becomes possible further for people on
individual basis to find freedom that is significant for them. The
entirety of human nature is fulfilled; and the entirety of human
intelligence and talent is given a practical, free way to be
actualized. This is done using the mechanisms that have worked
already- the mechanisms of competition and checks-and-balances.
Rather than concentrating power, as did Marx in his errors, it in fact
diffuses it among paths. Which, as they struggle among each other, make
each other create the best outcome; and, as they check-and-balance each
other, not only protect liberty but take it to a far more inclusive
place.
By paths, I mean business; I mean education and academia; I mean
science and technology; I mean policing and diplomacy and legitimate
civil service; I mean thought and service that improves people's
lives and relation****ps; and I mean artwork and architecture that
becomes the embodied legacy of the civilization, that adorns it,
enriches the lives of its members, gives the civilization a legitimate
sense of accomplishment, and inspires the yet-to-exist. I am of the
belief, once again, that all these are legitimate and rational
pursuits, both involving different forms of intelligence as present in
humanity and through expression of these intelligences providing
fulfillment for sets of human nature that they are most equipped to
fulfill. I am of the belief that all of them are valid, but neither of
them has right to absolute authority or to claim the interest it serves
or mindset it furthers to be definitive. And that it is by all of these
paths existing and struggling among each other that is served both the
outcome (through mechanism of competition) and liberty (through
mechanism of checks-and-balances, here applied by paths upon each
other).
Which means that through competition among paths is accomplished
optimal outcome; that happiness as fulfillment of all forms of nature
and interest is attained; that more inclusive liberty - is served,
with neither approach being definitive and tyrannical; that meaningful
life becomes a reality for more and more people as they find ways to
paths that the forms of intelligence they possess are most equipped
for, and that people have way to contribute the form of intelligence
(or labor, or talent, or any other form of potential) in which they are
most endowed.
In mathematics there is a concept known as game theory. Based on it,
the participants in a system seek to maximize their benefit, and some
solutions benefit some at expense of others and others maximize the
benefit of all. The solution known as Pareto-optimal is the outcome in
which the interest of one can only be increased by harming another's
interest to a greater extent. And the goal of the so-called game -
which of course is completely serious - is to attain that
Pareto-optimal outcome: The outcome that is regarded as the optimal
solution to the game.
Each path - as defined above - fulfils the mindset that is
appropriate to it and a basic interest, self-directed or
other-directed, that is most present in each individual and that is
most significant to him or her. It allows people to actualize in the
process the forms of intelligence and talent in them and gives them a
legitimate way to impart of their fruits. And in so doing they fulfill
the entirety of human nature - by the entirety of human intelligence
finding a way to contribute to the outcome. The result is the optimal
one: One in which people find ways to achieve according to their basic
form of intelligence - and the entirety of human interest is served
through their efforts. Optimal on both demand side and on supply side.
Optimal in the level of human fulfillment accomplished on the demand
side - through what is created by different paths to serve different
levels of human nature and interest, and in the levels and the
completeness of self-interest and human nature that their efforts
serve. And optimal on the supply side - through people involving
themselves in pursuits that serve the level of human nature and
interest that their talents are most competent to address and that
their values are most interested in fulfilling.
I involve in this situation concepts, once again, that are behind the
greatest economic and political accomplishments in history: The concept
of competition and the concept of checks-and-balances. As paths compete
with each other, they are made to create the optimal outcome, while
people find the way to contribute their optimal by finding place in
paths that actualize their form of intelligence. And as they struggle
among each other within a framework of understanding of each other's
roles, they exert checks-and-balance upon each other, making sure that
neither become tyrannical, and that liberty and life in people are
protected and actualized at the highest possible level.
This is not Communism. This is not socialism. This is America's
principles taken to the next level. This is not increase of control but
its reduction. And this is furthermore something that increases rather
than decreasing liberty, happiness and meaningful life, by logic shown
above.
The multiple intelligences among people; multiple forms of human
interest, both self-interest and other-interest; multiple mindsets and
talents and outlooks; mean that life, liberty and happiness are
accomplished by there being a functional way to fulfill these interests
- through people using the forms of intelligence of which they have
in most abundance finding their way to paths that fulfill these
interests. There are multiple forms of human nature, and making the
most of human existence consists of acknowledging and valuing all these
forms of nature and giving them a way to be fulfilled within a legal
framework. As function of these forms of human nature, there are many
legitimate forms of interest, both self-interest and other-interest,
and making the most of human existence consists of acknowledging and
valuing all of these interests and giving them a way to both be
legitimately fulfilled. As function of there being multiple forms of
intelligence, there are many legitimate paths in which people can give
of the form of intelligence that they have in the greatest abundance;
as function of there being multiple values and outlooks, people find
way to pursuits that to them are most meaningful. And through there
being multiple paths, which struggle among each other, is made the
highest outcome created - while, as they struggle among each other,
they destroy tyranny and stranglehold of a single mindset and make
liberty that matters to people on individual basis a reality for more
people.
The success of free-market economics is based on the businesses having
to strive to achieve best product, and people finding ways to
contribute according to their gifts. The success of check-and-balances
system of governance is based on the branches of government checking
each other in order that none should become tyrannical or
unconstitutional. I am taking the logic of both and applying it to the
next level:
That many paths - all fulfilling different forms of interest - are
necessary for the fulfillment of the entire thing that is human nature
and human interest;
That through struggling among each other they are made to produce their
best outcome;
That through there being multiple paths that check each other the
tyranny of a single mindset or interest or attitude or approach to life
is averted;
That as a result of this there is meaningful choice and meaningful life
and liberty;
That people working within these paths use their intelligence and their
efforts to feed the form of happiness that they are most equipped to
impart;
And that people finding a way to involve themselves in these paths,
according to the forms of intelligence and talent and mindset that is
to them most appropriate, is the way to make the entirety of the human
creature bear fruit and, through these efforts, fulfill the entirety of
human nature.
Thus, it becomes possible to achieve happiness as fulfillment of the
entirety of human interest - through people finding the way to the
paths that utilize the intelligence that they have in greatest
abundance and through work in those paths fulfilling the interest they
are most suited to fulfill -
That through competition among these paths brings them to optimize
their product and accomplish the best outcome -
While the logic of checks-and-balances allows multiple mindsets bring
them to balance among each other and check each other and make sure
that none ever become tyrannical, thus achieving the maximum freedom as
experienced by people on individual basis -
And as a result of that the approach of multiple paths arrives at most
complete happiness, most meaningful life and most inclusive liberty for
everyone affected.
Part 7. Better A-Frame Relation****p
There is in psychology the concept of M-frame relation****p and A-frame
relation****p. In M-frame relation****p, both parties stand (as in two
sides of "M") and sustain the relation****p through their emotional
self-sufficiency. In A-frame relation****p, the parties lean on each
other (as in the two sides of the "A") and require each other to stay
afloat emotionally. When one of these parties tries to stand up, the
relation****p breaks and the other falls; and the mindset of the
relation****p, being based on mutual leaning, demands that neither party
can grow. The relation****p thus becomes a blockage to growth and
development, and the two parties end up destroying each other.
That may be as is, and I am sure that both of these are the case for a
lot of people. But I am here to talk about a different kind of A-frame
relation****p; a much better kind of A-frame relation****p. An A-frame
relation****p that is superior to both the entombing A-frame
relation****p and to the dry, boring, vain M-frame relation****p as
prescribed by psychology of emotional self-sufficiency and mental
hygiene. An A-frame relation****p that merges each party's interest in
growth, with caring for each other, with inspiration and goodness
sustaining them both and guiding them individually and together to
higher and better place. An A-frame relation****p that is inspired,
beautiful, full of heart, enriching, livening, caring, compassionate
and focused on what is good and true - which goodness and truth
manifests to both partners, manifests through both partners to one
another, and becomes a daily quality in their lives.
I am speaking of this kind of A-frame relation****p: In which both
parties are in contact with, and merge at the point of, heaven (the top
point of A), which manifests through both, inspires both, directs both,
informs both and leads both to it. The other part of the better A-frame
relation****p is the contact between the hearts of the partners (the
line in the middle of the A), allowing for ongoing and unimpeded flux
of passion, compassion, caring, understanding and goodwill between
them. This true A-frame arrangement - with heaven at the top sustaining
both and forming the point at which their souls meet and are sustained
by wisdom and luminosity - and benevolence and compassion and goodwill
in the middle between each parties at the heart level being free to
flow without obstruction caused by one-upman****p or power games -
creates a relation****p that is at once inspired, beautiful, emotionally
fulfilling and good for both parties; where the heaven, being the focal
point of intellectual and spiritual union, is manifest through each
party and directs the mind and spirit of the relation****p; while the
hearts are in constant mutually refurbi****ng contact, imparting to one
another passion, compassion, caring and goodwill.
In many relation****ps I've examined, I found either heart bond or mind
bond. The first resulted in emotional closeness in context of mental
battling; the second resulted in mutual purpose but either emotional
deadness or emotional violence. Ayn Rand's concept of love as an
entirely ego phenomenon was seen in her life in her own relation****ps:
Relation****ps that either ended with nastiness on her part when she
felt spurned, or in which she essentially dominated the partner. This
is what happens when there is no heart bond. I've seen unity of purpose
- the top point of the "A" uniting the minds - sustain relation****ps
among people whose hearts were no longer together - only to result in
extreme emotional violence in the process and, when given the
op****tunity, to fall apart when the relation****p's purpose ended. I've
seen heart bonds unite people whose minds were in different places -
and the minds by self-righteousness and miscommunication destroying the
bond of love. But man is a being of both mind and heart; and it is not
adequate for there to be just one or the other. There have to be both;
and it is this - the unity of spirit and mind at the top and the bond
between hearts in the middle - that is the meaning of true A-frame
relation****p. Which indeed leads me to think that that is the only kind
of relation****p that can completely fulfill human beings.
I am acquainted with a priest whose marriage was falling apart because
of constant bickering, until he asked God (in his case, Christian God)
to direct him to the solution. He opened the Bible on a section from
Romans that said to have righteousness by God rather than by self.
Having lifted his mind out of ego battling and made the determination
to see himself and his wife the way God saw them, he was able to see
things from a top level; at which point he was able to unite his will
with that of heaven and, inhabiting that place mentally, actually
exhibit the compassion and goodwill and charitability that was the
first requirement of being Christlike and that was required for a
sustainable relation****p. After both he and his wife took the mind into
that place, their bickering stopped. At which point the interaction
they had was cleared of internecine negativity, and the love they had
for each other at the heart level was able to blossom, while being
guided at mind and spirit level by actual spiritual truth.
This is what I mean by a true A-frame relation****p: A relation****p that
unites the spirits and minds of people in divine truth and divine
light; while allowing at the heart level emotional sharing. The hearts,
being directed from the top by divine wisdom, become warm and tender
and have tons of treasures to share with one another. While the minds
and spirits are united with the source of all such gifts: a source that
is absolute, endless and always willing to oblige those who seek it
sincerely.
In case people think that I am speaking only for Christian believers, I
will put forth something said by basically pagan Gerry Spence: That
sometimes in a relation****p the way to win an argument is to lose the
argument - let the other party have their way at the low level and
keeping the love alive. It of course takes a fair deal of faith to be
able to do that effectively, rather than getting run over or thought
weak or all other nonsense that the crude of mind think. In case the
person is thick (and this is something that must be done by women more
than by men, although apparently in some places now it's the opposite),
it is worthwhile to show one's strength once in a while until people
see that kindness and deference are not the same thing as weakness.
The concept of human being - as a being of spirit; of mind; of heart
and of course of physicality - necessitates that all of these be taken
into consideration. To visualize a relation****p as sustained by divine
bond at mind and spirit level, while each other's hearts become vessels
of that light and constantly share beauty with one another - is to
visualize a relation****p that is fulfilling of the entire thing that is
the human entity. For minds and spirits to be guided by real spiritual
truth and united in its service and its pursuit, is to impart the
people of endless treasures of heaven - which treasures flow into the
hearts and empower caring for and cheri****ng of each other. The true
A-frame relation****p places the spirit and mind in the infinite and
unites and uplifts them with light of eternal truth. The hearts both
partake of that light and share with each other the splendor which it
in them instils. The spiritual, emotional and intellectual nature of
humanity is fulfilled and manifest as an ongoing daily share, with
daily life of the partners rather than only Sunday services or Zen
practice being a scenery of manifestation of the divine good. Higher
love guides human love and makes the relation****p a canvas of its
manifestation; a canvas on which is painted the masterpiece of creative
intelligence, as inspired by above and as manifest through the hearts
and minds and lives of the partners.
The partners do not lean on each other; they are rather united in
inspiration and wisdom. The hearts are connected to one another and to
spiritual light, which manifests both to them and through them. The
spiritual and emotional nature of humanity is fulfilled and becomes a
daily reality. The love human and love divine are united; and life
itself becomes a place of the implementation of inspired and
impassioned magnificence; which, completed by emotional closeness and
compassion and caring for one another, creates a life in which human
love and divine love work together in harmony and make life truly one
of love.
This is the true A-frame relation****p, and one I heartily recommend to
anyone who wants to have beauty in their lives.
Part 8. Intrinsic vs. Referential Psychology
I advocate also this: A complete human existence. One that recognizes
the truth of the multiple levels of human nature - multiple likewise
intelligences and approaches - and makes the most of them all, in the
same way as the multiple paths can be used to achieve the completeness
of social enterprise. I advocate man that is at once spiritual,
intellectual, material, egoic and altruistic, combining all forms of
self-interest and other-interest into completenss of human beingness.
And for this I advocate that people partake of the mindsets that
address one or another form of human existence; apply them where
appropriate; and through the synthesis of these levels of human
existence live and impart a full life.
The feelings and thoughts of people can be explained in reference to
something else (a code; an ideology; a belief; a method); or they can
be explained inherently, by looking at essences, by feeling the
feelings themselves. The first results in abrasion; the second results
in compassion. And it is the second method that is the only one capable
of producing people that are not only true, but also emotionally
complete.
The error that keeps creeping into psychology, despite the actions of
Rogers's and May's and Fromm's of the world, is that of projecting the
method used to understand the mind, onto the mind, and then judging the
mind rather than understanding it in case its own methods differ. Allow
me to explain what I'm talking about. The scientific method is a path
toward understanding things; that requires a particular kind of logic.
In studying things other than mind, it is fine; but when one approaches
the mind FROM THE POSITION OF the scientific method, he is easily
subject to this error: Comparing the mind's processes to the process
(scientific method) he uses in studying the mind; and judging them when
they are inevitably found to be run by a different logic, the way one
would judge other-than-scientific approach within the laboratory.
Which leads of course not to exploration but to judgmentalism. Anything
that is run by a logic that either is not of the scientific method or
that the scientific method cannot be found to understand, becomes an
"issue." The logic of science gets interjected into the mind, squa****ng
its own processes in the process. Compassion goes; so does imagination.
And the result is projection of human perfection as someone with the
mentality of a brick (and the physical and emotional qualities that are
commensurate with that mentality), and vicious attack on anything that
is more alive - or rarefied, or exquisite, or inspired, or passionate,
or indeed attuned to the higher logic of life.
What logic indeed motivates a flower? Is a flower linear? How could it
be? A flower is the following things: Individual (with none like the
other); intricate; multifaceted; tender; and delicate. WHat logic? The
logic of consummation - of being one's best, as fruition, fulfillment
and justification of the species; which being best is necessary both to
consummate and to lead to the future. THe logic? An integrative logic,
combining the CONSUMMATION with CONTINUITY. The attainment of the
species, and a link to the times to come. That's no "issue." That's how
the thing is made - rightly so - and instead of dissecting it why don't
you look at what's in front of you and see the actual logic by which it
runs.
Which is quite different from assaying things from the position of (and
in reference to) the mindset running the discipline. Understanding
human feelings in their essence is quite different from assaying them
in reference to a code or a norm. I've made it my job to experience all
kinds of feelings that I understand them directly. And it is only
through this process that anything close to understanding can possibly
be achieved.
Another persistent error in assaying people is that of continually
doing so in reference to a norm. A cat is seen to be perfect not by
being of a norm, but by being the best she can be as a fruition of her
own potential. But a human being is seen to be perfect when he or she
fulfills one or another normative function. Which means that people's
minds are expropriated and put in service of one or another usurpatory
construct. But what it means most of all is that any true perfection -
perfection as attainment of one's possibility - is destroyed, while a
cask is imposed at the top to shove
people under a crucifix.
There was a woman on the Net who said that she lusted after the
criminal element. One person - operating from the standpoint of one or
another supposed norm (one of course out of millions developed through
history) - said that the fact she lusted after s*** meant that she was
s***. He defined her feelings in reference to his perspective: One that
claims that criminals are s*** (while heartless, malicious, abusive
bullies like him are not). Someone else - operating from a
psychological self-esteem paradigm, in which all bad things are a
result of people thinking poorly of themselves and if they feel better
about themselves they will magically become the citizens they want them
to be - said that her problem was low self-esteem. He, once again,
defined her feelings in reference to his perspective: That of
self-esteem psychology, in which all is about self-esteem and feelings
are functional to it. But none bothered to look at how her feelings
actually were experienced. What made the criminal element attractive to
her? Was it some *****c fascination, with people who have discarded all
bonds and are indulging in the forbidden? Was it some kind of freedom
from things she either could not identify or ones she could? Did she
herself feel like a criminal? To claim it her being s***, or to claim
it low self-esteem, did not explain how it felt inside. And to see
psychologists, who are supposed to understand such things, time and
again rejecting compassion and falling into the trap of projecting one
or another form of judgmentalism or lack of compassion ("Compassion
went out of passion, that's all your concern meant") or mechanistic
thinking, is to see a problem endemic to the profession, and that can
only be overcome, not by only externally observing feelings, but by
internally feeling them.
To reiterate: A feeling is not known unless it is felt. It does not
exist by reference to a norm or an ideology; but in its own right and
according to its own logic. And projecting one or another form of logic
on mind, and judging it when it is seen to be run by a different logic,
is not science but bigotry. Indeed it is a betrayal of scientific
spirit; whether it comes under name of rationality or self-esteem or
anything else. Examining the mind and being the mind are two different
things; and the logic of the second need not legitimately accord with
the first. Indeed it may have a logic whose intricacy blows your mind;
and attacking that is a hideous error.
An error that is just another manifestation of a still bigger error, to
which humanity has been prone for centuries: Of assuming all people to
be the same and treating them likewise. That is a projection, once
again, of one or another mindset upon something that runs by its own.
Not only does that result in destruction of liberty, but it results
furthermore in degradation of the world and all people in it. The
categorical imperative involved is that of creating gray and lifeless
society. And the solution to that is this:
I do the next person no favors by treating them the way I want to be
treated.
I do the next person favor by treating them the way they want to be
treated.
And in this I honor the next person's individuality and preserve it.
And that is the categorical imperative I seek to serve.
Part 9. Metaphor and Beauty
It is a main tenet of modern science that the universe can be seen in
its laws and its essence from any vintage point in the universe. This
means likewise that the universe can be seen in every part of human
mechanism. This means reason, but it also means intuition, passion and
metaphorical intelligence.
The latter consists of seeing the qualities of one aspect of the
universe in another. As the poet draws parallels between one set of
events and another, or one phenomenon and another, he sees right into
the universal essence as it is manifest in both - and attains wisdom
that sees and manifests and wraps the mind around the
interconnectedness of all things and the sublime universal wisdom that
lives through both.
Metaphor - and particularly extended metaphor - is therefore a path to
wisdom and intuitive understanding that is at least as valid as, and
more rewarding than, scientific analysis. It is a path that lets the
people see one thing as reflected in another and the universe as
reflected in both. It is a path that lets the people develop intuitive
feeling for the totality of the universe and its various reifications.
And that is as sure a path to wisdom as anything people have thought up
in either the scientific or religious paths.
The stuff of the mind of the people - both the intellect and the
emotion - is the root of their selves and then the root of their
actions. Therefore education and cultivation of beauty in all its forms
becomes in a very real and practical sense the basis for beautiful
existence. As stuff of people's minds, beauty in all its forms
becomes the basis for their thoughts and ultimately the basis for their
behavior. Radiating out of minds, which have been attuned to beauty,
beauty becomes the stuff of relation****ps and the stuff of the social
interactions and a daily, practical, ongoing reality of experience of
humankind.
Beauty stops being seen as inapplicable to the real world and instead
becomes formative of the real world. Which is indeed its right place in
the order of things: As the culmination of substance and form; its
consummation; its triumph; and inspiration for yet-to-be.
And which beauty becomes then a practical reality - through the
practical mechanism of people using their minds and actions to make it
so.
And with this, the wisdom and inspiration of humanity's benefactors
in history stands redeemed.
Ilya Shambat.
|
