Following my recent discussion on the personality disorders (here) I suggest that people tend to cloak their genuine selves in public. Now that the Surveillance Culture pries into personal thought, and what’s worse, treats individuals as objects to be scrutinized and categorized like bugs, the objects of scrutiny fear it, and hide. Der maechtig Hebel, ist Nacht und Nebel. As people’s genuine and personal presence in the public arena becomes frozen out, individuals become more likely to express themselves in a stereotypical manner to the outside world, often an ingenuine manner. It is acceptable to state things clearly and unambiguously nowadays, and then retract them as though they were ambiguous. That is one degree of social deference to lying that is popular in many aspects of our culture.
Of course, people with innate predisposition towards a personality disorder will tend to manifest their predilection in public. Those who are more “normal,” however, can adopt a cloak, mask their inner nature behind an adaptive personality trait, showing a faux disorder for public display.
For example, meticulousness is an admirable trait of one’s accountant, at least at work. While on vacation, it is not beneficial, but perhaps an impediment. But when under duress, perhaps it might be a shield. Why not?
In a world where individuality is suspect, a personality disorder provides anonymity. One is simply categorized, and cast into a bin; all the better for staying anonymous. This has been the manner of survival in many totalitarian environments. It will serve for ours, if we continue to progress towards inhumanity.
I wish to write more about what I call The Bleak Trivium. Early Western study followed the schematic of learning to be founded upon three straightforward concepts: Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric. The foundation was on the general categories of each; for example the structure of (Western European) languages in general, rather than the grammar, e.g. of Slovenian.
In our modern ignorance, which we imagine to be rebellion, we have ignored these fundamentals, and practiced the inverses of the principles of the Trivia in our public discourse. I called this curriculum The Black Trivium, The Dark Trivium, et cetera. I really involves an incompetence with the first principles of the Trivium, and one author, to me, makes a fine example of the wielding of the Bleak Trivium in his writings. I hope to develop this discussion here soon.
But, back to our public lives; we eagerly follow stereotypes, cartoons, sketches rather than whole humans, in our public arguments. Every political assertion is met with agreement of a sort; there is no immediate denunciation but just a pleasant and kind patience towards the demonstrated argument. David Duke? I see his points. Any great or tyrannical man? When there is an equal respect of all beliefs, there is no dislike of any.
For example; the “Politically Correct” view of the American intelligentsia about Islam fails, not because is based on a deeper understanding of the religion and thought of the Muslim world. It is as ignorant of Islam as any other stupid argument about Islam. It is absurd because it grants equanimity to bad ideas by virtue of diversity. It grants what it sees as awful and inhuman ideas as deserving of equal respect. This is nonsense.
I do not see any legitimacy in the cartoon Islam as most Americans (mis)understand it. I do not see any legitimacy in the fundamentalist Islam of any certain sect that is brought to prominence by virtue of social accident. I do not see any need to respect the (perceived) subjugation of women in Islam by virtue of its “differentness.” It is entirely permissible to loathe on first principles something that is bad.
As an outsider, I perceive “Muslim” subjugation of women to be irreligious and bad. I do not see anything in “Muslim” thought that can legitimate the subjugation of women, and I believe that those who follow Islam and subjugate women are being hypocrites to their own religious beliefs.
The scimitar-wielding poultroon, the imbecile with the suicide vest, the malignant narcissist who shoots up the French magazine headquarters, gambles it all on the hope that there IS no Al’Lah, no God; or if there is, that the weak-heartedeness of Allah towards giving mercy might triumph over the writings in the surahs that Al’Lah, God, despises hypocrisy. This is all these erstwhile ‘jihadists’ have to bet on. They had best hope for the absence of God. Their expected fate by measure of their own professed faith, is dismal.
I am convinced of the other way around – I do not believe in the tenets of Islam. Nevertheless, I do not see Al’Lah as one to be treated insolently, as these clowns do.
The intelligentsia of the West, though, are greater fools; they will assume that such a great faith, such as Christianity or Judaism, can do no better than the twits who claim it in the news. It would be as thought the Catholic Church were given veneration by virtue of the child molestation of their ministers. The intelligentsia will not even do this – but not from moral repugnance, but due to the lack of “diversity” offered Christianity.
If we are all cartoons in public, we have mechanical behavior and predetermined thoughts. We are locked into personality traits which do not encompass the span of humanity. We cannot grasp the great things of the world; we are trapped in the web of lessers. That is our public discourse, our choice of public personalities. At our best, we are lesser.