Our most primitive, instinctive (and incorrect) emotions tell us to perceive good and evil like a continuum, with good on one end and evil on the other.
There are biological reasons why this is so. Our perceptions are first filtered through the emotional brain, before they arrive last at the rational brain. Because of this routing, there is no such thing as "objectivity," if by objectivity you mean "free from emotion" (consider this: if we were free from feelings, how could we tell the difference between right and wrong?). Because of our brain structure, we see everything through the filter of our emotions, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it.
When we become angry, or are under stress, or under attack, our first impulse is to see "good" and "evil" as a dichotomy, with good over here, and bad over there, with nothing in-between. This applies not only to individuals, but especially to groups, all of which, strictly speaking, do not think at all, but only feel.
Technically, the reason for this is because of our inborn narcissism. Researchers postulate babies and very young children can only perceive themselves, people and things -- indeed the whole world -- as either all-good or all-bad.
The word "narcissist" comes from the Greek myth of Narcissus, the story about a youth who spurned the love of a nymph called Echo. She appealed to the goddess Nemesis for revenge. Nemesis then cast a spell on Narcissus, causing him to fall in love with his own image in the water. The spellbound Narcissus pined away in a hopeless love of his own image and died from the terrible frustrations he suffered.
Narcissism is generally defined as an inflated self-love or self-absorbed love, although actually it is not self-love at all but self-absorption, just as Narcissus was absorbed in his own reflection and could see no one else. Narcissism involves an inordinate self-regard, self-admiration, self-celebration, and self-worship.
Although the Greeks apparently didn't notice it, that self-absorption is based on the feelings of "all-good" and "all-bad." The narcissist considers himself all good; everyone else, in varying degrees, is "bad."
You can see the narcissistic good-or-bad split in any children's fairy tale, or, for that matter, in many cartoons. The heroes are the whitest of whites and the villains are the blackest of blacks. In mature fiction, on the other hand, people are portrayed as a mixture of good and bad, a concept that young children can't truly understand.
We are ideally supposed to outgrow this split, but perhaps no one really does, especially, I must repeat, when we are under stress or angry. Then, emotionally, we see ourselves as "good" and the person we are angry at as "bad." Intellectually we know they aren't "bad," but emotionally we think they are.
For a while I thought good and evil were a continuum.
At first that made more sense, then I realized it couldn't be totally right, either. The main reason was that on such a continuum people would be equally spaced from the beginning to the end. There would be just as many evil people in the world as good people. Yet, we know that isn't true. There are only a small amount of "evil" people in the world.
I realized that what makes much more sense is a bell curve of good and evil, like a bell curve.
At one end we'd have an extremely small minority of very "bad" people and at the other an equally small minority of very "good" ones. The vast majority of people would be lumped in the middle.
This bell curve tells us something very interesting. There can be no one who is pure good, or pure evil. No matter how far you go to either end of the curve, there exists no one who is 100% good or 100% evil, just as when you look at the bell curve for intelligence, there is no one "perfectly" intelligent, someone with an IQ of, say, 10,000.
The worst person in the world has some good in him, no matter how tiny, and the most saintly person still has some miniscule badness in him. Even Jesus denied he was "good" when a woman referred to him as "good rabbi."
Brain structure is relevant here. Strictly speaking, the brain is not one organ. It's three, at least. At the bottom we have the most primitive part, known as the reptilian or r-complex. In it we find such traits as aggression/dominance/submission, sex, ritual, and the instinct to form ourselves into groups. It's the reason we form ourselves into tribes (or nations, which are modern-day tribes) and have the tendency to see those outside the tribe as dangers. It's what animals do, and we are partly animals.
On top of the r-complex we have the limbic system, or emotional brain. I have come to the conclusion that our narcissism must be located in the limbic system.
Here's why: nearly every tribe in history has narcissistically called itself "the People" or "the Humans." Tribalism is instinctive and is located in the r-complex. Animals form herds, but they don't see themselves as "the True Animals" or "God's Chosen Cattle." That can only come with narcissistic and grandiose feeling. Only people can label themselves with such names.
On top of the limbic system we have the cortex, or the thinking part of the brain. It as, as I pointed out, the last in line for perception.
This all-to-human (or perhaps I should say all-to-animal) tendency we have to perceive things as all-good or all-bad has probably caused more trouble than anything else in the history of mankind.
When we see ourselves as good, and others as bad, what then invariably happens is scapegoating. i.e, projecting our problems onto those we label as bad. Being bad, we must then, logically, annihiliate them. Then, in fantasy but never in reality, there wouldn't be any evil left in the world.
The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck called scapegoating "the genesis of human evil," and he was exactly right. We can use as examples both the Nazis and the Communists, the first of which who blamed their problems on Jews, and the second, on capitalists.
The 20th century, the bloodiest in history, can be called, for all practical purposes, the Century of Scapegoating. No one is quite sure how many people died, but the estimates range from 177 million to 200 million.
One of the oldest myths extant, that of the Garden of Eden, backs up the idea that scapegoating is what bought evil into the world. In the story, Adam blames Eve for his trangressions, and Eve blames the serpent, a symbol of envy. Their refusal to take responsibility for what they did is what, in some versions of the story, gets them kicked out of the Garden.
In a nutshell, Adam scapegoats Eve, and Eve scapegoats the serpent. And what the story tells us, quite perceptively, is that most scapegoating is based on envy. And that envy leads to people refusing to take responsibility for themselves, and blaming their problems on other people. Who hasn't heard the claim, "You made me do it?" In their minds they're not responsible; someone else is.
When we add the tribalism to the narcissism, the problems get even worse. Tribes arrange themselves into hierarchies of varying looseness, with the leaders at top. The fact that so many people look to the leaders to solve their problems -- to take care of them -- is one of the most firmly established principles in psychology. I'm going to repeat that: looking to leaders to solve the herd's problems is one of the most firmly established principles in psychology.
If you want to see a fascinating if ultimately horrifying example of this, watch the movie, Triumph of the Will, in which Hitler walks through a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people, who part before him like the Red Sea before Moses.
Perhaps what we are looking at here is the leader as father and the masses as children. Why else would people say such things as "my President"? What exactly is the difference between that and people in the past who said, "mein Fuhrer"? Is there any, really? Isn't it the same thing as saying, "Father, take care of me"?
This combination of narcissism and tribalism is also important because it's the basis of propaganda. As Herman Goering noticed, all leaders have to do to start wars is claim the tribe is under attack, denounce protestors as traitors, after which the leaders can drag the nation off to war. In other words, scapegoat both the protestors and the enemy -- and claim the enemy is insane and evil -- and the tribe, irrational, frightened and paranoid, will draw together, then attack the perceived enemy.
These propaganda techniques were used to induce Americans to go to war against Iraq. We were told Saddam Hussein was both insane and evil, and was going to fly Drones of Death across the Atlantic, or detonate nuclear weapons on our soil. Bush's handlers, who certainly know how propaganda works, had him speak of "the evil ones" and the "axis of evil," all of whom were dedicated to our destruction because of our "goodness."
Richard Perle and David Frum, using the same techniques, produced a book called, An End to Evil, in which they claimed the U.S. is "the greatest force for good in the world today," and because of that, is under attack by evil countries unalterably dedicated to our destruction.
Propaganda, once you understand it, isn't that hard. Mark Twain understood how it works, in this passage from "The Mysterious Stranger": "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception".
One thing we can deduce from propaganda is that tribes must have enemies to maintain their cohesiveness. If none exist, the leaders must create them. The best way to do this, I believe, is to trick the enemy into attacking -- or else staging an attack and blaming it on the enemy.
I sometimes wonder if there are any such things as "good" and "evil." I know I have to be careful when I say that. But look at this way: there is a philosophical problem known as "concepts and their referents." It's really pretty simple: do the concepts in our heads refer to anything in reality?
When we use the words "good" and "evil," what exactly do they refer to? The only thing that can be considered evil are people. But since no one is perfectly good or evil, then why do we use concepts that inherently lead us to believe there is pure good or evil? Isn't that exactly what those two words mean -- that there are "good" and "bad," not "mostly good with a little bad" or "mostly bad with a little good"? And is the reason we use them perhaps because of our inborn narcissism? Could it be those concepts don't refer to anything that exists in reality?
An added problem is this: what definition of evil can exist that won't automatically lead to scapegoating? I can't think of one, and I've thought about it for years. I have been unable to find one, anywhere, no matter how long and hard I've looked.
People who claim someone else is evil can have that definition aimed right back at them.
Yet, we know intuitively there is something to the concepts of good and evil, inaccurate as they are. Perhaps the Greeks were onto something with their concept of hubris.
Hubris, which they considered a type of insanity, is based on the afflicted considering themselves god-like. In modern-day terms, it's an extreme form of narcissism (odd how so much leads to that term, and how much trouble is caused by it).
Hubris, for all practical purposes, is what the Bible calls "pride," as in the misquotation, "Pride goes before a fall." Grandiosity, narcissism, pride, vanity, meglomania. . .all the same thing. Russell Kirk used a term I prefer: "the monstrous ego."
Perhaps what really exists is a bell curve, not of "good" and "evil," but one with hubris -- "the monstrous ego" at one end. What would be at the other? Non-ego? Humility? That's what religion always tell us.
Buddhism even goes so far as to tell us we don't even have a self, although it means a permanent and unchanging one. Still, it means to give up the bloated idea of self -- again, what Kirk called "monstrous."
Object Relations Theory, the modern school of psychology that deals with narcissism, has also come to the conclusion people do not have a "self." Instead, they have perhaps an infinite number of "selves," all created by their relationships with the outside world. Hence the name: Object Relations Theory. In that sense, it backs up Buddhist theory.
Using Object Relations Theory, you can postulate people have a "tribal" self, a "paranoid" self, a "scapegoating" self, a "father self," and so on. All, although inherent, are activated by relationships with people and things outside the person.
Narcissism, I'd venture, is the exact opposite of humility. It is a wounded, false "self-esteem" absorbed in endless regret, resentment, and despair. Humility involves a healthy measure of self-forgetfulness of your self. The humble see themselves in their true relationship to the real world. A personal self has real value but it is modest in comparison to immensity of the cosmos. It is dwarfed by the greatness of the truth. Humility is realism.
Narcissism is envy, hate, rage, being unwhole, "dis-eased." The opposite of those things is gratitude, peace, love, being "whole" (which has the same root as "health," "hale" and "happy"), being at "ease." I am reminded of a quote by St. Augustine: "Love, and do what you like."
I suppose, then, we should give up our narcissism to the extent we can, and with it wouild go the scapegoating. Also there would go the paranoia, the irrational tribal fear of the Other, and the ability to be manipulated by propaganda.
Although I truly don't know what "objectivity" is, if I had to give it a definition, I'd say it is to give up anger, fear, paranoia and all the other things that come from splitting everything into all-good and all-bad. Then your feelings will not lead you astray.
Since that splitting is something that starts in us as infants, to give up that splitting means to grow up -- to start to see things clearly. If that ever happens, if humanity gives up being what it is -- half animal, half child -- then there exists the possibility we can instead, finally, become fully human, wholly grown up.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Snake in the Grass
When I was in college my girlfriend mentioned to me a guy she knew had told her about me, "You can do better than that." I had met him once and had a short but pleasant conversation with him. Why, I wondered, would he say such a thing about me?
The answer was immediate: he would have liked to take her away from me. He envied me. She was a cute one, it was true. Cute and smart, the kind he wanted but apparently couldn't get. So he wanted what I had. He was, to use a common expression, a snake in the grass. He was talking behind my back.
We use the term "snake" to refer to someone who is a backstabber. Apparently, this particular meaning has been used for thousands of years. Think of one of the best-known myths in the Western world, that of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Traditionally, the serpent in the Garden is a symbol of envy, because he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because they are the favorites of God. The word it's translated from is "nachash," which is a very interesting word indeed.
It doesn't literally mean "serpent." It has several interrelated meanings: to hiss or whisper like a snake, enchanter, prognosticator.
The word "enchant" means "to chant," as in hypnotize. Same thing as a "spell,"meaning "tale," or "the use of words." The serpent used words in an attempt to cast a "spell" on Eve, to get her to do what he wanted so he could bring her and Adam down.
That's what the envious do. They don't come out and say, "I envy you." Usually they can't even admit it to themselves. Of all the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is the only one that isn't any fun. It is, in fact, one of the most corrosive feelings in the world.
Helmut Schoeck, in his magisterial work, Envy, described envy as "a drive which lies at the core of man's life as a social being: [an] urge to compare oneself invidiously with others." He considered it inborn. Perhaps it is, although the intensity varies in the person, from intense to almost non-existent.
Schoeck came to some surprising conclusions. After showing the ubiqitiousness of envy in primitive cultures, including the superstitious terror of arousing the envy of their gods, and that it was a crippling barrier to progress, Schoeck argued that one of Christianity's greatest achievements was in freeing people to progess, for it "provided man for the first time with supernatural beings who, he knew, could neither envy nor ridicule him," and who offered strong moral condemnation of envy.
Of all the myths I am familiar with, only that of the Garden of Eden condemns envy as a truly bad thing, because it sees it is essentially the cause of the overwhelming majority of evil in the world.
Private property, Schoeck claimed, emerged not as the cause of envy, as egalitarians assert, but as a defense against it -- "a necessary protective screen between people," deflecting envy that would otherwise be directed at people onto material goods.
The envious are subtle about their envy, they backstab, they whisper, as Iago whispered to Othello. They attempt to tell the future, to prognosticate. Essentially what my envious backstabbing acquaintance was telling my girlfriend was, "If you leave him for me, it will be better for you." He was attempting to cast a spell on her, to get her away from me. He just wasn't very good at it. Actually, he was terrible, because he was so obvious.
But as Aesop noticed, envy always shows. Whenever you see someone trying to pull someone else down, it is almost always caused by envy.
In the myth, when God catches Adam and Eve, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. Blaming other people for our problems is the first defense everyone engages in, and is, as M. Scott Peck has noticed, the genesis of evil in the world. He called it scapegoating. The myth tells us most scapegoating -- blaming others for our problems -- is caused by envy. Perhaps not all of it is caused by envy, but probably almost all of it.
That myth, thousands of years old, is a wise and perceptive one. It tells us envious people whisper behind our backs in an attempt to bring us down. They are never upfront. They attempt to cast a spell on the intended, to tell them how wonderful their future will be if they listen. After all, the serpent did tell Eve, "surely you will not die."
The clearest example of envy in a movie I'm familiar with is Amadeus. Salieri is eaten alive with his envy of Mozart. So what does he do? He devotes his life to ruining Mozart, and doing it in such a subtle, devious way that Mozart always thinks Salieri is his friend. Salieri does it behind Mozart's back, he whispers to people, he attempts to cast a spell on them. He is a snake. Of course, he blames Mozart for his failures as a musician. And he ends his life in an insane asylum.
Of all the political systems in the world, the one that has been the most destructive, that has caused the most deaths, is socialism. The heart of it, that which it's based on, is envy. That's why socialists are egalitarians. If everyone is the same, they think, and has the same, then there will no envy. Instead, this attempt to bring Heaven to earth instead bought the worst Hell the human race has ever experienced.
The one political system that is the least conducive to envy is the free market. As the ancient Greek philosophers noticed, the benign form of envy is admiration. At least under the free market, people have a chance to be upwardly mobile. They can attain the same heights, or close to the same heights, as those they envy. They can admire them instead of envying them.
The problem with the human race is not that people are stupid or evil. They're half asleep, hynotized. I am reminded of Kaa, the snake in Kipling's The Jungle Book. In the movie Kaa enchanted his victims by singing to them (and the word "nachash," can also mean "singing"). Kipling also wrote that "words are the most powerful drug ever invented." He was right.
Envy will never be gotten rid of entirely, as long as people are half-awake. It is, as the serpent tells us, part of our animal nature, and will be until our animal nature is overcome, if such a thing is possible. But if not possible, envy can at least be minimized.
The answer was immediate: he would have liked to take her away from me. He envied me. She was a cute one, it was true. Cute and smart, the kind he wanted but apparently couldn't get. So he wanted what I had. He was, to use a common expression, a snake in the grass. He was talking behind my back.
We use the term "snake" to refer to someone who is a backstabber. Apparently, this particular meaning has been used for thousands of years. Think of one of the best-known myths in the Western world, that of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Traditionally, the serpent in the Garden is a symbol of envy, because he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because they are the favorites of God. The word it's translated from is "nachash," which is a very interesting word indeed.
It doesn't literally mean "serpent." It has several interrelated meanings: to hiss or whisper like a snake, enchanter, prognosticator.
The word "enchant" means "to chant," as in hypnotize. Same thing as a "spell,"meaning "tale," or "the use of words." The serpent used words in an attempt to cast a "spell" on Eve, to get her to do what he wanted so he could bring her and Adam down.
That's what the envious do. They don't come out and say, "I envy you." Usually they can't even admit it to themselves. Of all the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is the only one that isn't any fun. It is, in fact, one of the most corrosive feelings in the world.
Helmut Schoeck, in his magisterial work, Envy, described envy as "a drive which lies at the core of man's life as a social being: [an] urge to compare oneself invidiously with others." He considered it inborn. Perhaps it is, although the intensity varies in the person, from intense to almost non-existent.
Schoeck came to some surprising conclusions. After showing the ubiqitiousness of envy in primitive cultures, including the superstitious terror of arousing the envy of their gods, and that it was a crippling barrier to progress, Schoeck argued that one of Christianity's greatest achievements was in freeing people to progess, for it "provided man for the first time with supernatural beings who, he knew, could neither envy nor ridicule him," and who offered strong moral condemnation of envy.
Of all the myths I am familiar with, only that of the Garden of Eden condemns envy as a truly bad thing, because it sees it is essentially the cause of the overwhelming majority of evil in the world.
Private property, Schoeck claimed, emerged not as the cause of envy, as egalitarians assert, but as a defense against it -- "a necessary protective screen between people," deflecting envy that would otherwise be directed at people onto material goods.
The envious are subtle about their envy, they backstab, they whisper, as Iago whispered to Othello. They attempt to tell the future, to prognosticate. Essentially what my envious backstabbing acquaintance was telling my girlfriend was, "If you leave him for me, it will be better for you." He was attempting to cast a spell on her, to get her away from me. He just wasn't very good at it. Actually, he was terrible, because he was so obvious.
But as Aesop noticed, envy always shows. Whenever you see someone trying to pull someone else down, it is almost always caused by envy.
In the myth, when God catches Adam and Eve, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. Blaming other people for our problems is the first defense everyone engages in, and is, as M. Scott Peck has noticed, the genesis of evil in the world. He called it scapegoating. The myth tells us most scapegoating -- blaming others for our problems -- is caused by envy. Perhaps not all of it is caused by envy, but probably almost all of it.
That myth, thousands of years old, is a wise and perceptive one. It tells us envious people whisper behind our backs in an attempt to bring us down. They are never upfront. They attempt to cast a spell on the intended, to tell them how wonderful their future will be if they listen. After all, the serpent did tell Eve, "surely you will not die."
The clearest example of envy in a movie I'm familiar with is Amadeus. Salieri is eaten alive with his envy of Mozart. So what does he do? He devotes his life to ruining Mozart, and doing it in such a subtle, devious way that Mozart always thinks Salieri is his friend. Salieri does it behind Mozart's back, he whispers to people, he attempts to cast a spell on them. He is a snake. Of course, he blames Mozart for his failures as a musician. And he ends his life in an insane asylum.
Of all the political systems in the world, the one that has been the most destructive, that has caused the most deaths, is socialism. The heart of it, that which it's based on, is envy. That's why socialists are egalitarians. If everyone is the same, they think, and has the same, then there will no envy. Instead, this attempt to bring Heaven to earth instead bought the worst Hell the human race has ever experienced.
The one political system that is the least conducive to envy is the free market. As the ancient Greek philosophers noticed, the benign form of envy is admiration. At least under the free market, people have a chance to be upwardly mobile. They can attain the same heights, or close to the same heights, as those they envy. They can admire them instead of envying them.
The problem with the human race is not that people are stupid or evil. They're half asleep, hynotized. I am reminded of Kaa, the snake in Kipling's The Jungle Book. In the movie Kaa enchanted his victims by singing to them (and the word "nachash," can also mean "singing"). Kipling also wrote that "words are the most powerful drug ever invented." He was right.
Envy will never be gotten rid of entirely, as long as people are half-awake. It is, as the serpent tells us, part of our animal nature, and will be until our animal nature is overcome, if such a thing is possible. But if not possible, envy can at least be minimized.
The Fairy Tale of Pure Good and Pure Evil
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about what he called "the primary world" and "the secondary world." The primary world is the real world. The secondary world is the world of fiction – stories, myths, fairy tales. Good and evil, he said, exist only in the secondary world. They don't exist in the real world. When I first read that comment it surprised me. How can good and evil not exist in the real world? Isn't that what I was always taught?
Whittaker Chambers, author of Witness, wrote this in his famous review about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: "...everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly."
The concepts of pure good and pure evil, as Bruno Bettelheim pointed out, generally exist only in "children's" fiction, such as fairy tales. It's a simplistic view of things, but it allows children to start getting a grasp on right and wrong. When they get older, they should move beyond it and start seeing the complexities in people and the world, and realize the "intermediate shades."
Sometimes, the child's view of good and evil does exist in "adult" fiction. The example I often use is that of the aforementioned Atlas Shrugged, in which the characters are the whitest of whites and the blackest of blacks. Chambers referred to the plot as the "war between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness."
Tolkien and Chambers are right. In the real world, no one is pure good or pure evil. Such "good" and "evil" exist only in fantasy. Everyone is imperfect: no one is "good" or "evil."
After thinking about this for a few years, I've decided that the definition of good and evil that most of humanity uses has been the cause of most of our problems throughout history. I'm not saying "good" and "evil" don't exist; I'm saying our incorrect concepts of them have been the cause of a horrendous amount of death and destruction.
Here is why: when people talk about "good," they almost always define themselves as good. This means anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Not merely mistaken, but evil. Since they are evil, they have to be destroyed. This has been the tiresome history of the world. The term for this behavior is "scapegoating."
Throughout history people, tribes, nations, religions and ideologies have invariably defined themselves as "good." They then have regularly defined their opponents as "evil." Since they are evil, all problems are projected on them. The logical, indeed inescapable, conclusion: annihilate them. Then there won't be any evil anymore, since the cause of the problems has been eradicated.
The Nazis defined themselves as good. Then they defined their opponents as evil. We know what happened: dead Christians, Eastern Europeans, Gypsies, the physically and mentally handicapped, Jews, Masons.
The Socialists defined themselves as good and their opponents as evil. In the 20th Century, historians estimate 177 million people lost their lives because of scapegoating. Those who had gained control of the State decided they were good, others were evil, and those defined as evil had to die.
One of the early interpretations of the story of the Garden of Eden is that Adam and Eve were expelled for scapegoating. Adam blamed Eve for his transgressions, and Eve blamed the serpent. Neither would accept responsibility for what they did. Then they were kicked out and evil came into the world.
What's interesting about the story, and little-noticed, is that Adam and Eve did not know what good and evil were until they ate of the fruit. What's the first thing they did? Adam pointed his finger at Eve, and Eve pointed hers at the serpent. They knew "good" and "evil" and instantly started scapegoating. Each said, "I'm good and blameless; you're bad and at fault."
The story makes perfect sense if it's realized that Adam and Eve had the wrong concepts of good and evil. If they didn't they wouldn't have instantly started scapegoating each other and gotten kicked out, bringing misfortune into the world. Why would they get kicked out for knowing the right concept of good and evil? It's the wrong concept of good and evil that brings evil into the world, not the right one.
Currently, we have Islamic fundamentalists claiming they are good (and have God on their side), so we are evil – the "Great Satan." We return the favor. We are good (and have God on our side), and they are what Bush called "the evil ones" and "the axis of evil." Or could it be that both sides are mistaken, confused, arrogant? That they are the blind leading the blind, and heading toward a ditch?
The late M. Scott Peck, author of The People of the Lie, correctly called scapegoating "the genesis of human evil." He's exactly right, but I don't think he goes far enough. The genesis of human evil is because people have false concepts of good and evil. People falsely define themselves as good and others as evil. That is what leads to scapegoating. Nearly everyone ignores the fact that all people are imperfect; therefore no one is "good" or "evil." They may say they know people are imperfect, and not pure good or pure evil, but their actions belie their words.
When we set ourselves up as good, we automatically set someone else up as evil. That's the incorrect view that has led to appalling slaughter throughout history. But it's human nature to do this.
Modern psychology may have found an answer as to why we have these deluded concepts of good and evil. The only school of psychology I pay any attention to is Object Relations Theory. This is what it has to say about scapegoating:
Theorists believe that starting soon after birth babies split their selves into an "all-good" one and an "all-bad" one. The "all-good" self is grandiose and god-like. The "all-bad" one is envious, hating, rageful.
Psychoanalysts Melanie Klein and Joan Riviere (among many others) believe the origins of rage, hate, envy and the desire to destroy are rooted in the initial relationship between the infant's self and what can be called "the primary caregiver" (usually but not necessarily the mother). They write, "For the infant child, the mother is the original and most complete source of satisfaction. Yet this total pleasure is inevitably frustrated."
Theorists believe infants experience this frustration as a threatened destruction of the entire self, since their existence at this age depends completely the care-giver/mother. This frustration generates rage, hatred and a wish to annihilate the "bad object" – the mother. Later, these feelings can be transferred to other people in the world the adult sees as a threat.
What the above means is that our incorrect concepts of good and evil are what leads to rage, hate, envy, jealousy, vengeance, intolerance, and murder. Nearly every bad thing that humans do, in my opinion, is because of our false concepts of good and evil. "I'm good; you're evil. I hate you and want to kill you because you are the evil that is cause of all my problems. I believe the story of the Garden of Eden supports this idea.
I also find it interesting that researchers believe that babies first scapegoat their mothers, just as Adam scapegoated Eve, the mother of all. Science catches up with religion, several thousand years later.
When I looked at other religions to see what they had to say, I found this in Taoism: "As a concept, Taoists do not hold the position of Good against Evil; rather they see the interdependence of all dualities. So when one labels something as a Good, one automatically creates Evil.
"Another way of understanding this is that the sage person knows the reality of Good and Evil, whereas the fool concentrates on the concept of good and evil. The sage knows that any evil will soon be replaced by good; the fool is forever fruitlessly trying to eliminate evil.
"The semanticist Alfred Korzybski expressed this distinction between the concept and the reality with the saying, 'The map is not the territory.'"
"The fool is forever fruitlessly trying to eliminate evil." Humanity has for thousands of years been trying to eliminate "evil." We call something "evil" and then try to destroy it, be it drugs, alcohol, tobacco, guns, SUVs or fatty foods.
I've also recently come to the conclusion there actually is no "evil." The universe it not evil; animals are not evil. The only thing that can be "evil" are some human beings. A very, very small minority, actually. But since all of us are imperfect, not pure good or pure evil, then there are no evil people. "Evil" does not really exist: it's just a convenient fiction, one that when we take it too seriously causes catastrophic problems.
Mind you, I'm not defending immorality or amorality. Far from it. I'm just claiming the opposite of Good is not Evil. The opposite of Good is "sickness," or, to be more specific, hubris. I believe this is why many theologians claim that "evil" is "twisted good." "Evil" is good that's become sick. C.S. Lewis suggested something similar when he wrote of "bad" people being "bent." Twisted. And we should remember that Lucifer was originally an angel, one whose name means "light-bearer." He became a twisted, bent, or "fallen" Good. And in Christian theology, St. Augustine made the argument that evil is not a "thing," i.e., it doesn't really exist.
Good is often defined as "wholeness." Wholeness is related to the words "healthy" and "hale." It comes from the root word for "unbroken unity." What's the opposite of wholeness and health? Not evil, but disease (which really stand for "dis-ease," or lack of ease. "Unholiness" (unwholeness), minus the moral connotation.
Interestingly, the Greek word diabolos is the root word for "diabolic." It literally means "to throw across," to divide, to disrupt, to separate – to make "not whole." (One of the opposite words, "symbolic," means "to throw together." The flag, for example, is supposed to be a symbol that throws us together.) The concept of sickness as unwholeness and fragmentation has been noticed for thousands of years. The story I keep in mind is when Jesus asked the possessed man his name, and was answered, "My name is Legion, for we are many."
I believe the concept of the opposite of Good being the sickness of hubris and not Evil is supported in the Gospels. In them, Jesus' main opponents were the Pharisees. The Pharisees looked down on ill people, believing they somehow deserved their sickness for offending God. They saw these sick people as bad people who had done evil. That's one of the things that happened in the past, and even happens today. Sick people were considered evil; that's why they were sick. Jesus never spoke one word about sick people being bad people. In fact, he healed them, and spoke of healthy people not needing a doctor, but the sick. Not evil, but sick.
When the human race is seen as imperfect – or fallen – there is the possibility of compassion. When people are seen as evil, there is the certainty of hate.
The word usually translated as "sin" in the Bible doesn't mean "evil." It's the Greek word hamartia, which comes from archery, and means "missing the mark." In many modern versions it's translated correctly.
But is not every one of the Seven Deadly Sins based on our narcissism, the unconscious idea that we are good and others are bad? When people are seen as "bad," they are reduced to "things," and the "sinner" becomes a selfish, irresponsible person.
It also didn't surprise me when I found the Buddha said one of the main characteristics of existence was dukka which translates as "suffering." Not evil, but suffering, a kind of dis-ease of the self. He claimed it was the inevitable result of attaching oneself to false ideas and concepts. He said there was a way out of it, as all religions do. And it's not by hate and destruction.
It also sounds to me that incorrect concepts of good and evil allow people who define themselves as good to become self-righteous and pompous. Sometimes even arrogant, grandiose and, worst of all, hubristic.
The worst people who have ever existed, the ones who have caused untold misery, are psychopaths. The story of Satan is a clinical description of a psychopath. Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung were psychopaths. Saddam Hussein is a psychopath. The clinical term for a psychopath is currently Anti-Social Personality Disorder. It's listed as an incurable sickness. Not an evil, but a sickness. A sickness, that since it can't be cured, requires that psychopaths, when they break the law, either be locked up for the rest of their lives or else killed.
People have probably argued since before recorded history whether some people are "sick" or "evil." I opt for sick, because the concept of defining them as evil will sooner or later will slop over onto innocent people. It always has in the past, without fail, with unimaginably horrible consequences. You can say, in an oversimplified sentence, that our incorrect concepts of good and evil are what generates "evil."
I consider myself a conservative libertarian. Or a libertarian conservative. Take your pick. A conservative, in the true sense, is someone who believes one of the purposes of society is to "hold down" all the imperfections in human nature. A leftist, on the other hand, holds to the massively destructive view that "oppressive" society is repressing all the goodness in humanity. Change society radically, or get rid of it, and all the wonderful good stuff in people will blossom.
The incorrect view of good and evil is part of imperfect human nature. It needs to be held down by society. Unfortunately, most societies see the incorrect view of good and evil as a "good" thing, and one that should be taught to citizens. Hence, the unbelievable destruction these concepts have caused in societies. These concepts don't support societies. They destroy them.
The State uses propaganda to manipulate our mistaken notions of good and evil. The essence of propaganda is to say we are under attack because we are good and our opponents evil, to dehumanize and demonize the enemy, and then to claim that those who disagree are evil. Hermann Goering, when he stood in the dock at Nuremburg, said, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Then the sheeple march off to war, as they have for thousands of years.
The correct view of good and evil – dis-ease as the opposite of good – is the one that should be taught, because it supports societies instead of destroying. I want to repeat that not all sickness can be healed. Some people are so bent, so twisted, so murderous, they have to be killed, because they are a permanent danger to everyone. But seeing the guilty as evil ultimately leads to seeing the innocent as evil.
What would happen if we gave up incorrect concepts of good and evil? We'd stop scapegoating, and most of the problems caused by people would disappear. We'd reenter the Garden of Eden, as much as possible in this fallen world. Of course, this will never happen. "Bad" people – and "good" – will be with us until the end of the world.
Whittaker Chambers, author of Witness, wrote this in his famous review about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: "...everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly."
The concepts of pure good and pure evil, as Bruno Bettelheim pointed out, generally exist only in "children's" fiction, such as fairy tales. It's a simplistic view of things, but it allows children to start getting a grasp on right and wrong. When they get older, they should move beyond it and start seeing the complexities in people and the world, and realize the "intermediate shades."
Sometimes, the child's view of good and evil does exist in "adult" fiction. The example I often use is that of the aforementioned Atlas Shrugged, in which the characters are the whitest of whites and the blackest of blacks. Chambers referred to the plot as the "war between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness."
Tolkien and Chambers are right. In the real world, no one is pure good or pure evil. Such "good" and "evil" exist only in fantasy. Everyone is imperfect: no one is "good" or "evil."
After thinking about this for a few years, I've decided that the definition of good and evil that most of humanity uses has been the cause of most of our problems throughout history. I'm not saying "good" and "evil" don't exist; I'm saying our incorrect concepts of them have been the cause of a horrendous amount of death and destruction.
Here is why: when people talk about "good," they almost always define themselves as good. This means anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Not merely mistaken, but evil. Since they are evil, they have to be destroyed. This has been the tiresome history of the world. The term for this behavior is "scapegoating."
Throughout history people, tribes, nations, religions and ideologies have invariably defined themselves as "good." They then have regularly defined their opponents as "evil." Since they are evil, all problems are projected on them. The logical, indeed inescapable, conclusion: annihilate them. Then there won't be any evil anymore, since the cause of the problems has been eradicated.
The Nazis defined themselves as good. Then they defined their opponents as evil. We know what happened: dead Christians, Eastern Europeans, Gypsies, the physically and mentally handicapped, Jews, Masons.
The Socialists defined themselves as good and their opponents as evil. In the 20th Century, historians estimate 177 million people lost their lives because of scapegoating. Those who had gained control of the State decided they were good, others were evil, and those defined as evil had to die.
One of the early interpretations of the story of the Garden of Eden is that Adam and Eve were expelled for scapegoating. Adam blamed Eve for his transgressions, and Eve blamed the serpent. Neither would accept responsibility for what they did. Then they were kicked out and evil came into the world.
What's interesting about the story, and little-noticed, is that Adam and Eve did not know what good and evil were until they ate of the fruit. What's the first thing they did? Adam pointed his finger at Eve, and Eve pointed hers at the serpent. They knew "good" and "evil" and instantly started scapegoating. Each said, "I'm good and blameless; you're bad and at fault."
The story makes perfect sense if it's realized that Adam and Eve had the wrong concepts of good and evil. If they didn't they wouldn't have instantly started scapegoating each other and gotten kicked out, bringing misfortune into the world. Why would they get kicked out for knowing the right concept of good and evil? It's the wrong concept of good and evil that brings evil into the world, not the right one.
Currently, we have Islamic fundamentalists claiming they are good (and have God on their side), so we are evil – the "Great Satan." We return the favor. We are good (and have God on our side), and they are what Bush called "the evil ones" and "the axis of evil." Or could it be that both sides are mistaken, confused, arrogant? That they are the blind leading the blind, and heading toward a ditch?
The late M. Scott Peck, author of The People of the Lie, correctly called scapegoating "the genesis of human evil." He's exactly right, but I don't think he goes far enough. The genesis of human evil is because people have false concepts of good and evil. People falsely define themselves as good and others as evil. That is what leads to scapegoating. Nearly everyone ignores the fact that all people are imperfect; therefore no one is "good" or "evil." They may say they know people are imperfect, and not pure good or pure evil, but their actions belie their words.
When we set ourselves up as good, we automatically set someone else up as evil. That's the incorrect view that has led to appalling slaughter throughout history. But it's human nature to do this.
Modern psychology may have found an answer as to why we have these deluded concepts of good and evil. The only school of psychology I pay any attention to is Object Relations Theory. This is what it has to say about scapegoating:
Theorists believe that starting soon after birth babies split their selves into an "all-good" one and an "all-bad" one. The "all-good" self is grandiose and god-like. The "all-bad" one is envious, hating, rageful.
Psychoanalysts Melanie Klein and Joan Riviere (among many others) believe the origins of rage, hate, envy and the desire to destroy are rooted in the initial relationship between the infant's self and what can be called "the primary caregiver" (usually but not necessarily the mother). They write, "For the infant child, the mother is the original and most complete source of satisfaction. Yet this total pleasure is inevitably frustrated."
Theorists believe infants experience this frustration as a threatened destruction of the entire self, since their existence at this age depends completely the care-giver/mother. This frustration generates rage, hatred and a wish to annihilate the "bad object" – the mother. Later, these feelings can be transferred to other people in the world the adult sees as a threat.
What the above means is that our incorrect concepts of good and evil are what leads to rage, hate, envy, jealousy, vengeance, intolerance, and murder. Nearly every bad thing that humans do, in my opinion, is because of our false concepts of good and evil. "I'm good; you're evil. I hate you and want to kill you because you are the evil that is cause of all my problems. I believe the story of the Garden of Eden supports this idea.
I also find it interesting that researchers believe that babies first scapegoat their mothers, just as Adam scapegoated Eve, the mother of all. Science catches up with religion, several thousand years later.
When I looked at other religions to see what they had to say, I found this in Taoism: "As a concept, Taoists do not hold the position of Good against Evil; rather they see the interdependence of all dualities. So when one labels something as a Good, one automatically creates Evil.
"Another way of understanding this is that the sage person knows the reality of Good and Evil, whereas the fool concentrates on the concept of good and evil. The sage knows that any evil will soon be replaced by good; the fool is forever fruitlessly trying to eliminate evil.
"The semanticist Alfred Korzybski expressed this distinction between the concept and the reality with the saying, 'The map is not the territory.'"
"The fool is forever fruitlessly trying to eliminate evil." Humanity has for thousands of years been trying to eliminate "evil." We call something "evil" and then try to destroy it, be it drugs, alcohol, tobacco, guns, SUVs or fatty foods.
I've also recently come to the conclusion there actually is no "evil." The universe it not evil; animals are not evil. The only thing that can be "evil" are some human beings. A very, very small minority, actually. But since all of us are imperfect, not pure good or pure evil, then there are no evil people. "Evil" does not really exist: it's just a convenient fiction, one that when we take it too seriously causes catastrophic problems.
Mind you, I'm not defending immorality or amorality. Far from it. I'm just claiming the opposite of Good is not Evil. The opposite of Good is "sickness," or, to be more specific, hubris. I believe this is why many theologians claim that "evil" is "twisted good." "Evil" is good that's become sick. C.S. Lewis suggested something similar when he wrote of "bad" people being "bent." Twisted. And we should remember that Lucifer was originally an angel, one whose name means "light-bearer." He became a twisted, bent, or "fallen" Good. And in Christian theology, St. Augustine made the argument that evil is not a "thing," i.e., it doesn't really exist.
Good is often defined as "wholeness." Wholeness is related to the words "healthy" and "hale." It comes from the root word for "unbroken unity." What's the opposite of wholeness and health? Not evil, but disease (which really stand for "dis-ease," or lack of ease. "Unholiness" (unwholeness), minus the moral connotation.
Interestingly, the Greek word diabolos is the root word for "diabolic." It literally means "to throw across," to divide, to disrupt, to separate – to make "not whole." (One of the opposite words, "symbolic," means "to throw together." The flag, for example, is supposed to be a symbol that throws us together.) The concept of sickness as unwholeness and fragmentation has been noticed for thousands of years. The story I keep in mind is when Jesus asked the possessed man his name, and was answered, "My name is Legion, for we are many."
I believe the concept of the opposite of Good being the sickness of hubris and not Evil is supported in the Gospels. In them, Jesus' main opponents were the Pharisees. The Pharisees looked down on ill people, believing they somehow deserved their sickness for offending God. They saw these sick people as bad people who had done evil. That's one of the things that happened in the past, and even happens today. Sick people were considered evil; that's why they were sick. Jesus never spoke one word about sick people being bad people. In fact, he healed them, and spoke of healthy people not needing a doctor, but the sick. Not evil, but sick.
When the human race is seen as imperfect – or fallen – there is the possibility of compassion. When people are seen as evil, there is the certainty of hate.
The word usually translated as "sin" in the Bible doesn't mean "evil." It's the Greek word hamartia, which comes from archery, and means "missing the mark." In many modern versions it's translated correctly.
But is not every one of the Seven Deadly Sins based on our narcissism, the unconscious idea that we are good and others are bad? When people are seen as "bad," they are reduced to "things," and the "sinner" becomes a selfish, irresponsible person.
It also didn't surprise me when I found the Buddha said one of the main characteristics of existence was dukka which translates as "suffering." Not evil, but suffering, a kind of dis-ease of the self. He claimed it was the inevitable result of attaching oneself to false ideas and concepts. He said there was a way out of it, as all religions do. And it's not by hate and destruction.
It also sounds to me that incorrect concepts of good and evil allow people who define themselves as good to become self-righteous and pompous. Sometimes even arrogant, grandiose and, worst of all, hubristic.
The worst people who have ever existed, the ones who have caused untold misery, are psychopaths. The story of Satan is a clinical description of a psychopath. Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung were psychopaths. Saddam Hussein is a psychopath. The clinical term for a psychopath is currently Anti-Social Personality Disorder. It's listed as an incurable sickness. Not an evil, but a sickness. A sickness, that since it can't be cured, requires that psychopaths, when they break the law, either be locked up for the rest of their lives or else killed.
People have probably argued since before recorded history whether some people are "sick" or "evil." I opt for sick, because the concept of defining them as evil will sooner or later will slop over onto innocent people. It always has in the past, without fail, with unimaginably horrible consequences. You can say, in an oversimplified sentence, that our incorrect concepts of good and evil are what generates "evil."
I consider myself a conservative libertarian. Or a libertarian conservative. Take your pick. A conservative, in the true sense, is someone who believes one of the purposes of society is to "hold down" all the imperfections in human nature. A leftist, on the other hand, holds to the massively destructive view that "oppressive" society is repressing all the goodness in humanity. Change society radically, or get rid of it, and all the wonderful good stuff in people will blossom.
The incorrect view of good and evil is part of imperfect human nature. It needs to be held down by society. Unfortunately, most societies see the incorrect view of good and evil as a "good" thing, and one that should be taught to citizens. Hence, the unbelievable destruction these concepts have caused in societies. These concepts don't support societies. They destroy them.
The State uses propaganda to manipulate our mistaken notions of good and evil. The essence of propaganda is to say we are under attack because we are good and our opponents evil, to dehumanize and demonize the enemy, and then to claim that those who disagree are evil. Hermann Goering, when he stood in the dock at Nuremburg, said, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Then the sheeple march off to war, as they have for thousands of years.
The correct view of good and evil – dis-ease as the opposite of good – is the one that should be taught, because it supports societies instead of destroying. I want to repeat that not all sickness can be healed. Some people are so bent, so twisted, so murderous, they have to be killed, because they are a permanent danger to everyone. But seeing the guilty as evil ultimately leads to seeing the innocent as evil.
What would happen if we gave up incorrect concepts of good and evil? We'd stop scapegoating, and most of the problems caused by people would disappear. We'd reenter the Garden of Eden, as much as possible in this fallen world. Of course, this will never happen. "Bad" people – and "good" – will be with us until the end of the world.
The Fantasy World of the Savior and the Scapegaot
A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution. - Anonymous
Whenever any country idealizes itself as the Savior of the world -- a problem that currently afflicts the United States -- there must be another country, or countries, that is scapegoated. This is a law of human nature, and as such, there are no exceptions. If there is a country that believes itself to be a Savior, there is always a Scapegoat. They're opposite sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
There is one man who avoided that problem and became a real Savior, and that is Jesus. In fact, he cured the problem, since he was the first scapegoat in history that was considered innocent. Before him, scapegoats and sacrifices were considered essential to keep Chaos at bay.
Unfortunately, his message was pretty much lost, and today, and in the past, even his most devout followers have still scapegoated and murdered those who disagreed with them. In a nutshell, all scapegoats today are considered guilty, even if they're innocent. Even today, their deaths are deemed "necessary" to keep Chaos and evil at bay. So, then, in what way are we any different than Aztecs who ripped the living hearts out of people? We're worse, in numbers of people killed. And we have advanced technology.
This Savior Complex, as the late mythologist Maggie Macary termed it, consists of a fake innocence in which those who consider themselves as Saviors ignore their own guilt and what they have done to others. They deceive themselves. This is why Bush, in all seriousness, refers to the United States being attacked for its goodness. He's completely ignoring the 50 years of attacks the United States has inflicted on the Islamic world. I am sure he truly does not understand that when people are oppressed and murdered for decades, they will sooner or later rise up and attack their oppressors.
When one group idealizes itself, it must necessarily demonize another group it defines as its enemy or enemies. That way, it can project all evil onto those Others and maintain the fiction of its own goodness and innocence. This means, and this is truly scary, that groups or countries that idealize themselves are always dwelling, in some degree, in a fantasy. Part of that fantasy is always projecting evil onto the innocent.
Most people don't know it, but one of the original meanings of "dwell" is to "deceive, hinder, delay; to err." As in the old A. Merritt novel, Dwellers in the Mirage.
Lee Harris, in an article titled, "Al Quada's Fantasy Ideology," writes: "This power of the fantasist is entirely traceable to the fact that, for him, the other is always an object and never a subject. A subject, after all, has a will of his own, his own desires and his own agenda; he might rather play the flute instead of football. And anyone who is aware of this fact is automatically put at a disadvantage in comparison with the fantasist - the disadvantage of knowing that other people have minds of their own and are not merely props to be pushed around."
Anybody or any country that lives in the fantasy of the Savior Complex will never see the Scapegoat as human beings, only as objects, and evil ones at that. Ones that must be eradicated. They become nothing more than "collateral damage."
The United States government now appears to be involved in a collective, groupthink, nearly insane fantasy, one in which it sees itself as wholly Good, and those it defines as enemies, as wholly Evil. As the egregious David Frum put it, "an axis of evil."
This fantasy of splitting everything into either Good or Evil, is, in my view, the main reason for genocide. We see ourselves as sacred and innocent, and those outside as guilty and evil. The logical and indeed inescapable result: annihiliate them.
As Mircea Eliade writes, "Since 'our world' is a cosmos, any attack from without threatens to turn it into chaos. And as 'our world' was founded by imitating the paradigmatic work of the gods, the cosmogony, so the enemies who attack it are assimilated to the enemies of the gods, the demons, and especially to the archdemon, the primordial dragon conquered by the gods at the beginning of time. An attack on 'our world' is equivalent to an act of revenge by the mythical dragon, who rebels against the work of the gods, the cosmos, and struggles to annihilate it. 'Our' enemies belong to the powers of chaos. Any destruction of a city is equivalent to a retrogression to chaos. Any victory over the attackers reiterates the paradigmatic victory of the gods over the dragon (that is, over chaos)."
What Eliade is writing about is the archetype of the horror story: good attacked by evil. The sacred "Homeland" under assault by fanatical, insane, evil mass murderers who wish to destroy and conquer us. Heaven under attack by Satan. It's an old, apparently instinctive archetype, and many, many people fall for it. Always have, and probably always will.
Unfortunately, it is quite natural for people to kill anyone who they think is invading their sacred space, especially when they turn these "enemies" into monsters. Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's right. In this case, it's something that must always be opposed.
Or, as the playwright Arthur Miller put it: “It is always and forever the struggle: to perceive somehow our own complicity with evil is a horror not to be born. [it is] much more reassuring to see the world in terms of totally innocent victims and totally evil instigations of the monstrous violence. At all costs, never disturb our innocence.”
Whenever any country idealizes itself as the Savior of the world -- a problem that currently afflicts the United States -- there must be another country, or countries, that is scapegoated. This is a law of human nature, and as such, there are no exceptions. If there is a country that believes itself to be a Savior, there is always a Scapegoat. They're opposite sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
There is one man who avoided that problem and became a real Savior, and that is Jesus. In fact, he cured the problem, since he was the first scapegoat in history that was considered innocent. Before him, scapegoats and sacrifices were considered essential to keep Chaos at bay.
Unfortunately, his message was pretty much lost, and today, and in the past, even his most devout followers have still scapegoated and murdered those who disagreed with them. In a nutshell, all scapegoats today are considered guilty, even if they're innocent. Even today, their deaths are deemed "necessary" to keep Chaos and evil at bay. So, then, in what way are we any different than Aztecs who ripped the living hearts out of people? We're worse, in numbers of people killed. And we have advanced technology.
This Savior Complex, as the late mythologist Maggie Macary termed it, consists of a fake innocence in which those who consider themselves as Saviors ignore their own guilt and what they have done to others. They deceive themselves. This is why Bush, in all seriousness, refers to the United States being attacked for its goodness. He's completely ignoring the 50 years of attacks the United States has inflicted on the Islamic world. I am sure he truly does not understand that when people are oppressed and murdered for decades, they will sooner or later rise up and attack their oppressors.
When one group idealizes itself, it must necessarily demonize another group it defines as its enemy or enemies. That way, it can project all evil onto those Others and maintain the fiction of its own goodness and innocence. This means, and this is truly scary, that groups or countries that idealize themselves are always dwelling, in some degree, in a fantasy. Part of that fantasy is always projecting evil onto the innocent.
Most people don't know it, but one of the original meanings of "dwell" is to "deceive, hinder, delay; to err." As in the old A. Merritt novel, Dwellers in the Mirage.
Lee Harris, in an article titled, "Al Quada's Fantasy Ideology," writes: "This power of the fantasist is entirely traceable to the fact that, for him, the other is always an object and never a subject. A subject, after all, has a will of his own, his own desires and his own agenda; he might rather play the flute instead of football. And anyone who is aware of this fact is automatically put at a disadvantage in comparison with the fantasist - the disadvantage of knowing that other people have minds of their own and are not merely props to be pushed around."
Anybody or any country that lives in the fantasy of the Savior Complex will never see the Scapegoat as human beings, only as objects, and evil ones at that. Ones that must be eradicated. They become nothing more than "collateral damage."
The United States government now appears to be involved in a collective, groupthink, nearly insane fantasy, one in which it sees itself as wholly Good, and those it defines as enemies, as wholly Evil. As the egregious David Frum put it, "an axis of evil."
This fantasy of splitting everything into either Good or Evil, is, in my view, the main reason for genocide. We see ourselves as sacred and innocent, and those outside as guilty and evil. The logical and indeed inescapable result: annihiliate them.
As Mircea Eliade writes, "Since 'our world' is a cosmos, any attack from without threatens to turn it into chaos. And as 'our world' was founded by imitating the paradigmatic work of the gods, the cosmogony, so the enemies who attack it are assimilated to the enemies of the gods, the demons, and especially to the archdemon, the primordial dragon conquered by the gods at the beginning of time. An attack on 'our world' is equivalent to an act of revenge by the mythical dragon, who rebels against the work of the gods, the cosmos, and struggles to annihilate it. 'Our' enemies belong to the powers of chaos. Any destruction of a city is equivalent to a retrogression to chaos. Any victory over the attackers reiterates the paradigmatic victory of the gods over the dragon (that is, over chaos)."
What Eliade is writing about is the archetype of the horror story: good attacked by evil. The sacred "Homeland" under assault by fanatical, insane, evil mass murderers who wish to destroy and conquer us. Heaven under attack by Satan. It's an old, apparently instinctive archetype, and many, many people fall for it. Always have, and probably always will.
Unfortunately, it is quite natural for people to kill anyone who they think is invading their sacred space, especially when they turn these "enemies" into monsters. Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's right. In this case, it's something that must always be opposed.
Or, as the playwright Arthur Miller put it: “It is always and forever the struggle: to perceive somehow our own complicity with evil is a horror not to be born. [it is] much more reassuring to see the world in terms of totally innocent victims and totally evil instigations of the monstrous violence. At all costs, never disturb our innocence.”
How Propaganda Works
"Once you base your whole life striving on a desperate lie,
and try to implement that lie,
you instrument your own undoing."
- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death.
It's not hard to understand how propaganda works. You don't need a college degree, or to read any of those thick textbooks everyone hates. Everything relevant can be explained in one not-particularly-long article. And, I guarantee you, you must understand how propaganda targets you, to immunize yourself against the attempts.
Propaganda works by appealing to our most base, animalistic instincts. It does not appeal to our better nature, although one of the purposes of it is to convince us it does. It pretends to appeal to our reason, when in fact it appeals to our most primitive emotions. There is good reason for this: perception travels through the emotional brain first, to the rational brain last.
Specifically, propaganda works by appealing to three things: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism.
I just mentioned perception travels first to the emotional brain, then the rational brain. This happens to everyone, including people who con themselves they are the most rational and intelligent of intellectuals.
As for tribes, we share with every nearly every animal in the world the instinct to form tribes, arranged in a hierarchy, with a leader. We are group animals. The fact we look to a leader to take care of us is one of the most firmly established principles in psychology (if you don't remember anything else, remember that).
When anyone transgresses the taboos of a tribe, they can, and often are, ostracised or even expelled. An example? Say some people oppose a war. What happens? They are often called cowards and told to leave the country. Who hasn't heard the insult, "You're a coward! If you don't like it here, get out!" People who say such things think they're being patriotic; in reality they're acting like animals. Emotional, irrational, herd animals, prone to the fear and flight activated by propaganda. Individuals think; groups do not, and cannot.
Narcissism is our inborn tendency to see everything as grandiose or devalued, good or bad, with nothing in-between. It's why nearly every tribe in the world -- and nations are just tribes writ large -- called itself "the People," "the Humans," "the Chosen," "the Motherland," "the Fatherland," or "the greatest nation on earth," relegating everyone outside the tribe to a devalued non-people, non-human status (aka "collateral damage"). No wonder it's so easy to kill the outsiders -- they're just not quite human.
When you combine those three concepts, you have the basis for all propaganda. If a leader of a tribe tells the people their goodness is under attack by insane, evil people who want to destroy them, they will react just like animals and attack. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels noticed all you had to do to get people to march off to war is for the leaders to tell them they were under attack, denounce protestors as traitors exposing the tribe to danger, and the people would slander, ostracize and expell the protestors, and then tramp straight off to be slaughtered. He said this technique worked in every country of the world.
The Bush administration used exactly this technique to start two wars. Essentially they told the public that our goodness was under attack by insane and evil people who wanted to destroy us. See how it works? Tribalism, emotionalism, and narcissism.
Supporter of the war responded by attacking protestors as traitors -- trying to expell them from the tribe -- and marching off to war. It's altogether too simple, and too easy.
One man everyone should know is Edward L. Bernays, the American disciple and nephew of Sigmund Freud. He was for all practical purposes the founder of modern propaganda techniques.
Bernays despised most people and regarded them as his inferiors, especially because of intellectual or social claims. (See how it works? I just appealed to your emotions, and convinced you Bernays was attacking you. You fell for it, right?)
Bernays not only pretty much founded modern propaganda techniques, but was also the father of modern PR. Although, you could say they are same thing, and that there's really no difference between them.
In his 1928 book, Propaganda, Bernays wrote, "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…"
Remember that quote. Burn it into your memory. Bernays thought people should be ruled by an extremely small elite, who should manipulate them through propaganda. That means you. People who believe in the wonders of government, and that it is their friend, should think twice about it.
In another book, In Crystallizing Public Opinion, Bernays wrote how governments and advertisers can "regiment the mind like the military regiments the body." This can be imposed, he said, because of "the natural inherent flexibility of individual human nature," and suggested the "average citizen is the world's most efficient censor. His own mind is the greatest barrier between him and the facts. His own 'logic-proof compartments,' his own absolutism are the obstacles which prevent him from seeing in terms of experience and thought rather than in terms of group reaction."
Bernays also thought "physical loneliness is a real terror to the gregarious animal, and that association with the herd causes a feeling of security. In man this fear of loneliness creates a desire for identification with the herd in matters of opinion."
Bernays claimed that "the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word…In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader. This is one of the most firmly established principles in mass psychology." What Bernays called the "regimentation of the mind" is accomplished by taking advantage of the human tendency to self-deception [logic-proof compartments], gregariousness [the herd instinct], individualism [exalting their vanity] and the seductive power of a strong leader.
Bernays also expressed the opinion people "have to take sides...[they] must step out of the audience onto the stage and wrestle as the hero for the victory of good over evil." This also means appealing to our narcissism, our inborn tendency to see everything as either good or bad, with little or nothing in-between.
He also noted the need for people to feel as if they belong to something larger than themselves. Again, this also means appealing to our narcissism, such as people claiming they belong to "the greatest nation on earth."
When people consider themselves as part of the Humans (by whatever name they call themselves), they exalt themselves. Still again, those outside the tribe are non-people, "collateral damage."
"Mental habits create stereotypes just as physical habits create certain definite reflex actionism," Bernays wrote. "...these stereotypes or clichés are not necessarily truthful pictures of what they are supposed to portray." Perception is everything, the truth matters little or not at all.
Now, let's boil all this down and see what we have:
Mass Man, the herd, cannot think, and is instead ruled by its feelings. The herd will look to a leader to save it. The best way to accomplish this is for the herd to feel it is under attack. The herd will draw together, expell those who see the truth and protest, and then march off to war.
The full quote from Goebbels? "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Tell the herd they are the Humans, or the People, or best of all, have God on their side. Paint their enemies as insane and evil. Again, this is appealing to people's narcissism, the tendency to see everything as either good (us) or evil (them). Evoke paranoia and hysteria in them by convincing hem the insane evil ones want to conquer and destroy them. What will happen? You can get them to march off to war by the millions, ust as Goebbels noticed. The truth doesn't matter, only the manipulation of perception.
To make it as simple as possible, everything that is needed for a successful propaganda campaign can be summed up in those three aforementioned words: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism.
We con ourselves into believing we are so advanced. In reality, the human race is stuck in One Million Years BC, except there's no Raquel Welch in a two-piece fur bikini.
I forgot -- there is one other component to sucessful propaganda: keep repeating the message over and over and over.
and try to implement that lie,
you instrument your own undoing."
- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death.
It's not hard to understand how propaganda works. You don't need a college degree, or to read any of those thick textbooks everyone hates. Everything relevant can be explained in one not-particularly-long article. And, I guarantee you, you must understand how propaganda targets you, to immunize yourself against the attempts.
Propaganda works by appealing to our most base, animalistic instincts. It does not appeal to our better nature, although one of the purposes of it is to convince us it does. It pretends to appeal to our reason, when in fact it appeals to our most primitive emotions. There is good reason for this: perception travels through the emotional brain first, to the rational brain last.
Specifically, propaganda works by appealing to three things: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism.
I just mentioned perception travels first to the emotional brain, then the rational brain. This happens to everyone, including people who con themselves they are the most rational and intelligent of intellectuals.
As for tribes, we share with every nearly every animal in the world the instinct to form tribes, arranged in a hierarchy, with a leader. We are group animals. The fact we look to a leader to take care of us is one of the most firmly established principles in psychology (if you don't remember anything else, remember that).
When anyone transgresses the taboos of a tribe, they can, and often are, ostracised or even expelled. An example? Say some people oppose a war. What happens? They are often called cowards and told to leave the country. Who hasn't heard the insult, "You're a coward! If you don't like it here, get out!" People who say such things think they're being patriotic; in reality they're acting like animals. Emotional, irrational, herd animals, prone to the fear and flight activated by propaganda. Individuals think; groups do not, and cannot.
Narcissism is our inborn tendency to see everything as grandiose or devalued, good or bad, with nothing in-between. It's why nearly every tribe in the world -- and nations are just tribes writ large -- called itself "the People," "the Humans," "the Chosen," "the Motherland," "the Fatherland," or "the greatest nation on earth," relegating everyone outside the tribe to a devalued non-people, non-human status (aka "collateral damage"). No wonder it's so easy to kill the outsiders -- they're just not quite human.
When you combine those three concepts, you have the basis for all propaganda. If a leader of a tribe tells the people their goodness is under attack by insane, evil people who want to destroy them, they will react just like animals and attack. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels noticed all you had to do to get people to march off to war is for the leaders to tell them they were under attack, denounce protestors as traitors exposing the tribe to danger, and the people would slander, ostracize and expell the protestors, and then tramp straight off to be slaughtered. He said this technique worked in every country of the world.
The Bush administration used exactly this technique to start two wars. Essentially they told the public that our goodness was under attack by insane and evil people who wanted to destroy us. See how it works? Tribalism, emotionalism, and narcissism.
Supporter of the war responded by attacking protestors as traitors -- trying to expell them from the tribe -- and marching off to war. It's altogether too simple, and too easy.
One man everyone should know is Edward L. Bernays, the American disciple and nephew of Sigmund Freud. He was for all practical purposes the founder of modern propaganda techniques.
Bernays despised most people and regarded them as his inferiors, especially because of intellectual or social claims. (See how it works? I just appealed to your emotions, and convinced you Bernays was attacking you. You fell for it, right?)
Bernays not only pretty much founded modern propaganda techniques, but was also the father of modern PR. Although, you could say they are same thing, and that there's really no difference between them.
In his 1928 book, Propaganda, Bernays wrote, "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…"
Remember that quote. Burn it into your memory. Bernays thought people should be ruled by an extremely small elite, who should manipulate them through propaganda. That means you. People who believe in the wonders of government, and that it is their friend, should think twice about it.
In another book, In Crystallizing Public Opinion, Bernays wrote how governments and advertisers can "regiment the mind like the military regiments the body." This can be imposed, he said, because of "the natural inherent flexibility of individual human nature," and suggested the "average citizen is the world's most efficient censor. His own mind is the greatest barrier between him and the facts. His own 'logic-proof compartments,' his own absolutism are the obstacles which prevent him from seeing in terms of experience and thought rather than in terms of group reaction."
Bernays also thought "physical loneliness is a real terror to the gregarious animal, and that association with the herd causes a feeling of security. In man this fear of loneliness creates a desire for identification with the herd in matters of opinion."
Bernays claimed that "the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word…In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader. This is one of the most firmly established principles in mass psychology." What Bernays called the "regimentation of the mind" is accomplished by taking advantage of the human tendency to self-deception [logic-proof compartments], gregariousness [the herd instinct], individualism [exalting their vanity] and the seductive power of a strong leader.
Bernays also expressed the opinion people "have to take sides...[they] must step out of the audience onto the stage and wrestle as the hero for the victory of good over evil." This also means appealing to our narcissism, our inborn tendency to see everything as either good or bad, with little or nothing in-between.
He also noted the need for people to feel as if they belong to something larger than themselves. Again, this also means appealing to our narcissism, such as people claiming they belong to "the greatest nation on earth."
When people consider themselves as part of the Humans (by whatever name they call themselves), they exalt themselves. Still again, those outside the tribe are non-people, "collateral damage."
"Mental habits create stereotypes just as physical habits create certain definite reflex actionism," Bernays wrote. "...these stereotypes or clichés are not necessarily truthful pictures of what they are supposed to portray." Perception is everything, the truth matters little or not at all.
Now, let's boil all this down and see what we have:
Mass Man, the herd, cannot think, and is instead ruled by its feelings. The herd will look to a leader to save it. The best way to accomplish this is for the herd to feel it is under attack. The herd will draw together, expell those who see the truth and protest, and then march off to war.
The full quote from Goebbels? "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Tell the herd they are the Humans, or the People, or best of all, have God on their side. Paint their enemies as insane and evil. Again, this is appealing to people's narcissism, the tendency to see everything as either good (us) or evil (them). Evoke paranoia and hysteria in them by convincing hem the insane evil ones want to conquer and destroy them. What will happen? You can get them to march off to war by the millions, ust as Goebbels noticed. The truth doesn't matter, only the manipulation of perception.
To make it as simple as possible, everything that is needed for a successful propaganda campaign can be summed up in those three aforementioned words: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism.
We con ourselves into believing we are so advanced. In reality, the human race is stuck in One Million Years BC, except there's no Raquel Welch in a two-piece fur bikini.
I forgot -- there is one other component to sucessful propaganda: keep repeating the message over and over and over.
Politics and the Garden of Eden
The only religious joke I tell is one I made up: the human race has Fallen and can't get up. Okay, so it's not very good, even for one of my always-bad puns. But as bad as it is, I think it is a true statement. Even a bad joke often has truth in it.
The idea that the human race is "fallen," that is, imperfect, exists in all religions. In the Western world it's because we were, whether figuratively or literally, kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
The story of the Garden of Eden is one of my favorite myths. When I say "myth" I don't mean it's untrue. Instead I mean that it is universally applicable to all people, in all places, at all times. A myth doesn't last for thousands of years unless it is true.
I've run across various interpretations of the myth. The one that always struck a chord with me is that evil came into the world through scapegoating: Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent, a symbol of envy. As the psychiatrist M. Scott Peck has pointed out, "Scapegoating is the genesis of human evil."
Being a symbol of envy, the serpent is also a symbol of hate. Envy and hate are two sides of the same coin. The myth tells us that people often blame their problems on other people because of envy and hate. If there is one sentence that describes the biggest problem with humanity, that is it.
Refusal to take responsibility for one's actions, projecting one's problems onto others, refusing to forgive people when they're innocent (did Adam forgive Eve?), hate and envy: those traits are responsible for more evil in the world than anything else. And all of it in one short-short story.
Still, I think, there's more to the story than the above. What has been puzzling me recently is the part about Adam and Eve being naked but not ashamed. Then, when they realize they are naked, Adam becomes afraid and hides. The implication is they become ashamed because of their nudity. Not guilty, but ashamed. Fear and shame.
What does it mean? Some have claimed it's about young children, who have a tendency to run around naked until the day they realize they're not supposed to. There's truth in that view, but I think there's more. That "more" is the fact they feel shame, but not guilt.
Shame is based on what you believe people think of you. That's why Adam is afraid; he's concerned about what God will think. Guilt, on the other hand, is about the violation of an internal standard. Adam and Eve have no guilt; instead they feel shame.
There is not one word in the story of the Garden of Eden about guilt, only ones about shame.
When you have a person who has no guilt, but instead only shame, that person is known as a psychopath. A psychopath is in many ways a two-year-old in an adult body. They have no internal standards--no guilt--to guide them. They have no conscience. They are instead excruciatingly sensitive to others' opinions of them, even if they deny it. They are instead ruled by shame, embarrassment and humiliation, all of which are related to each other. Not surprisingly, they blame their problems on other people.
What the story of the Garden of Eden is saying is that there are relationships among shame, fear, hate, envy and scapegoating. People who are ruled by shame are always afraid of what others think. They think others are responsible for how they feel. As such, they project their problems on others and scapegoat them.
Those relationships can lead to violence towards others, sometimes mass violence, as in the case of the Nazis and Communists. Guilt tends toward self-punishment, as Dimmesdale did in The Scarlet Letter when he branded himself. Shame tends toward punishment of others, even if they're innocent. Not that any scapegoater thinks they're ever innocent.
How does all of the aforementioned apply to politics? Most--all?--politicians are not ruled by guilt. They're ruled by what others think of them--by shame, embarrassment, humiliation. Isn't one of the main reasons they go into politics because they're desperate for attention--to convince others to think well of them?
I have not seen George Bush show one iota of guilt about what he's done in starting a war under false pretenses. Since he's not ruled by guilt, then he must be ruled by shame, which he hides under arrogance and conceit--hubris. Pride on top, shame underneath. I've heard that saying many times.
Has Bush ever been ashamed about being an alcoholic ne'er-do-well son who failed at every job handed to him on a golden platter? I think he has. I think he's now covering it up with his belief that God not only chose him to be President, but also talks to him.
Is he touchy and prone to feeling humiliated? If he isn't, then why did he explode at a reporter when the reporter spoke French in front of him?
What about the (late?) Osama bin Laden? He, too, has shown no guilt over what he has done. He, too, comes across as arrogant. Does he use that arrogance to cover his shame and envy? His shame that the Islamic world is a thousand years behind the West? His envy of that world, so far ahead of his?
I think one of the reasons the World Trade Center was attacked was because of envy, to "bring us down." I don't think it was the only reason: another was to draw the US into a bloody, expensive guerrilla war until we withdraw from the Middle East, the way we withdrew from Vietnam after ten years. But I think envy was one of the main reasons.
Do any politicians ever feel guilt? Robert McNamara, who was one of the architects of the Vietnam catastrophe, and who has the blood of millions on his hands, has never shown any guilt about what he's done. But I'll bet he can be humiliated. Maybe that's why he's never seen anymore in public. What politician can tolerate being mocked and ridiculed?
Rumsfeld is another one who comes across as arrogant and lacking in guilt, especially when he told a soldier who asked about the lack of armor for Humvees, "You go to war with the army you have." Truly, spoken like a man who was a flight instructor and never saw a second's combat in his life.
Perhaps that's the main problem with politicians: instead of feeling guilt, they are ruled only by the potential of being humiliated. When I saw Bill Clinton say to Peter Jennings, "Don't go there" when Jennings suggested Clinton was terribly concerned with what others thought of him, I saw a man without guilt, but painfully sensitive to being exposed and humiliated.
A theory I've read--several times--is that some cultures, generally Eastern ones such as Japan, are more shame-based that guilt-based. Western cultures tend to be more guilt-based, although shame and guilt exist in all cultures. Being shamed, embarrassed or humiliated is "losing face." Roughly speaking, it appears to be the difference between an "individualist" guilt-based culture and a "collectivist" shame-based one. Perhaps this explains the casual atrocities perpetrated by Japanese soldiers in World War II, far exceeding anything American soldiers did.
Doesn't nearly every tribe in the world--whether primitive "ones" or modern-day "ethnic groups"--teach its members not to feel guilt for what they do to those outside the tribe? That those outside the tribe are considered less than human? Yet, these people can often be mocked and humiliated. Perhaps shame comes before guilt in the developing conscience.
I am reminded of a story by Alexander Cockburn about Norman Podhoretz.
"...back in the days of Camelot, [Podhoretz] conceived a passion for Jackie Kennedy and came to believe that somehow, against all the odds, she secretly reciprocated his yearning. Eventually, at some cocktail party he cornered her and pressed his suit. She gazed at him as though he was a centipede on her sleeve, and said icily, 'Why, Mr. Podhoretz, just who do you think you are?' Not long thereafter the jilted Poddy began his long trek to the right."
Podhoretz, like his son William, is a warmonger who believes in sacrificing any number of innocent Americans in wars they support. They have no guilt, but they can be shamed and humiliated, as Norman was humiliated by Jackie Kennedy. I believe the same applies to people like Rush Limbaugh, William Bennett, Max Boot, David Frumm, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz: all lack guilt, all can be humiliated. All have never quite grown up.
Some years ago I saw one of Hitler's uniforms. I remember two things: it was on sale for $20,000, and that Hitler was a short, thin, frail man. Rumor has it he only had one testicle. How did those things make him feel? Ashamed, fearful of being exposed--of being naked? Envious and hate-filled? Blaming his problems on others? Of wanting to remake society and make everyone equal, so he would never feel inferior and humiliated anymore? I think the answer is more than "perhaps."
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in Leftism Revisited, perceptively wrote that Hitler was tortured by inferiority complexes and easily offended. Obviously he had a terror of being humiliated, of being shamed. But did that terror extend to feeling guilty? There is no evidence that it did.
Stalin had even more problems than Hitler. He, too, was short and frail, in addition to being badly pockmarked, with a withered arm and fused toes on one foot. When he gained political power did he, like Hitler, use it to overcome his fear, his humiliation, his hate, and his envy? Pride on top, covering all those unbearable feelings underneath?
It makes more sense to me to imagine Adam and Eve being about four years old: they lack of guilt, but can be shamed and humiliated. They refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and instead blame others. For children, it's a stage they go through. When adults act that way, I am reminded of Thomas Hobbes' comment: "The evil man is the child grown strong."
The story of the Garden of Eden is telling us we must always be on the lookout for someone who has little or no guilt, and is instead ruled by fear and shame, envy and hate. By someone who will not forgive, ever, who wants revenge, and who blames their problems on others. Those traits, covered up by hubris, are characteristic of those who seek political power, to the detriment of the entire world.
The idea that the human race is "fallen," that is, imperfect, exists in all religions. In the Western world it's because we were, whether figuratively or literally, kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
The story of the Garden of Eden is one of my favorite myths. When I say "myth" I don't mean it's untrue. Instead I mean that it is universally applicable to all people, in all places, at all times. A myth doesn't last for thousands of years unless it is true.
I've run across various interpretations of the myth. The one that always struck a chord with me is that evil came into the world through scapegoating: Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent, a symbol of envy. As the psychiatrist M. Scott Peck has pointed out, "Scapegoating is the genesis of human evil."
Being a symbol of envy, the serpent is also a symbol of hate. Envy and hate are two sides of the same coin. The myth tells us that people often blame their problems on other people because of envy and hate. If there is one sentence that describes the biggest problem with humanity, that is it.
Refusal to take responsibility for one's actions, projecting one's problems onto others, refusing to forgive people when they're innocent (did Adam forgive Eve?), hate and envy: those traits are responsible for more evil in the world than anything else. And all of it in one short-short story.
Still, I think, there's more to the story than the above. What has been puzzling me recently is the part about Adam and Eve being naked but not ashamed. Then, when they realize they are naked, Adam becomes afraid and hides. The implication is they become ashamed because of their nudity. Not guilty, but ashamed. Fear and shame.
What does it mean? Some have claimed it's about young children, who have a tendency to run around naked until the day they realize they're not supposed to. There's truth in that view, but I think there's more. That "more" is the fact they feel shame, but not guilt.
Shame is based on what you believe people think of you. That's why Adam is afraid; he's concerned about what God will think. Guilt, on the other hand, is about the violation of an internal standard. Adam and Eve have no guilt; instead they feel shame.
There is not one word in the story of the Garden of Eden about guilt, only ones about shame.
When you have a person who has no guilt, but instead only shame, that person is known as a psychopath. A psychopath is in many ways a two-year-old in an adult body. They have no internal standards--no guilt--to guide them. They have no conscience. They are instead excruciatingly sensitive to others' opinions of them, even if they deny it. They are instead ruled by shame, embarrassment and humiliation, all of which are related to each other. Not surprisingly, they blame their problems on other people.
What the story of the Garden of Eden is saying is that there are relationships among shame, fear, hate, envy and scapegoating. People who are ruled by shame are always afraid of what others think. They think others are responsible for how they feel. As such, they project their problems on others and scapegoat them.
Those relationships can lead to violence towards others, sometimes mass violence, as in the case of the Nazis and Communists. Guilt tends toward self-punishment, as Dimmesdale did in The Scarlet Letter when he branded himself. Shame tends toward punishment of others, even if they're innocent. Not that any scapegoater thinks they're ever innocent.
How does all of the aforementioned apply to politics? Most--all?--politicians are not ruled by guilt. They're ruled by what others think of them--by shame, embarrassment, humiliation. Isn't one of the main reasons they go into politics because they're desperate for attention--to convince others to think well of them?
I have not seen George Bush show one iota of guilt about what he's done in starting a war under false pretenses. Since he's not ruled by guilt, then he must be ruled by shame, which he hides under arrogance and conceit--hubris. Pride on top, shame underneath. I've heard that saying many times.
Has Bush ever been ashamed about being an alcoholic ne'er-do-well son who failed at every job handed to him on a golden platter? I think he has. I think he's now covering it up with his belief that God not only chose him to be President, but also talks to him.
Is he touchy and prone to feeling humiliated? If he isn't, then why did he explode at a reporter when the reporter spoke French in front of him?
What about the (late?) Osama bin Laden? He, too, has shown no guilt over what he has done. He, too, comes across as arrogant. Does he use that arrogance to cover his shame and envy? His shame that the Islamic world is a thousand years behind the West? His envy of that world, so far ahead of his?
I think one of the reasons the World Trade Center was attacked was because of envy, to "bring us down." I don't think it was the only reason: another was to draw the US into a bloody, expensive guerrilla war until we withdraw from the Middle East, the way we withdrew from Vietnam after ten years. But I think envy was one of the main reasons.
Do any politicians ever feel guilt? Robert McNamara, who was one of the architects of the Vietnam catastrophe, and who has the blood of millions on his hands, has never shown any guilt about what he's done. But I'll bet he can be humiliated. Maybe that's why he's never seen anymore in public. What politician can tolerate being mocked and ridiculed?
Rumsfeld is another one who comes across as arrogant and lacking in guilt, especially when he told a soldier who asked about the lack of armor for Humvees, "You go to war with the army you have." Truly, spoken like a man who was a flight instructor and never saw a second's combat in his life.
Perhaps that's the main problem with politicians: instead of feeling guilt, they are ruled only by the potential of being humiliated. When I saw Bill Clinton say to Peter Jennings, "Don't go there" when Jennings suggested Clinton was terribly concerned with what others thought of him, I saw a man without guilt, but painfully sensitive to being exposed and humiliated.
A theory I've read--several times--is that some cultures, generally Eastern ones such as Japan, are more shame-based that guilt-based. Western cultures tend to be more guilt-based, although shame and guilt exist in all cultures. Being shamed, embarrassed or humiliated is "losing face." Roughly speaking, it appears to be the difference between an "individualist" guilt-based culture and a "collectivist" shame-based one. Perhaps this explains the casual atrocities perpetrated by Japanese soldiers in World War II, far exceeding anything American soldiers did.
Doesn't nearly every tribe in the world--whether primitive "ones" or modern-day "ethnic groups"--teach its members not to feel guilt for what they do to those outside the tribe? That those outside the tribe are considered less than human? Yet, these people can often be mocked and humiliated. Perhaps shame comes before guilt in the developing conscience.
I am reminded of a story by Alexander Cockburn about Norman Podhoretz.
"...back in the days of Camelot, [Podhoretz] conceived a passion for Jackie Kennedy and came to believe that somehow, against all the odds, she secretly reciprocated his yearning. Eventually, at some cocktail party he cornered her and pressed his suit. She gazed at him as though he was a centipede on her sleeve, and said icily, 'Why, Mr. Podhoretz, just who do you think you are?' Not long thereafter the jilted Poddy began his long trek to the right."
Podhoretz, like his son William, is a warmonger who believes in sacrificing any number of innocent Americans in wars they support. They have no guilt, but they can be shamed and humiliated, as Norman was humiliated by Jackie Kennedy. I believe the same applies to people like Rush Limbaugh, William Bennett, Max Boot, David Frumm, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz: all lack guilt, all can be humiliated. All have never quite grown up.
Some years ago I saw one of Hitler's uniforms. I remember two things: it was on sale for $20,000, and that Hitler was a short, thin, frail man. Rumor has it he only had one testicle. How did those things make him feel? Ashamed, fearful of being exposed--of being naked? Envious and hate-filled? Blaming his problems on others? Of wanting to remake society and make everyone equal, so he would never feel inferior and humiliated anymore? I think the answer is more than "perhaps."
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in Leftism Revisited, perceptively wrote that Hitler was tortured by inferiority complexes and easily offended. Obviously he had a terror of being humiliated, of being shamed. But did that terror extend to feeling guilty? There is no evidence that it did.
Stalin had even more problems than Hitler. He, too, was short and frail, in addition to being badly pockmarked, with a withered arm and fused toes on one foot. When he gained political power did he, like Hitler, use it to overcome his fear, his humiliation, his hate, and his envy? Pride on top, covering all those unbearable feelings underneath?
It makes more sense to me to imagine Adam and Eve being about four years old: they lack of guilt, but can be shamed and humiliated. They refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and instead blame others. For children, it's a stage they go through. When adults act that way, I am reminded of Thomas Hobbes' comment: "The evil man is the child grown strong."
The story of the Garden of Eden is telling us we must always be on the lookout for someone who has little or no guilt, and is instead ruled by fear and shame, envy and hate. By someone who will not forgive, ever, who wants revenge, and who blames their problems on others. Those traits, covered up by hubris, are characteristic of those who seek political power, to the detriment of the entire world.
The Goddess of Vengeance and Murder
pay more attention to myths than anything else. I don't pay attention to 99% of the Ph.D.s from Harvard and Yale and Princeton, all of which will someday disappear, the sooner the better. Those are the kinds of the "Best and Brightest" who got us into Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan.
One of the most perceptive of old myths is the Greek one of Hubris followed by Nemesis. The full sequence is Koros to Hubris to Ate to Nemesis.
Koros means the surfeit which attends a base man who has too much, say money and power (this means base people are far more prone to hubris than normal people). Think of Robert Mugabe. For that matter, think of most politicians, almost all of whom (no matter how charming) are morally corrupt and have money, sex, drug and alcohol problems. Add political power to all those other problems and it's us who pays for it, not them. It's amazing that people—Mass Man, meaning Mass Morons—keep falling for the lies and mendacity of politicians.
After Koros comes Hubris—the God of Arrogance and Insolence. These days the word used is "grandiosity," a disorder in which the afflicted think they're far, far smarter and far, far better than everyone else. Thinking they've been chosen by God, or, if they go crazy enough, believing they are a god. History is full of leaders like this, all of whom are convinced they are justified in their behavior, and none of whom have any guilt.
After Hubris comes Ate, which is a kind of madness or folly. It happens when the hubristic get challenged, when they're told they are emperors with no clothes. It's when they go crazy and in their moral blindness start slaughtering people.
Next stop? Nemesis. Nemesis is generally translated as "destruction," but it really means "vengeance." Indeed, Nemesis is the Goddess of Vengeance.
Vengeance, or revenge, comes from *other people, *directed towards the hubristic. It happens when they are oppressed and humiliated and mocked to the point they rise up, overthrow and kill their oppressors, then hang them by their heels from lamp-posts.
What the Greeks noticed is the same thing the Hebrews noticed, when they wrote that "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
The Hebrews also noticed the importance of shame, which is just another word for humiliation or ridicule or mockery. The shorthand these days is "being dissed."
In the story of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve are naked and without shame, since they have no self-consciousness. Notice the first thing they feel is shame, not guilt. This means shame comes before guilt, which is not mentioned at all in the story.
For a long time I've thought Adam and Eve were about three years old... lacking self-consciousness, running around naked, blaming their problems on other people. For little children, does shame come before guilt? Perhaps. That's been my experience.
Guilt is when you feel as if you are oppressing others; shame is when you feel they are oppressing you. Shame is what leads to murder, not guilt. The murder is supposed to erase the shame; revenge is supposed to make the murderer 'whole' again.
Both the Greeks and Hebrews noticed how shame leads to murder. That's what Hubris followed by Nemesis means.
Shame leading to murder is also illustrated by the story of Cain and Abel, who are Adam and Eve's children. The first recorded murder in history, that of Cain killing Abel, is caused by humiliation. God literally disses Cain by rejecting his sacrifice, and Cain, humiliated, blames it on Abel and gets revenge by murdering him.
The social scientist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years interviewing prisoners, said he always heard the same story why they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was "He dissed me" or their children, wife, parents, friends. Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel.
Humiliation leads to revenge and murder. Cain and Abel. Hubris followed by Nemesis. Pride goes before destruction. The stories are the same.
How do these stories apply today? The United States has been humiliating and insulting the Islamic world for about 70 years, supporting Israel no matter what it did, and overthowing the governments of Islamic countries and installing its own puppets (think the late Shah of Iran or even Saddam Hussein, who the U.S. helped install and supported for many years).
Osama bin Laden said the attacks on 9-11 were "a copy" of what the U.S. had been doing to the Islamic world. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were revenge—vengeance—caused by several decades of humiliation and disrespect. Cain and Abel. Hubris followed by Nemesis.
Is it any wonder so much of the world despises the government of the U.S.. the way it has spent over a century bombing, invading, conquering and oppressing so many countries? Humiliating and degrading them? Treating them with contempt and disdain?
George Washington had it right in his Farewell Address. Trade with other countries, but otherwise stay out of their business. Early American coins even had "Mind Your Business" engraved on them. We lost those wisdoms a long time ago.
Will any government ever listen to the wisdom of these old stories? Or course not. Hubris is also blindness. And so this fallen world of ours, chock-full of sleep-walking people, will continue on this cycle of humiliation and murderous revenge as long as the human race is around.
One of the most perceptive of old myths is the Greek one of Hubris followed by Nemesis. The full sequence is Koros to Hubris to Ate to Nemesis.
Koros means the surfeit which attends a base man who has too much, say money and power (this means base people are far more prone to hubris than normal people). Think of Robert Mugabe. For that matter, think of most politicians, almost all of whom (no matter how charming) are morally corrupt and have money, sex, drug and alcohol problems. Add political power to all those other problems and it's us who pays for it, not them. It's amazing that people—Mass Man, meaning Mass Morons—keep falling for the lies and mendacity of politicians.
After Koros comes Hubris—the God of Arrogance and Insolence. These days the word used is "grandiosity," a disorder in which the afflicted think they're far, far smarter and far, far better than everyone else. Thinking they've been chosen by God, or, if they go crazy enough, believing they are a god. History is full of leaders like this, all of whom are convinced they are justified in their behavior, and none of whom have any guilt.
After Hubris comes Ate, which is a kind of madness or folly. It happens when the hubristic get challenged, when they're told they are emperors with no clothes. It's when they go crazy and in their moral blindness start slaughtering people.
Next stop? Nemesis. Nemesis is generally translated as "destruction," but it really means "vengeance." Indeed, Nemesis is the Goddess of Vengeance.
Vengeance, or revenge, comes from *other people, *directed towards the hubristic. It happens when they are oppressed and humiliated and mocked to the point they rise up, overthrow and kill their oppressors, then hang them by their heels from lamp-posts.
What the Greeks noticed is the same thing the Hebrews noticed, when they wrote that "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
The Hebrews also noticed the importance of shame, which is just another word for humiliation or ridicule or mockery. The shorthand these days is "being dissed."
In the story of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve are naked and without shame, since they have no self-consciousness. Notice the first thing they feel is shame, not guilt. This means shame comes before guilt, which is not mentioned at all in the story.
For a long time I've thought Adam and Eve were about three years old... lacking self-consciousness, running around naked, blaming their problems on other people. For little children, does shame come before guilt? Perhaps. That's been my experience.
Guilt is when you feel as if you are oppressing others; shame is when you feel they are oppressing you. Shame is what leads to murder, not guilt. The murder is supposed to erase the shame; revenge is supposed to make the murderer 'whole' again.
Both the Greeks and Hebrews noticed how shame leads to murder. That's what Hubris followed by Nemesis means.
Shame leading to murder is also illustrated by the story of Cain and Abel, who are Adam and Eve's children. The first recorded murder in history, that of Cain killing Abel, is caused by humiliation. God literally disses Cain by rejecting his sacrifice, and Cain, humiliated, blames it on Abel and gets revenge by murdering him.
The social scientist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years interviewing prisoners, said he always heard the same story why they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was "He dissed me" or their children, wife, parents, friends. Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel.
Humiliation leads to revenge and murder. Cain and Abel. Hubris followed by Nemesis. Pride goes before destruction. The stories are the same.
How do these stories apply today? The United States has been humiliating and insulting the Islamic world for about 70 years, supporting Israel no matter what it did, and overthowing the governments of Islamic countries and installing its own puppets (think the late Shah of Iran or even Saddam Hussein, who the U.S. helped install and supported for many years).
Osama bin Laden said the attacks on 9-11 were "a copy" of what the U.S. had been doing to the Islamic world. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were revenge—vengeance—caused by several decades of humiliation and disrespect. Cain and Abel. Hubris followed by Nemesis.
Is it any wonder so much of the world despises the government of the U.S.. the way it has spent over a century bombing, invading, conquering and oppressing so many countries? Humiliating and degrading them? Treating them with contempt and disdain?
George Washington had it right in his Farewell Address. Trade with other countries, but otherwise stay out of their business. Early American coins even had "Mind Your Business" engraved on them. We lost those wisdoms a long time ago.
Will any government ever listen to the wisdom of these old stories? Or course not. Hubris is also blindness. And so this fallen world of ours, chock-full of sleep-walking people, will continue on this cycle of humiliation and murderous revenge as long as the human race is around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)