The idea that what we think, believe, do; ought-to-be derived from some external authority - which is, in practice, always some institution/ organization/ corporation... some formal group of people - is something that we recognize in others, but seldom acknowledge in ourselves.
I had a friend who had recently become a member, or some kind of associate, of the UK Trotskyite "Socialist Workers Party"; and he described to me how things worked there, ideologically.
Whenever there was some big new news story - an invasion, an economic crisis, a strike, civil disorder - a meeting would be called at which the event was ideologically framed and explained, and members were told how The Party could make use of it: therefore what to think and do about it.
This is how communists work, and this has been well known and obvious to others, whenever any argument with them is attempted.
It is why communists can and do, in lockstep, make 180 degree turns of policy as required by Part expediency; as when Hitler made a pact with Stalin, then again when Germany invaded the USSR.
In 2020 there were several such 180 degree No-then-Yes instant turns: whether Testing was needed; whether Masking was needed; was Christmas to be cancelled?
Analysis, debate, argument was futile: what was false, wicked, unnecessary yesterday; becomes true, good and compulsory today - and this is all rational, consistent and absolutely necessary.
When authority lies with an institution, so does truth and legitimacy; so there are no valid grounds for dissent.
There is only either obedience, or just-punishment.
This is also, by somewhat different procedures, how churches work when they are powerful in the lives of people.
(This fundamental identity of control procedures is one reason why people - mistakenly* - assume that "ideology" and "religion" are the-same-thing - and that totalitarianism and theocracy are fundamentally identical.)
When some new "thing" emerges for which the church view is not immediately obvious; there is a some mechanism by which the churches framing, explanation and instructions are handed-down.
Because the church is the essential and only mediator of the divine; it is the ultimate repository of truth, beauty and virtue - so that all anyone absolutely needs to know is what the church thinks, and then to obey it.
Outwith which there is nothing but selfish, sin-rooted, individual will.
This model of institutional authority represents a world-view - a mode-of-consciousness - for which the ultimate responsibility for important attitudes, beliefs and behaviours lies in some external and formal social grouping.
It was (apparently) not always and everywhere thus, but it has been thus for recorded history: with ultimate authority variously - but always externally and institutionally - located.
The "job" of each individual in such a System is to internalize as much as possible of the approved views and ways of reasoning that characterize "that social institution" there-and-then given custody of his conscience; and when the answer is not obvious - to seek and follow appropriate guidance.
Such an external-authority-based set-up dictates the role of intellectuals in terms of the social institution.
The job of an intellectual in this scheme is that of a commissar: to learn, defend, and transmit the institutional view.
When there is dissent or opposition to the institutional view, the job of the intellectual is overcome it - by whatever means he can, by whatever means are effective - while staying within the institutionally-ratified assumptions, evidences and methods.
The point is that the intellectual's own thinking is in service of this task. He will not think in any way that might lead to another conclusion than that of the institution he serves.
This is why institution-serving individuals will never, under any circumstances, acknowledge or even discuss their fundamental - including metaphysical - assumptions.
They will only-and-always operate-from those assumptions; they will only assume the rightness of the institution they serve.
This is the cause of a feeling we must all have experienced, must all have come-up-against - even if our own thinking is in service to a church or other societal institution.
Perhaps the most usual encounter to evoke this feeling is with a bureaucrat who is trying to enforce the institutional will upon us; trying to get us into-line with the current strategies and priorities and behaviours.
We may be lured into defending our case for dissent or disobedience (or inadequate enthusiasm!), or arguing against the institutional POV; but we Will realize (later if not sooner) that we are just talking into sand.
Our interlocutor is not interested in what we think, not interested in the validity of our arguments - he already knows what we are supposed to think and do.
His only interest in our arguments is to refute them using institution-approved arguments, to bring our views into-line with institutional views...
Or else to discredit our perspective (usually by discrediting us).
Most of the people, most of the time, behave in this way - in all walks of life.
It might be most obvious in political ideologies, churches, and bureaucracies - but it is the same everywhere nowadays; including the areas I worked in: medicine, academia, teaching, and science.
This is proximately because in modern life all social institutions have become primarily bureaucratic; and all bureaucracies are linked to (and indeed form) the global totalitarian System.
But it is also because many people, and nearly-all intellectuals in particular, regard ultimate authority as residing in some social institution such as their ideology, or employer, or their church (or The System) - and see their ultimate job to be defending and propagating that institutional authority.
This reality is what underpins and causes the futility of argument; here and now.
Most argument that we encounter in the media and professionally, is between individuals "representing" institutions.
The main exception to this commissar-like situation, is when individuals are more or less "psychopathic"; when they are selfish, self-seeking, short-termist - and are using institutional camouflage - faked attitudes and assumptions, subverted/ inverted procedures etc), to pursue to their own personal agenda - seeking wealth, sex, power, fame, admiration; or whatever "turns them on".
Anyone who is seeking spiritual truth, trying to understand his own situation in this world and larger reality; anyone who seeks a religion and a way of living - will come up against this commissar or bureaucratic externalization of authority.
In effect; the seeker is supposed to strive for a situation in which he accepts the external authority of one church or another.
In practice; this means that the seeker is supposed to accept some external authority (e.g. the truth and validity of Church X) as the first step - from which all-else follows.
Because once a particular external institution is accepted as the fount of authority, validity, goodness and correct procedure - then the seeker can (and is expected to) hand-over his conscience and honesty to that institution.
From then on - his ultimate role in life, or at least the role that dictates what counts as ultimate - is to himself learn, defend, and transmit the institutional view.
It is difficult, it may be impossible, for any individual to find anyone who will engage on any other basis than that of first accepting (or being rhetorically-duped into accepting) the primacy of some external authority - some denomination, church or other institution.
Life becomes a choice between actually-existing social institutions.
Duty becomes a matter of serving the chosen institution.
And if you are not happy about this situation - you will probably have no alternative but to accept responsibility for yourself.
You can then expect to be attacked by everyone who serves any institution (i.e. almost everybody!)
But in a totalitarian-bureaucratic world where all social institutions are orientated towards evil; this path of personal responsibility is the only alternative to serving one or another (or several) organizations assimilated to the demonic agenda.
You real choice is between serving overall-evil body, heart, and soul; or seeking a direct and personal knowledge-of and relationship-with something better.
*"mistakenly"; because when religion is sincere, it is regarded by adherents as being ultimately spiritual and underpinned by the divine. This makes a difference. The question is how much difference - and in what ways different? The difference may be so feeble as to be ineffectual; the ways of difference may be for worse, as well as for better.
5 comments:
Great post! I wondered what you’re referring to here:
“ It was (apparently) not always and everywhere thus, but it has been thus for recorded history:”?
@Mia : I was referring to "a world-view - a mode-of-consciousness - for which the ultimate responsibility for important attitudes, beliefs and behaviours lies in some external and formal social grouping. "
In other words; there have been many times (and places) in history - especially when one goes back many centuries or even several millennia - when it was all-but inevitable that people would regard ultimate authority as being situated externally (e.g. a King, or a church). Because people simply thought that way and could not conceive the taking of personal responsibility for ultimates.
In other words, they inhabited a "group-mind" to a significant, even dominant, extent.
I believe the essential lesson of motherhood is to teach a woman, beginning with a codependent relationship and gradually moving toward a loving relationship that respects freedom and individuality. The reason she must start at codependence is because it is a fundamental aspect of female being, and that Jesus' offer for women is to transition from codependent (hive-mind) relationships to relationships of freedom-love.
I believe that bureaucracy is a man-made imitation of the hive-mind. Changeable fashion is an important security tool for hive-minders, like changing the password to ensure security leaks can be discovered. Men often complain about women's fashion changeability, because they don't appreciate how it makes it easy for women to see "red-flags", people not to be trusted.
The hive-mind and its imitation are not compatible with Heaven, but maybe it can be a starting point? Like a mother starts with a codependent baby, with the invitation to gradually individuate?
It doesn't make sense to me that men would need this since they are mentally solitary to begin with, so they can directly begin to relate through love. They only seem connected to the hive-mind through relationship to individual women, so maybe a 'true church' is simply an expediency for men to help their women (mother, wife, daughters) to navigate the transition from hive-mind toward relationships of love with individuals? Women require an extra step that gradually removes them from the hive-mind so they can gradually form freedom-love relationships, without ever being fully mentally solitary.
@Lucinda - I would distinguish, more than you do here, between what is innate to women, and what is a contingent product of particular times and cultures.
For example, I would regard bureaucracy and fashion as hijacking and malignly-redirecting some instinctive aspects of human nature.
Yes, everybody needs starting points (and every person's path is different - at least every person I have known is different); and also starting points can be - and it seems often are - exactly where people get stuck, dig in, refuse to move a step further.
It is seldom possible to refute anyone who argues that something they do (or want to do ) is a step in the right direction; yet how seldom this turns out to be the case"! And how seldom this is acknowledged!
"exactly where people get stuck"
True! And so sad.
In my view, it's part of the tragedy, certainly when it comes to having kids, that people will likely continue to believe that life cheated them out of the love they 'deserved', instead of taking on the challenges of personal adventure.
I don't disagree with your distrust of church-iness being able to lead anywhere. I sat through a talk yesterday given by a woman with a they/them adult daughter and she spent quite a large amount of time telling a story about the daughter as a baby, using they/them the whole time, and how she learned about God's love by crying when the baby was crying. I suppose that's part of what I was trying to explain in my comment. The emotionality of the church mommies is so profoundly disordered, and the poor church husbands seem to just want the wives to feel better. These are moms with an average of 4-5 kids, so they aren't directly part of the depopulation agenda. The moms who are the saddest collect more and more tragedy. Inevitably. And people have to walk around on egg-shells. Part of the temptation seems to be the ability to hold others hostage.
Well, that's why I avoid the church women's organization as much as possible. It's just too sad, and there doesn't seem to be any up-side, only down-side. But I guess I still hope the women find some escape from the crazy hive-mind.
Post a Comment