The rational reduction

Growing up, the TV was black-and-white and full of Westerns. It was easy to tell who was who, for the good guys wore white hats and bad guys black ones. It has taken me years to get over it.

As we saw last time, with the introduction of perspective, points-of-view became the way to see and understand the world. More than one is possible, of course, so the question immediately arises as to which perspective, which point-of-view is the right one. We quickly moved from a simple what-is to what-is-right. A reasonable person will tell you that it depends: when seen one way, thus-and-so is right; when seen another way, something else is right. Our sensibilities regarding right and wrong, however, don't like to deal with more than one "right". Something is right, or it is not. In other words, we developed a whole way of thinking based on what is right. The good guys, in the white hats were right; the guys in the black hats were wrong, and a whole lot of effort was put into making sure we youngsters understood the message. Like I said, it's taken me years to get over it.

The competition between competing points-of-view leads rather quickly to relativity. Everything becomes relative, it depends on how you look at it, and in the end, it means that any point-of-view is as good as any other point-of-view, one opinion is as good as any other. But this is intellectually and emotionally unsatisfactory, we feel deeply uncomforatble. We long for clarity, for surety, for certainty.

And here came the cavalry or the posse to the rescue. It was all very clear: the good guys were right because they could draw faster and shoot straighter; they were stronger and better fighters; they overwhelmed the dark forces with strength, intelligence and, well, violence. Might made right. Apart from all the possible color associations that one can spin off of this, it was by power and sheer force that right was established. And in all this sorting of the wheat from the chaff, of the good from the bad, of the right from the wrong, we added an even more insidious degree of certainty ... at least those of us who were still in doubt. It was not simply a matter of either/or, either you're right or you're wrong, no, it became a matter of you're either with us or you're against us.

Not only was this thinking approach taken to an insane degree in recent American political history, what we find quite prevalent this days is the thinking that if you don't agree with the right point-of-view, you automatically subscribe to its opposite: if you are for the Palestinians, you are against the Israelis; if you are for gun control, you are against guns; if you are against the death penalty, you are for allowing violent criminals to roam the streets; if you are against GMO foods, you are an organic tree-hugger; if you are against casino capitalism, you must be a communist. Yes, it has come to this. And this type of thinking, this type of argumentation, which is way too prevalent these days, is dangerous, for it carries within itself its own seeds of destruction; it is by nature destructive thinking. It is this allegedly "rational" thinking that allows for the clearly irrational behavior we witness all around us: the destruction of the environment in the name of profit; the perpetuation of war and oppression in the name of freedom; the ... well, I'm sure by now you get the picture.

Our rationality is at an end. The rational reduction that I have experienced throughout my own lifetime has become, well, irrational.

Reference
Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)