Thursday, January 13, 2011

Moral Entropy and the Eviction of Mind Parasites

One reason why the left has the advantage in our civil war is that the battle always takes place on their turf. We never have the home field advantage, for the simple reason that politics is not our home. Rather, it is an alien place we would prefer to avoid.

But when the left is engaging in one of its ritual witch hunts, and one happens to be a member of the group they are hunting, they leave one no choice but to descend down into the lunar 'batmosphere with them. You know the story. It's like mud wrestling with a pig. You're both going to get dirty, except Krugman enjoys it.

For the leftist, politics is his religion, his purpose, his filthy pigpen. It is impossible to match that level of frenetic energy when one has a life, not to mention a religion. Which is why it is so ironic for the leftist to distort the plain meaning of the first amendment in order to fuse his religion with the state while barring others from even coming near it. How convenient.

Yes, the left has a true monotheopoly. Among the many reasons I would never send my son to a public school is that I don't want him to undergo a radical secular brainwashing and soulectomy. I'm very happy with his Catholic school, where there is a clear separation of church and state, faith and science. While he's getting a fine religious education there, they don't confuse it with the science or history, and certainly not with biology. No authority figure in his school pretends that boys are girls, nor will he hear the word "gender" bandied about by sexually ambiguous castrati and castrata.

Here he is on a recent field trip, bringing food to day laborers, not because he advocates illegal immigration, nor because he's a hateful anti-tea party fanatic, but in order to cultivate simple apolitical compassion. Nor is he learning to offload his compassion to the state. What a concept! If he were in a public school, they'd no doubt have the students write letters to Obama asking him why Governor Brewer is so mean.

As mentioned in yesterday's post both grace (↓) and the Lie (L) are loose in the world: "just as grace enters the human plane 'from above' and then recirculates in unpredictable ways, even causing it to operate in people who specifically reject the very possibility, the Lie works in the same way. The Lie is a kind of anti-grace, as it were, which also circulates in the psychic economy and which will be picked up by susceptible host-minds."

Bolton puts forth the provocative idea that "having children may be a way of off-loading one's karmic debts. Those who dislike this doctrine usually ignore its equal implication that rewards earned by the virtues of ancestors must also be inheritable." Thus, "the act of inheriting life at all must mean inheriting both goods and evils from the ancestors, and to expect to receive only good is a result of sentimentality" (emphasis mine), similar to how DNA is loaded with ancestral experience.

Yes, we are created with an immortal soul. This soul is unique and present in its totality from the moment of conception. However, no different than our bodies, it will require various conditions, circumstances, and experiences in order to actualize its powers. Clearly, some circumstances are more conducive to the soul's actualization. Is this unfair? Perhaps, but there is simply no alternative that is compatible with the freedom -- and therefore dignity -- that is intrinsic to the soul. In short, if not for bad luck, we wouldn't have no luck at all.

Let's take the example of the depressed mother who is unable for whatever reason to appropriately respond to her infant. She herself is afflicted by a mind parasite (whether somatic, psychic, or spiritual) that is causing her depression, or addiction, or whatever. Where did it come from? In all likelihood she has no idea, as she's never thought about it, certainly not in any systematic way. Therefore, her only way to process it is by doing to her child what was done to her, effectively projecting the parasite into her child, who may or may not be able to deal with it in his life.

I cannot tell you how often I have seen this and similar scenarios play out through the generations. Most psychologists see a few patients over a longer period, but the nature of my work in forensic psychology means that I see a lot of patients -- especially including patients you'd never otherwise see in the mental health system -- for a short but intense period, in which I review their entire life.

You'd be surprised how often these people reveal things they have shared with no one else in their entire lives -- not their spouse, their best friend, or their priest. As a result, I have a somewhat unique vantage point on mind parasites and their inter-generational transmission. I can see how they vary in different cultures and different nations, and the diverse personal and collective strategies for dealing with them. You might say that I am well aware of the dark side of diversity and multiculturalism.

Bolton suggests that real personal power results from the eradication of alien powers inhabiting and taking up room in one's personal (subjective) space: the gradual accumulation of this power is a function of "the progressive exhaustion of the hostile reactions which were occasioned by one's own negative potentialities and the ones which one had inherited." There are all kinds of dynamic (self-organizing) entities in our heads that have no business being there, and which it is necessary to identify in order to distinguish between us and them.

You may call this the distinction between self and ego, or sacred and profane, or worldly and divine. The important point is to notice the distinction. Dennis Prager wrote an insightful essay that touches on this, noting that for the left there are no Sacred Texts. This is the result of a genuine spiritual infirmity that prevents them from perceiving a whole dimension of reality -- a dimension that is clearly more "real" than the secular world which can only be a declension from the spiritual.

You may recall that the present discussion of mind parasites is taking place in the greater context of free will and moral causality (karma), and how the latter does not operate in an immediate way, as on the plane of physics. Thus "when cosmic reactions are due, they do not necessarily happen all at once to everyone who deserves them, or in easily recognized patterns" (Bolton). This applies to both personal and collective history.

I'm guessing that in small, premodern communities, the workings of the Law -- i.e., karma -- were much easier to discern. But in the modern world, there are so many additional layers of causality, that reactions to actions can go unappreciated because they are so delayed and distorted. It's probably similar to voting. Your vote obviously has much more impact in your local city election than it does nationally. You're the same size, but your local vote -- and therefore your causal influence -- is larger and more direct.

Whatever the case may be, Bolton insists that the Law must exist, because it is rooted in a much deeper principle, "namely, that the world-order is moral, despite all contrary appearances." I suppose it can get confusing, because if the whole cosmic system is to be moral, there will necessarily be seeming exceptions that may fool us into believing this isn't the case.

However, in this regard, it may be analogous to the second law of thermodynamics, which -- according to physicists -- can never be violated on the macro scale, local appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. More to the point, according to chaos theorists such as Ilya Prigogine, life could not exist in the absence of entropy.

However, there is no unsane reason one cannot turn this formulation back on its feet, and affirm that entropy can only exist in a cosmos that is fundamentally ordered. In other words, it seems obvious that entropy is always parasitic on order, not vice versa. And where did all the a priori order come from? Physicists are not permitted to say, since -- ironically -- they necessarily operate in a closed system of their own invention, in which no influences from outside the system can intrude. This is an assumption that science can never prove, on pain of making Gödel spin in his grave, which cannot happen, since he has been at complete thermal equilibrium since 1978.

I personally believe -- and Petey agrees with me -- that it is preposterous to suggest that the deep order -- say, those 20 or so mathematical parameters that govern the character and development of the physical universe, discussed in the Coonifesto -- is accidental. Such an accident cannot happen, for the same reason I flunked trigonometry in the 12th grade -- that is, you cannot pull higher mathematics out of complete emptiness and utter indifference. (This follows from the big bong theory, which I don't have time to explain at the moment.)

No, it's worse than that. It's like insisting that the cosmos was created from "nothing" instead of Nothing -- which makes all the difference, "difference" being the very opposite of entropy. You could even say that God makes all the difference, which is certainly what Genesis teaches, in that the very first act -- the act which makes any subsequent action possible -- is to separate. Just try googling "genesis separation chaos judaism," and watch how google instantaneously organizes the chaos of cyberspace into metaphysical truth at your fingertips, just like a perpetual echo of Genesis-is-is-is-is....

Again, we are not denying entropy, only putting it in its proper place. For one thing, if entropy did not exist, we could not have freedom, for the universe would either be the pure order of a machine or a pure absence of order -- a chaosmos, not a cosmos. Entropy is a middle term without which we could not get from here to there, not a final term that ultimately allows us to go nowhere.

For example, the reason why the Commandments were necessary was to keep moral entropy in check. Left to his own devices, man will morally dissipate. But this surely doesn't mean that moral dissipation is the inevitable end of man. Rather, the soul may journey toward perfection because of entropy. It is not the final or formal cause, but it is a necessary one. (Just as the soul is prior to the body, but nevertheless requires a body in order to actualize its powers.)

Man always lives his life in relation to value, "value" being the essence of quality, which can never be reduced to quantity. To live in relation to value is to live teleognostically and to therefore allow oneself to be shaped by influences from "above" or from "the future." Now, are these transcendent values permanent truths, like the truths of mathematics, or are they just worthless artifacts to be worn away by the sands of entropy? Is it true that we shouldn't murder, or is this commandment no more real than a rainbow?

In the real world, entropy exists. In fact, you could say that this is one of the lessons of Genesis 3. There is no entropy in paradise -- no death, no knowledge of duality, no separation from the Principle, no place whatsoever for the left (as they say, in heaven it's not needed, and in hell it already rules).

So in the end, absolute predestination is indistinguishable from strict scientism, which are both just sloppy solipsisms and slippery solecisms. To quote Bolton, "When everything is believed to happen because of natural forces alone without relation to value," we become what we are not, which is to say, a closed system. And if actions and their consequences have no moral value, then existential entropy is absolute and man can never become what he is: "A world in which anything could happen to anyone would be one in which the natural order was inherently amoral, and the commandments of religion would not make any concrete difference. Far from meaning an openness to Providence, it would really mean no Providence at all" (ibid).

The "good news" of religion is that the world is not a closed circle, that it is not an eternal prison, that it has an exit and an entrance.... "Perdition" is to be caught up in the eternal circulation of the world of the closed circle... [whereas] "salvation" is life in the world of the open circle, or spiral, where there is both exit and entrance. --Meditations on the Tarot


ge said...

"...absolute predestination is indistinguishable from strict scientism, which are both just sloppy solipsisms and slippery solecisms."
a-and slaverous soul-scissions?

Van said...

"One reason why the left has the advantage in our civil war is that the battle always takes place on their turf."

Probably too quick to post, from the first paragraph, but this one drives me nuts so often. People think they've won something when they get the income tax rate lowered from 30% to 28%, but all they've done is further cement the principle that the government has a more primary claim on their lives than they do.

Argh. Back to reading.

JP said...

Killing is always one of those fun debates.

"Thou shalt not kill."


"Thou shald not murder."

Van said...

"No, it's worse than that. It's like insisting that the cosmos was created from "nothing" instead of Nothing -- which makes all the difference, "difference" being the very opposite of entropy. "

I was sent an article this morning, on the evolution of programming. You don't need to know anything geeky to find the interest in it, he begins with the computational void of the big bang which the first programmers had to deal with, darkness upon the deep,

"... the ultimate reductionism: the analog signal running through a wire carries a nearly infinite flow of information, and we crush that down to just 256 possible values ticking along at a fixed clock rate.
...You can look at this as restarting the complexity progression. We start at the complexity of chemistry and, using a bunch of clever engineering, we build a virtual world of data simpler than even basic physics.

The first programmers were essentially physicists moments after the Big Bang, studying an artificial cosmos. At the time, the universe was so simple that all they had to work with were the program equivalents of quarks: ones and zeroes. Their work resembled particle physics: lots of math, lots of reasoning from first principles. Lots of building things from scratch..."

, and he works his way on up through how programs have developed through ever more complex forms of science. What's telling, even as he bumps up against it, he is never able to make it out of that closed system to philosophy and metaphysics... even snickers at those who try for some semblance of such.

As below, so belower.

julie said...

Speaking of order, I was just noticing this morning one of those simple things that probably is taken for granted, but which to me demonstrates rather beautifully its presence:

One of my neighbors is hammering something. Whatever is being done, it's done the old-fashioned way, and in the steady measures of his work lie the roots of rhythm. By which I mean, have you ever noticed that to hammer a nail properly it almost always takes four strokes? Usually with a bit of emphasis on the last beat, but not always. Three just sounds incomplete, even if it's enough to get the nail all the way in: just listen, or think of all the times you've nailed something and added an extra tap because there's something inherently satisfying - dare I say, ordered - about that fourth stroke. Any more than that and you know you're doing it wrong; not enough force, coming at a bad angle, correcting an error, etc.

thump, thump, thump, THUMP!
Pause for two or three measures, then repeat. It should be annoying, but actually it's kind of comforting. You can tell by the sound that there's a competent craftsman going about his work, and probably whatever the job is, it's being done right, and from a scatter of nails and wood an ordered structure is being formed.

No wonder Jesus was a carpenter.

Gagdad Bob said...

Did anyone else think it was in questionable taste to allow Ward Churchill to do the invocation at last night's griefapalooza?

julie said...

I didn't actually watch, but saw the programming lineup, and yeah... it seemed a little weird. Maybe a lot weird; given the racial and cultural makeup of pretty much everyone involved (that I've seen so far), would they have chosen a Buddhist monk or even a Gospel choir? Not likely, because those don't pertain to the victims. So why a Native American chief?

Then again, it's also a mystery to me why the concession stands needed to be open, among other things, so what do I know?

julie said...

Whoa - just watching, out of curiosity.

Yeah. Weird.

debass said...

"Did anyone else think it was in questionable taste to allow Ward Churchill to do the invocation at last night's griefapalooza?"

They need to perpetuate the Lie with leftist frauds.

JP said...

I thought it was the first campaign rally for the 2012 elections.

julie said...

Judging by the t-shirts they were handing out, I think you're right.

Van said...

Gagdad said "Did anyone else think it was in questionable taste to allow Ward Churchill to do the invocation at last night's griefapalooza?"

I tuned in late and remained blissfully unaware such a friend was in any way involved. After a moment, I paused and then Tivo's through the rest.

But either way, it was not a memorial. People don't cheer, clap, let alone boo (Gov. Brewer) and hand out T-Shirts. It was a rally. You'd think the Wellstone 'memorial' would have taught them something, but that would assume a lot I guess.

mushroom said...

Van, you should know -- Wellstone might have been a "fail", but Carnahan was a success. You don't have to give a rat a pellet every time to get him to keep pressing the bar.

God makes all the difference

That right there is profound, I don't care who you are.

I like the thought that entropy is part of what gives us our freedom. Yes, it's annoying that the marbles don't separate by color, but I can live with that as long as we can rock and they can roll.

Jack said...

Ward Churchill? Really? You aren't kidding?

Gagdad Bob said...

Kidding. It was Big Chief Gasbag of the Dopi tribe.

Gagdad Bob said...

When he prayed for our brothers who slither on the earth, I thought he was talking about trial lawyers.

mushroom said...

That makes perfect sense as we had Hopey and Dopi.

And now WV gets in on the act and says we need to go the Wardeo.

Jack said...


julie said...

Jack, if you watch the video I don't know if it's such a relief. This guy spent more time talking about his Mexican ancestors (from five generations ago; at some point can't you just call yourself American? Cripes!) than he did actually invoking anything. For that matter, he also gave the impression that he's not really a tribal leader or spiritual leader particularly, he just happened to know some of the invocations. I could be wrong, and maybe he was just being humble, but if it was an act it was very convincing.

Anyway, it came across as being a case where the university needed a rep to make them look good, and the closest they had to any kind of spiritual leader type was this one professor (with the bonus that he's Latino/ Native, so it's all multiculti), so why not have him do it?

Bob, re. the slitherers, lol. I couldn't bear to watch that long, but I would have thought he meant the coyotes...

Jack said...

Just watched Sarah Palin's response to the Tucson shootings. I think she did a great job.

Regardless of whether someone might disagree with her, it still baffles me exactly why she triggers such hostility in certain people. It's taken for granted here where I live, that she is somehow stupid and evil and even a danger. None of which was even remotely in evidence in her video response to Tucson.

It simply baffles me.

Gagdad Bob said...

Liberals only attack what they fear.

ge said...

yeah I never knew the pronunciation was "Tuck-ShOON!"

Magnus Itland said...

I haven't seen any responses from the far left eco movement that has relentlessly claimed that there are too many people in the world and we should do something about it. (Like blowing up schoolkids for fun, for those who remember that video.)

Or perhaps words only have consequences when they come from conservatives. Wouldn't that be nice.

Gagdad Bob said...

That is a profound point. It illustrates what I've said all along, that liberals do not comprehend the intellectual content of conservative arguments, but instead respond only to the emotions they project into them. Thus, if you oppose government quotas, you are a racist. If you don't want the government to impose a new definition of marriage, you are "homophobic." If you prefer limited government, you want to shoot people in Tucson. Etc.