Saturday 11 March 2017

Equality and the paralysis of Thought.

It is never an easy thing to be critical of one's own culture or society. There are numerous rather selfish reasons for this. Firstly one's audience is likely to be intolerant of criticisms, particular in the current age of equality and capital-empowerment. Today social  hierarchies, be they of morality or intellect are either not tolerated or are more generally ignored.  These times, particularly in the west, the only hierarchy that really matters is that of wealth or political power and influence.  In many developed countries religious thought and architecture have been usurped by the shopping mall and the more immediate power we derive from money.

There are few priests, no 'wise' men or women and no shamans in society, they have been stripped of their magic and also their perceived wisdom.  This is perhaps a good thing, and if not, at least it may be a first step towards a modern age of enlightenment?  Wisdom and magic are incompatible; and yet the one 'wisdom' is rarely believed without some magic, some pyrotechnics for the masses. Within this very incompatibility of wisdom and magic lies the distance that must be travelled towards any 'new' enlightenment, or palpable evolution in our thought.  

Today, without an old 'wisdom' to contradict, to conflict with,  thought, and even creativity become paralyzed.  This process is nowhere more relevant than in modern Ireland.   Arguably, a decline in the hegemony of Catholic power and 'wisdom'  has been accompanied by a decline in our creativity as a people. Today where are the Beckett's and Joyce's,  the Behan's, O'Casey's, and Wilde's, who might rage against the old wisdoms? 

Some might argue that in  Ireland today; art and creativity are more characterized by mimicry and imitation.  The artist must find  new demons to conquer. The old 'wisdoms' may be dying, and in this respect the fight, the passions the antagonisms (out of which creativity is often born), have paled into parochial squabbles with die-hards of the old faith.

Amidst the decline of  old 'wisdom' in its manifest forms, of religion, priests and shamans etc., a new doctrine of Capital and Democracy has arisen. This new creed  brings power to the consumer and the near ubiquitous belief that social ‘equality’ goes beyond one's 'rights' and extends to the point of  ones own  opinion being 'equal' to everyone else's.   As my American friend reminds me: "Opinions are like assholes: everybody’s got one!".


Today our collective notions of equality particularly in respect of the 'equality of opinions', have arguably extended onto the horizon of what Freud referred to as 'mass psychogenic delusion'.  Today this new equality and independence, manifests in new nationalisms, in 'making America great again' in the independence of Great Britain from the European Union.  As a recent BBC documentary of the same name points out,  this is 'the Century of the Self'.


In reality, opinions are  not all equal, no more than men and women are equal.  The 'wise man' exists despite his banishment, or reluctance to come down from the mountain.  Unfortunately without a supernatural magic, without a 'God' we have  no absolute authority by which to verify his credentials. We have  no universal yard stick for the measure of any wisdom greater than that of  our own inflated sense of self:  the divine afflatus of the self. We give the potential wise men of today a brief perusal before we conclude that they are perhaps little wiser than ourselves, and  we are not entirely incorrect, for only magic can really distinguish a Messiah. 

Without this 'magic',  without the impossibility of a practical a tangible God, to replace the imagined one that is so under siege; we have as yet, no hope of attaining a social or even private equanimity.  The further we move from magic the less likely this might be achieved.  And yet, we need not rely upon magic to humble us. If glimpsed for an instant; our mortality, our inequality, the infinite nature of both our ignorance and our potential, these realities should be magic enough.

"All animals are equal but..." 

George Orwell:  Animal Farm


Notwithstanding the equality of our rights and the right to be heard, some people within society are very stupid and have very stupid ideas. Zizek has stated his belief that "Humanity is OK but 99% of people are boring idiots!"  I would be inclined to agree with his rather flippant social analysis. Stupidity (at least in Zizek's world) is ubiquitous, and he would probably concur that education may only provide a weak and partial immunity, in some cases it might even be the cause of the malaise.  

All too often the
real difference between us, this latter-day 'ism', is readily and often dismissed as a; racism, sexism, elitism, intellectualism, or some such. However, 'truth' (that ephemeral contrivance of ours), cares not for the politically correct, and today the truth of our inequality (should it be pointed to) is very often dismissed, and deemed offensive,  particularly by the stupid.  

What often gets confused in respect of equality are rights. One reason our so called ‘inalienable’ rights exist, is indeed because equality is an impossible physical reality. The only occasion when two things are entirely equal is when they are actually one and the same thing.  What our rights entitle us to, is the assumption that the State will in general  not 'see' the inequality between us, and (with the exception of illness or handicap) will offer us equal treatment and consideration at least in respect of justice and entitlement. This is of course the theory towards which the reality ostensibly aspires and limps towards. 

Within the universe no two objects are the same, no two actual measurements are ever precisely  the same, and no two people are the same. Because of this we must strive for the impossibility that citizens might  have equal consideration before the arbiter of the state and the big other of social institutions. There is an important  distinction between the concepts of discrimination and the recognition of difference or inequality. To recognize inequality is distinct from a 'discrimination' which is to apply a value-judgment to that inequality. The value judgment remains apart from the actual inequality, the inequality is the reality, and the discrimination is them imagined relative importance of that inequality. A caveman may have indiscriminately  burned diamonds as readily as coal.

A provocative  example of our modern predilection to render all things equal would be in the context of contemporary notions of homosexuality. Homosexuality has moved from the realm of profanity, mortal sin and even criminality, to that of a superficial or artificial type of equality with its heterosexual counterpart. A suggestion that the two are not 'equal' even upon practical grounds, may bring the opprobrium of the masses and the near immediate charge of 'homophobia'. In the recent past a homosexual male was likely (and still is likely in some primitive environs) to be subject to violence and brutality. The tables have turned somewhat and within the context of contemporary social dialogue a stated distinction  between heterosexuality and homosexuality is now almost equally likely to be the subject of hate and discrimination.

To bring the analogy to an extreme let us consider the following:  Anal intercourse between two males cannot upon its own merits be considered as 'normal' relative to its heterosexual counterpart. This assertion does not mean that one might then 'discriminate' between either forms of intercourse.

Note that the author (me) felt the immediate need to clarify or to distance myself from the readers immediate potential revulsion at the assignation of 'abnormal' to the act of  anal intercourse. It is likely that I as the author of these words, immediately  felt the potential  revulsion of the reader, and thence the urge to apply the subsequent caveat, that 'the assignation of abnormal' does not entitle one to a negative discrimination.

 It is not so much within the dialogue and the language of this particular description that we find the nascent stirrings of a homophobia and or discrimination, but rather in the immediacy of the emotion that is felt upon reading that which is potentially homophobic or racist. Within this reaction this private feeling about the right or wrong of a particular distinction, lies our preconception, the basis for our subsequent opinion (acceptance or revulsion) upon that which we have just read or heard.  It is in the deeper preconception that the racism or the homophobia is born.

In my own immediate  application of the caveat,  and in what I am guessing or conceiving to be going on in the mind of the reader (your mind),  my own particular homophobia is exposed.  In doing so I not only expose my own preconceptions (that which is thought before that which is expressed) but also those of the reader in the context of my having to apply said caveat in order assuage his  ostensible revulsion at his own particular preconception.

Not surprisingly therefore, some of the most racist statements often begin with the assertion, "I am not a racist but...."  The ensuing racist appendage (if there is one) may or may not be racist, however the racist nature of the pre-conception is certain, as it  has been openly declared, in the immediacy of the  initial denial.

Because one is not 'normal', this does not equate with an inferiority that might then give some validation to a discrimination.  The assignation of 'normal' to straightforward heterosexual intercourse is itself  not wrong, nor is the assignation of ‘abnormal’ to anal intercourse, (whether it be heterosexual or homosexual) wrong nor is it homophobic. Certain types of language can no longer be used to describe certain behaviours, because some, may find this language offensive. In this silent restriction upon language we sense the machination of the true fear.  In a pure sense it is not the language that we should find offensive, if indeed it is being used correctly. Rather the 'offense' may often be the veil  concealing that which is truly offensive.

All human beings  like to do, and feel compelled to do abnormal things at times.  It does not make those abnormal things normal if enough people do them. Discrimination is the end result of a preconceived process.  Racism or homophobia do not arise from discrimination, but rather from the preconceptions that give rise to the discriminations. Discrimination only becomes possible when we assign notions of inferiority or superiority to a particular inequality. For a discrimination to actualize it must contain both a perceived inequality and an assignation of relative-merit to that inequality. This assignation of merit arises out of the 'pre-conception', one that is distinct from the inequality itself.  

It is here, within this realm  that the 'ism' the racism or homophobia is founded.  In natural systems such as evolution, the distinction, the inequality the 'abnormality' is essential, and of no lesser or greater 'value' than that which might be deemed to be the norm.   Smoking is abnormal, drinking and eating to excess are abnormal etc etc.  Nature is entirely dependent upon the abnormal as it is the basis of the evolutionary process. In the context of evolution, 'normal' will get you nowhere and thereby equates with paralysis. The attempt to 'normalize' language is the practical application of paralysis to thought.

 Within  the broad social aspiration towards equality, we find an attempt to preserve a silent pre-conception, an innate and inherent value system, that converts the  inequality, into a discrimination, a phobia and an 'ism' of some kind. Contemporary notions of 'equality' encourage this artificial and pseudo-equality between essentially  unequal things. Equality allows us to 'have our cake and eat it too'. Thanks to equality we can readily preserve the preconception of our collective  racism and homophobia, whilst wearing the evangelical garb of the puritan. 

Yet the impossibility of our position often manifests in greater, more complex and more brutal forms of racism and homophobia.  It is not surprising therefore that we in the West should witness the rise of 'ism and phobia' on a scale unseen for almost one hundred years.  Paradoxically, this new and more politically potent 'ism',  arises  out of a modern social dialogue that remains in public opposition to  such discrimination.  The conflict between current American policy towards immigrants, and the rights and  equalities enshrined within their 200 year old constitution, might serve to elucidate the regression.


Within our contemporary notion of 'equality'  is contained a preservation of the innate value system that allows inequality to persist and continually manifest in the form an indefatigable discrimination. 



In truth, outside of conceptual mathematics there is no such thing as equality.  It is not the recognition of inequality that is wrong, rather the hierarchy that we ourselves apply to the recognized inequality.  It is this, all too often private hierarchy, that allows  the most homophobic to become blind to his own homophobia, in spite of his language to the contrary.

It is the reconciliation of the modern media-driven social discourse with the private hierarchy, that has allowed for the reality of a society that, upon the surface appears to be obsessed with equality, whilst on a deeper level, an inverse reality directs our social mechanics.  When it manifests itself,  this deeper reality demands  repeated legislation if it is to be mollified.  Equality in this sense is the itch that becomes more itchy once it has been scratched. The attempt to release ourselves from the problem, is in essence a principle cause of the malaise.  But of course the saint and the bigot will both bitterly complain that we must do something!

Unfortunately there is always a serious lag between our public language and our deeper thinking.  This is entirely understandable as the one is public and the other is private; so private at times as to be unknown even to ourselves.  In this sense, the racist and the bigot are often safer company than their opposite; the former
are perhaps merely misguided and honest,  whilst the latter may be equally misguided and entirely dishonest.  In this sense too, having racist bigotry at the helm of a political system, may not be as regressive as it might appear. Leadership within such a society may be the progressive and evolved expression of the mass preconception; an ostensibly just society with an elected but unjust king in whom is manifest the deeper truths that the majority proclaim a revulsion to. Leaders like Putin and Trump are not anomalies, they may perfectly respect an ideology and a thought that is representative of a bigger and entirely deeper social and psychological  reality.

The deeper problem with equality is that the private hierarchies that give rise to the 'isms' and the phobias have been driven underground and are more difficult to see. They manifest in private places and in the privacy of the voting booth.


Whilst on the one hand we wish to be free from the authority and discriminations of the state, we submerge in this fiction of equality and morph it into a notional equality between ourselves, an equality of everything.  In doing so, we have oppressed even further the capacity for impartial judgement and in spite of  our 'liberty and equality' we have become progressively more rigid in our thinking. 

Because of the rise of ‘the equality of everything’, we are now compelled to see inequality in silence and make many distinctions in private, or in the veritas of vino. A rather public  example of this private subversion process can be seen in the use of the word 'nigger'. A white man cannot and indeed should not refer to a black man as a 'nigger'.  However a black man can refer to another black man as a 'nigger' without eliciting the same negative social response. Indeed the use of the slur is all the more acceptable if the black man has an affinity to the other black man upon whom he applies the slur. In many respects the same word if used by a white man is considered a slur and if used in a similar context by a black man to refer to another black man it is seen as a term of endearment. The assignation of the rights and wrong of the application of the slur contain a racism that is deeper and perhaps more universal than we might first imagine. In the assignation of the use of the word to 'blacks only' is contained an inverse racism it is this deeper and more universal racism that is the true evil that should be feared.

Regardless of who should  apply the slur, it carries with it a sad reference to the brutality and degradation that  was endured under slavery. When used between blacks the reference is a veiled reminder to each of their shared history as having once been brutally oppressed.  When used by a white man the word carries with it the reminder that the white man was the perpetrator of a brutal oppression.  Equally to the black and white man, the term itself does not indicate that he or she is oppressed or is an oppressor, (many white men opposed slavery)  and yet for the white man the slur carries the implication that he or she may remain sympathetic with that oppression. Why should this be so? It is only because many (possibly most) white males (despite their language) do still cling to some deeper racisms, that the term is not and cannot be used by others.

It is (in addition to social decorum) a private racism, a mass  pre-conception,  that deprives us from applying the slur with the same sympathy, regret or affection that it carries between blacks. It is in essence  our collective racism that encourages us in our vigilance against the use of the word.

The private hierarchy is reinforced and yet it removes the world from us and makes us more alien and more alone with our thoughts, more obese more anorexic and more unhappy.  Although the 'ism' is publically denied by most of us, it cannot conceal itself when the comedian causes it to burst forth in the convulsion that occurs when a deeper truth is caused to mix with one that we superficially hold to be true. We refer to this experience as  laughter. He who would disagree is the rare creature who has never laughed at a 'joke' that has been constructed upon the foundation of our private 'isms'. The laugh is an affirmation of the incongruity between the public self and private self, the cry is the manifest expression of the loneliness and isolation that lies at the interface between the public and private interface. When we cry we cry alone with the reality of the private self  and the reasoning behind the cry is the painful realization that we are indeed alone. The difference between the  laughter and tears is merely the context within which the experience has occurred.


We are today only beginning to realize the consequence of treating our children equally, of preserving them from the 'harsh' realities of judgement. We see a generation of drug dependence and ennui, arising out of this passion of ours to preserve them from the reality of their inequality, we cosset then from distinction and heap praise upon them for muck and mediocrity, a praise that we may have been denied and only lately come to realize was the spur to our achievement and success.  We may soon realize that we can shield no one from reality, we can merely close our eyes for a moment and await the consequence. We may one day come to inquire of the social consequence of this equality. We might ask if the drug lord or the criminal had been informed of his or her inequality without bias, rather than having been squeezed into the same uniform and subjected to the same curriculum and uniform educative process, perhaps he or she might not have been ashamed by the truth of his inequalities, perhaps the dentist and the drug lord might not then feel the continued need to prove a particular point to themselves and to the world in the collection of wealth of status and of material superfluity. 

To say that in General Asians are more industrious than many other cultures, would not be permitted in polite conversation, and yet in my own work as a physician of some twenty years I rarely encounter Asians seeking time off work on the basis of sickness or illness, or seeking sickness benefit from the state. ( I may be wrong but I doubt if my admittedly  'racist'  observation is unique) There are Asians in almost every town and village in Ireland, and yet they present less to doctors and hospitals because they place a higher value upon work and possibly a lesser value on sickness than do other cultures including our own. Post colonial cultures are somewhat acclimatised to having a master who must be beguiled or overcome. Post colonial nations preserve post colonial mind-sets that transition into dependence upon the new master that is the state, the term we apply to this transition is socialism.

This particular notion, that of distinction between race and culture, despite its validity or invalidity,  must be kept from the social discourse or at least from my own discourse, lest I be immediately be branded as a racist.

Momma says stupid is as stupid does. Forest Gump

When one refers to the paralysis of thought in our society (or any society for that matter), this is, in essence is a euphemism for the stupidity of society. Our collective and individual stupidity; is something that we do not like to consider, particularly in an age that has empowered us with technology, titles, and badges of self importance. It is very easy and very commonplace for us to loose sight of and even become completely blind to our collective and individual stupidity.

Our collective stupidity is vehemently denied, to the point of an angry reception  for any potential reminder of its glaringly obvious existence. In this age of delusion we are at least fortunate to have death and mortality as reminders that the 'power-tools' and the epaulettes of modernity are for the most part illusory.  Yet also in death we attempt to remove the truth of mortality from the horizon of our thought. Women are encouraged to 'fight the seven signs of ageing', and are increasingly incapable of growing old with grace dignity and beauty. Dying is too often removed from the family home and confined to some 'comfortable' medicalised shed for the dying.

Beyond the transience of material possession the only thing that may contain any potential significance beyond the grave, is the time we spend in the cultivation of mind and intellect. We can say with certainty that our material selves and the materials we spend our life accumulating will be of no use when we are dead, and yet even the devoted atheist cannot apply the same certainty to the infinite nature and potential of his or her own thought.

One must recall poor old Socrates when he reminds us that the most intelligent are found amongst those who can at least  recognise how stupid they are, this requires humility and introspection the antithesis of our age of empowerment. And indeed there is an infinity of that which we do not know when we compare it to the crumbs of intelligence and knowledge that we often parade about with the pomp and circumstance of the naked emperor.

"The wisest of you men is he who has realized, like Socrates, that in respect of wisdom he is really worthless. That is why I still go about seeking and searching in obedience to the divine command, if I think that anyone is wise, whether citizen or stranger, and when I think that any person is not wise, I try to help the cause of God by proving that he is not."     Plato

Of course the recognition of ones ignorance does carry with it the injunction that one should attempt to address the deficiency.  Therein lies the ‘will to live’,  Nietzsche’s ‘will to power’ the improvement of ones mind as a purpose devoid of instinct and artificiality and public self' need for belonging..How do we recognise our own stupidity and that  of others?

This is really difficult, not because stupidity is hard to see it is certainly is not, but rather because we are wont to see it everywhere else except at home. Personally I find it most difficult to see my own stupidity.  This is one of the reasons that I remain married to my wife, and it is one of the reasons that I can't understand why she remains married to me (she is probably a bit stupid when it comes to love and relationships?)

Indeed to see it we must define it, and there are many definitions for foolishness. One unsavoury and yet near universal way  to define it would be to equate it with ‘superfluity’.    This is an unsavoury definition because it is perhaps too inclusive, too close to the bone. The superfluities within our lives, the wastes and pointlessness can be referred to as our stupidities. However in order to proceed on this bases we would need a 'point' to our lives beyond the simple application of biological function. Indeed it might be argued that balanced diet, warmth, shelter, some intellectual stimulation, some exercise and a smidgeon of love from or contact with our fellow man might be all that is required in order to live. Another might argue that, the point to life is spiritual or religious. The Doctrine of old Socrates is however universal and beyond argument. A point or purpose to all 'points' is the cultivation of ones mind and in order to fill a hole one must first be conscious of the fact that it is empty and thus capable of and in need of filling. Therefore we might safely assume the universal point to life is the satisfaction of ones instinctual imperatives in respect of survival and the cultivation of ones mind in respect of philosophy. The two are mutually dependent and the cultivation of ones mind will depend upon the satisfaction of ones instinctual imperatives to belong and to live. However the cultivation of ones mind will have an immediate effect upon how one satiates ones instinctual imperatives.  


A more palatable definition might afford one the opportunity to point the finger away from the self. However, if we run with this as a definition, if we then state that the 'degree' of stupid in our lives may be proportional to the degree of superfluity, we might then begin to see the magnitude of our stupidity and that of other people.

To be clear superfluity is a synonym for waste. Something that is essentially pointless or meaningless or unnecessary.  In this respect we all have unnecessary things in our lives, sports, television, fashion and fat etc,  might all qualify as superfluous.  However there are degrees of separation and whilst all of these entities might be considered superfluous to basic human existence and biological function, they may equally be considered essential in some measure. Fat is indeed superfluous but a total absence of same is incompatible with human life.  Therefore in order to determine what is superfluous we must apply our faculty for rational judgement and this capacity is influenced by our philosophy or our wisdom. The wiser we are the greater degree of cultivation that has been applied to the mind the more certain we can be sure that we are deciding correctly upon the necessary or superfluous nature of that which occupies our time and thoughts.

Whilst watching sport might be a superfluous  to ones survival it is conducive to ones social life as such it will permit social interaction, meeting of people, cement ties between people, allow for the release of aggression etc etc. In this respect participation, observation, consumption or enjoyment of some sport can be validated as conducive to a good life. The superfluity lies not merely in the object being consumed but the degree of the consumption itself.  If one garners positive social interaction with ones peers through watching football matches, clearly watching current matches as opposed to matches on different continents by unknown teams would be superfluous to ones purpose and might eb (in the context of ones purpose) safely referred to as stupid. Once again the degree to which one is wedded to positive social interaction with ones peers can be considered superfluous should the consequence of that devotion outstrip other important imperatives such as the attending to ones personal hygiene or the cultivation of ones mind. In like fashion failure to attend to ones hygiene or to the cultivation of ones mind will render it increasingly difficult to achieve the positive social interaction that one has become devoted too and in this sense we see that the cause of much private and social pathology can be traced to the imbalanced satisfaction of instinctual desire.

I have dealt with the hierarchical nature of human instinct in my book Being and Belonging and as such will speak no further on the subject here.

There is a hidden  mean for each individual in respect of many commodities, one that he or she can and will throughout life subjectively and objectively cross.  It is a line that one crosses and un-crosses many times as one fluctuates about this mean.  There are times in the midst of a balanced life when an individual may watch too much sport, too much television or posses too much fat.  When the possible benefits are outstripped by the consumption or possession.  At this point sport becomes superfluous and consumption becomes an act of stupidity.  It is only through the application of wisdom derived from a cultivated mind that the individual might ask himself what is the real nature of the 'need' that remains unsatisfied through the act of eating or watching sport etc, what is the nature of the hole that is not being filled by the excess that is being applied. This is a question that we do not like to ask for indeed our lives are defined by excess of every kind and indeed it is in our excess, our love of the material, our over indulgence in sex food or drugs of some kind or others that we will find the superfluities of our lives, the stupidity of our lives and indeed the doors behind which lie the unhappiness and unfilled misunderstood instincts that lie at the cause of our private unhappiness.

Clothes and attire are principally for the purpose of warmth and insulation from the elements, yet  to a greater or lesser degree we invest identity into the form of our clothes and that of others.  We call this investment 'fashion'.  Some might argue that fashion is  superfluous in its totality and indeed when one considers the actual social, financial and environmental cost of this 'fashion industry' it is hard to argue for a utility in the midst of an overwhelming waste and superfluity.  Whilst there are perhaps no arguments that might justify fashion as an industry that can stand over its overall cost to humanity and the environment;  this reality does not negate the legitimacy of the  human desire to attire ourselves in a manner that is not only warm, cool, or comfortable, but also pleasing to the eye.  Fashion is unquestionably  superfluous, however it is a stupidity to which we are all wed to a greater or lesser degree. The same might be said of sport or music etc. An education system of the future will cause is to enquire into the nature of our desires and to validate them in an honest manner. Until then however we remain oblivious to the reason behind desires and behaviours. We are encouraged not to look further into the desire because economies, capitalism and current social function is entirely dependent upon the continued promulgation of desires that are met by some form of consumption. Consumption is the point at which real stupidity of action begins, for most of us consume without knowing why we consume, what we are consuming for and what is the need we are really attempting to satisfy through the consumptive act.

As such it is not the idea of fashion or its presence in our lives that is stupid but rather the degree to which we commit ourselves to this superficial superfluity.  Once again the arbiter of this need, is the enlightened and or cultivating mind. A sensible wardrobe of  quality attire  that might outwit the pathetic whim of fashion and still remain pleasing to the eye. Such is the wardrobe of the less stupid.  Clothes who's form and function and utility are complemented by each other, clothes that will last, and do not need annual or seasonal replacement  by an army of children labouring  in sweatshops etc.   These would be the hallmarks of one who is relatively less stupid when it comes to the issue of clothing and fashion.   The same pragmatics can be applied to possessions of all kinds, however this is a pragmatism that has little social currency in a world that is becoming increasingly fashion conscious, increasingly desirous of superfluity and as such increasingly stupid.

In this sense also superfluity does subsume those beliefs and ideals that are pointless, unnecessary, and un-true into the realm of the  stupid. Adherence to beliefs that cannot be substantiated is a reflection of our stupidity.   Once again it is not the belief or the untruth, that is the stupidity but rather the degree and inflexibility with which the particular untruth is adhered to. I am not a practicing Catholic, and yet I maintain a vague and unformed belief in a 'consciousness' that is greater than that of mankind. This particular entity is often referred to as 'God'. There are as many Gods as there are minds who might conceive that god, like other Gods, mine is not Universal and is perhaps unique to me. I am not a good Christian yet I believe that there may well have been a good man called Jesus, who indeed was the founder of a pragmatic sort of philosophy that works rather well on the rare occasion that it can be lived up to. Indeed it was Nietzsche who asserted that the last Christian may have died on the cross.  This God concept of mine may perhaps be my stupidity, for I have not encountered any  sound evidence for such beliefs and yet these are beliefs that are important to me. My stupidity comes to life in the degree to which I allow myself to overlook the incompatibilities between my God and the reasoned execution of my existence.

For example I do not believe that this supernatural  consciousness, intervenes in the affairs of man with miracles, bleeding statues and bestowing wealth on one and poverty upon another. Therefore I do not fool myself into believing that my personal wealth relative to that of a hungry Somali, is the product of any supernatural blessings, it is the consequence of artificial borders that have been created by men to ensure that I can legitimise and preserve my wealth from others, in other words my God fantasy does not (I hope) permit me to delude myself about the fundamental immorality of my own private wealth. When I permit my God to allow me to delude myself I make the both of us look increasingly stupid.




All of our sufferings (I believe) are man made. Therefore I am confident  that although  my belief in the magic of a supernatural consciousness is quite possibly stupid, I do not let this potential stupidity evolve into a devotion to miracles and magic.  I admit to my potential stupidity, as I admit that my consciousness of the appearance of my clothes, their fashionableness is indeed a stupidity of mine. My love of coffee is perhaps another stupidity,  Yet  in my defence (if I might have one) in a relative sense I limit my stupidity by being conscious of it, and by allowing my consciousness of it,  to mitigate against its expansion into my life in cancerous forms. In this sense the future (if it is permitted to evolve) will look upon the present form of our education system to be laughable and primitive in the notion that children need mechanically learn anything prior to being taught how to actually think about things. How to understand who they are and what their real needs actually are. This can and never will be accomplished in the company of the reinforced delusion of equality.


As I write these words I can hear the voice of Nietzsche laughing loudly at my naiveté and the earlier suggestion that that which is untrue is necessarily superfluous. He would undoubtedly remind me that we do not place enough value upon untruth, and indeed for all of us we depended upon, we utilise and believe wholeheartedly in a myriad of untruths that are as valid if not more valid than the truth. We believe ourselves to be essentially 'good' people and we remove ourselves from the badness of the world because we assert this badness to be beyond our influence or control.   Only time and future generations will enjoy the privilege of dismissing todays truths as tomorrows fallacy, just as we revile dismiss and  laugh at the follies and fixed beliefs of previous generations.

Perhaps a definition of good sense might include a recognition of those truths that we are endeared and beholden to, that are actually untruths. To do so is not only to see ones stupidity but is to gaze into the future and laugh with the unborn.


Leaving aside the possible merits of today's untruths and our dependency upon them, assuming the objectivity to call untruth 'superfluous' might not be entirely philosophically sound, yet placing value in un-truth as Nietzsche merely compounds our stupidity regardless of the contemporaneous validity of that un-truth. It is merely the position of the truth in time and in the context of an evolution of thought that untruth might appear more important than truth. If we assume (and we can rarely assume) that thought is evolving towards a form that is 'true' rather than false, we can then simply assume untruths to be temporally valid and no more than that. We may presume that thought is evolving from the observation that the process of evolution seems to favour the persistence of truth over un truth and if given enough time true thinking may evolve into a supremacy above false thinking. Therefore  if we can reasonably 'prove' a belief to be untrue, then, for the purpose of our present exercise, we shall remain presumptuous enough to call that belief a superfluous and hence a stupid one. Bearing in mind that in a practical sense adherence to untruths may be essential to social function and or survival within the context of the current state of the evolution of thought.

If one has not yet begun to yawn, one might take the exercise further and bring to trial the sources of our truth’s . There are many beliefs that we hold to be true, but upon closer inspection prove to be the inverse.  The fact that these beliefs are untrue does not bother us, unless this is brought to our attention and we are accused directly or indirectly of being 'stupid', even more so if the accusation is made in the company of others. 

Those like myself who believe in a supreme or more elevated form of consciousness can often become offended when we are faced with the reality that there is little if any evidence to support this claim.  Yet it is one that we will not surrender easily.  I may believe that on balance my life is a reasonably moral one, and yet when I am reminded of my advertant and inadvertent immorality, the superfluous and entirely stupid nature of my wealth, or the unethical nature of my 'environmental foot print', or my failings with my children and people who have loved me etc etc,  I am likely to be offended by same.  The offence arises more out of the truth within the inspection rather than the lack of truth. I am far less likely to feel offended if I am accused of being a milk bottle or a giraffe, than I am if I am accused of failing as a parent. The fact that the truth is offensive to us should not cause us to further explore the truth, but rather the nature of the offense, for therein lies the real issue that is concealed. Often the real or deeper issue is not offensive at all. Yes I have been a bad father at certain times in my parenting career, I have done and said things that I regret, however my fear may relate to a fear of being compared to my own father, or my fear that I might be rejected or looked down upon by my peers because of my admission in respect of my bad parenting. The point being that the truth of my bad parenting is undeniable, yet I am offended by its exposure because of a fear that exposure may have upon what others think of me. As such I am not offended at the reality but rather at how that reality might be perceived by others. Admittedly I live much of my life and hold many of my beliefs to be subordinate to that which I believe to be the feelings of others towards me. Above and beyond 'the truth' is my instinctual imperative to belong to others. My public and much of my private self is devoted to this task, truth and or untruths are merely a side show of sorts.

Thus the exploration of my truths,  is perhaps a journey of personal introspection, one that is best conducted in private.  This of course is a journey that can only take place within the context of my humility, my recognition of the infinite nature of my stupidity and my desire to cultivate my mind so that it might be capable of the task at hand. This may indeed be the only task worth accomplishing within the short period of time that I am to exist for.

There are several types of truths.  There are the truths that other people inform us of , their truths and beliefs. These we often take more licence with, occasionally they inform us to change our own truths, occasionally they are dismissed, and if they concur with our own truths we often consider the purveyor of said truths to have some wisdom. Of course we must be careful in the assignation of wisdom to truths that we already hold because in this instance we are merely insisting upon our belief that we are not stupid. It is more likely that we will find the truth of ourselves in that we cause offence. And then there are the truths that we are informed of by various sources of media, these are arguably the least reliable and yet they are often the beliefs that shape our view of reality and are the truths that we remain committed to, and interested in regardless of their actual validity, their substance or motive. These are the truths of our world and they inform or more correctly they remind us of our assumptions pertaining to our place in the world.

In respect of these media driven truths, in my own case my most recent foray into this realm of 'truth' and 'untruth' began in the shower some weeks ago. We have at home a very nice plastic shower curtain that hangs above the bath. I am fond of it because it depicts a large map of the world with all of the countries named. It is surely not to scale and the continent of Africa takes up a large portion of it. Last week before a shower I watched the news and the on-going discussions about Trump and Obamacare. I also watched an Irish current affairs programme, discuss in detail the policies of Mr Trump his notions about immigrants and his plans to do away with Obamacare.


Whilst showering I considered the reality of how relevant the ideals of Trump are to the greater world, and what use if any the knowledge of Obamacare is to me, or anyone outside of the United States for that matter. As I meticulously attended to the importance of scrubbing cracks and crevices I contemplated the size of Africa indeed the size of the rest of the world as compared to that of the United states. I wondered at the countless millions of children upon the African continent who die each year from malnutrition and simply treatable diarrhoeas, the vast enormity of African problems, and the amount of money a western nation such as my own might spend upon pet food. I then wondered why my mind had been occupied with Trumps plans for the healthcare system of a country that is plagued with obesity and the problems of Western excesses.


I realised that what I had been watching on my media, was not really 'news', but rather a sort of mass entertainment an utterly irrelevant fiction created by those in control of media who wish to portray to people what they feel people might consume as news or current affairs. This had been fed to me in the guise of news and essentially the ultimate motive was to keep me interested enough so that I might also consume the intermittent advertisements that attempted to convince me of the merits of a particular brand of dog food.


Indeed even when I might shift my telescope to view the 'realities', or 'news' of what might be going on in my own nation. I am treated to a debate about ‘whistle blowers’ one that boils down to a tit for tat exchange between government and opposition , with one side trying to hold onto political power and entitlements and the other side attempting to bring the government down. This too is constructed in such a manner that might sell me a particular product or have me purchase the allegiance of a political party that wishes to acquire the capital and power of political office. In the context of the reality of a nation with several million people, with significant problems in respect of health and environment, culture drug dependence and unhappiness I am confident in the assertion that my national news and media is as irrelevant as the international press. I am confident in this assertion because I can recognise that the motive behind both entities (national and international news) is not, my improvement as a human being (of course I am never seen by the entities that are transferring said news) it is merely the motive to sell a particular product of one sort or another. A real and more perhaps relevant news of the day, (of my day) was contained within the consistency of my stool and its relevance to what I had or had not eaten for my breakfast.


I am left with the conclusion that the search for truth and the avoidance of stupidity begins with an introspective analysis of the self and a recognition of ones own stupidities and superfluities, out of this independence of thought should arise the recognition of the 'best way' without an extensive reliance upon guidance from others who's motives can be as trusted as their outward opinions.


To do this I must preserve myself against the equalities of modernity, the instinctual motives behind my own truths and those that I am exposed to. The search for meaning begins and ends with a search for truth. We may each be equally endowed with the potential to search for truth, as we may be each endowed with the potential to begin a journey of some kind. The success or failure of that journey is entirely dependent upon ones preparedness. The water that will sustain one along the way is that of philosophy and the capacity for independent thought. It is these two entities that are most under siege in the modern world and in this sense in this world in this place and time no less than any other the greatest revolutionary act is that of independent thought.