LOVE MEANS KILLING YOUR RIVALS: THE DILEMMA OF EITHER/OR

image

Either/Or. The Shah or this guy. 

Scarriet is the best poetry site in the world for many reasons, and one of those reasons is that we are not enslaved by any political ideology, as most American poets and intellectuals are.

Be either/or, they say. Choose, choose! Be a Democrat, not a Republican! Be ‘one of us!’ Be loyal to our side!

But to pick a side is to fall into the either/or trap, which breeds fanaticism on either end.

To not choose is the true choice, the wise, Socratic choice which supports true science and democracy.

To say we avoid political ideology, and we do not choose sides, does not mean we ignore the ugly cultural, ideological, impact that the political has on poetry and love; we know love means killing all our rivals, we are more fanatical than any political fanatic in our understanding of love—this informs our deep understanding of poetry; we embrace aesthetics, but we don’t hide inside an aesthetic bubble. We approach politics—and everything—from a position of common sense. Sometimes we fight. Sometimes we escape into our bubble. But don’t ask us to choose between Khomeini and the Shah, or between Democrats and Republicans, please. It ain’t going to happen.

We come from a liberal background; we were not raised with guns in a redneck environment; we know the New York Times and the Washington Post; we are quite familiar with “All Things Considered,” we sound like Woody Allen at times, and we have taken lately to launching into a British accent, for a whole host of reasons, the least of which is to show a kind of hopeless allegiance to the great tradition of deft, daffy, self-effacing, humorous, and confident Anglo-Americanism. We don’t ‘go’ to church. We like Sarah Palin because she wants cheaper and more accessible oil—-not because she’s a Republican. We think it idiotic to worry about whether someone is “smart” in politics; engineers who build spaceships and buildings and oil rigs should be smart; politicians should be big-hearted and childlike and funny, and not afraid to say dumb things. Bring it on. Bring on dumb. Politicians should always be dumb in a curious, evolving sort of way, and the press, full of really dumb people, and the voters—talk about dumb—need to embrace dumb and not pretend to be too smart for it. There? See? If one must discuss politics, there is no reason to get all political about it. If Hillary Clinton (criminal and ogreish—does she come from Iran?) is smarter than Sarah Palin, can anyone name one smart thing Hillary Clinton has done or said? I’m waiting. Some of Clinton’s opinions correspond with yours?  Good. But that is no indication of smart, and you are really dumb if you think that. No, really, you are. “I can see Russia outside my window,” is delightful, and if it doesn’t pass muster in a game of Jeopardy, that doesn’t matter. Believing Jeopardy-smart is truly smart is really, really dumb. And Jeopardy is one of our favorite shows.

Science is never done asking questions, and the idea that the Global Warming Debate “is over” has to be one of the dumbest things ever—and yet all of those who insist the debate “is over” (we laugh every time we see this) don’t even know what CO2 is, and think that “carbon emissions” is the same thing as pollution. And then we have the indignant “debate is over” (ha ha ha) crowd changing their terminology from “global warming” to “climate change,” and we are expected to believe this crowd is “smart” and those who oppose them are greedy oil barons, not ordinary people challenging Big Environmentalism, asking for more affordable oil prices for the poor. A “smart” person does not count the number of “scientists” who “agree” with them, when that “agreement” is only boilerplate. A “smart” person never believes polls—which, by their very nature, even if the respondents are scientists, will never be scientific, because who is asking and to what exactly does the response pertain—cannot articulate the problem, never mind be the “answer” to the problem. What was the question, again? Oh, that’s right: Why don’t some people believe the “debate is over?” And what was “the debate,” again?  Oh never mind. The “smart” ones will figure it out. Those politicians and those journalists who are “smart.” Right.

The point here, of course, is not who is finally “really” right and who is finally “really” smart.

Democracy is not a “smart” contest or a “who’s right?” contest. The whole point of democracy is that it is not either of these things.  If you are not the kind of person who is good at crossword puzzles or Jeopardy, you still should vote. We encourage you to vote. And we also encourage you not to think Jeopardy-smart is smart.

The Big Dumb is Those Who Think They Are Smart—so “smart” that the “debate is over,” as they insist you need to choose their side. These are the truly dumb.

There are millions of people who think they are “smart” because they believe in “evolution,” or, at least they think they are smarter than “creationists.”

This is colossally stupid.

First of all, believing in “evolution,” in terms of practical science, in practical matters of every kind, is nearly meaningless. Second of all, believing in “evolution” means what, exactly? That you have read the “Origin of Species?” That you’ve read a little Darwin, a lot, or just know generally who he is? And, again, this “knowledge of evolution” is truly useful in what way? And do you seriously believe this makes you on any scale whatsoever, “smarter” than anybody else?

What also makes “evolutionists” remarkably stupid is they loudly congratulate themselves as they compare themselves favorably to “creationists.” First of all, the issues involved have nothing to do with each other, since Darwin says nothing about creation, that is, the origin of the universe. Nor does religious thought need to be scientifically verified on matters that science in general is at a loss to explain. Edgar Allan Poe’s Eureka is the best scientific essay on the creation of the universe; few have read it, and therefore it is safe to say virtually everyone is ignorant of creation; so no one—not university professors, not scientists in laboratories, can say they are “smart” in this area at all, evolutionists or not. So the situation is, we have blockheads, politically motivated, referring to others as blockheads. Is that stupid? Yea, it is. So don’t brag about Darwin, okay, stupid?

How then, should we proceed? Democratically, of course. That is, always begin sympathetically with the person, not the opinions. Because if we start with the opinions, making all sorts of assumptions about what is right and what is wrong about those opinions, or who is smart or not, based on those opinions, we prejudice the person, who has a whole complex network of opinions based on how they decipher complex reality as a person—and a person, in a democratic society, no matter how much their views differ from yours, is inviolable.

By respecting the person and what they bring to the table—not any one opinion—will not only help create a freer and more democratic society, it will provide a better environment to examine opinions in a scientific and respectful atmosphere, and utilize those opinions that are best for society in the long run, in a flexible, adaptive and truly evolving manner.

By cutting off debate prematurely, democracy suffers.

Never give in to Either/or.  That’s the mark of a Third World Country.

American intellectuals, it is sad to see, are leading advocates of Either/or. Which only shows how corrupt American intellectual life has become since the American Revolution.

The common, contemporary, American, liberal or conservative intellectual belief is this: No opinion or value system should be treated with equal deference and respect in an intellectual setting. We cannot expect this, and we should not expect this.

But we should expect this. This common intellectual belief is wrong. This idea that not all value systems should be treated equally is wrong, even for an intellectual setting, as opposed to, let’s say, the voting booth.

On the contrary: Every opinion and value system should be treated with equal deference and respect, since these things only exist as they connect in a complex manner to a human being—who should always be treated with deference and respect. A creationist could be brilliant in all sorts of practical and scientific ways—for reasons not readily apparent. Not only because the creation of the universe is still a mystery, but because there are countless examples in history of great scientists (both practical and theoretical) who were deeply religious.

Science is too complex to bar anyone’s entrance into it, even if a particular opinion held by that person goes against our taste, or sense of right and wrong. If we do feel deeply that an opinion is wrong, we should examine it in the context of the person who holds that belief.

In a truly scientific atmosphere, those opinions that really are harmful and wrong will more quickly, under objective examination, fade away, than if we try to repress them.

Let us say we find abhorrent any objection to homosexuality, so that in the intellectual setting of psychology, we take every step to ban anyone who argues for homosexual rehabilitation.

But in the human sciences, human opinion of all kinds should be sacred; all humans should be treated equally, and let the opinions clash without prejudice, and see what comes of it. It is important to understand here that in this essay we are not defending any value system or opinion, but only asking for a true spirit of inquiry that in the long run will advance learning and practical good. If human beings, as human beings, object to homosexuality, this is valid—in the human sciences. If any opinion is not true or right or good, it is still a scientific opinion. This is the crucial point of this whole essay. Science means inquiry, not truth. If we allow the objections to homosexuality to get a full hearing, a full study, only then will change truly occur. Just to take a very narrow look at one aspect of behavioral context: Heterosexual males are often pathologically jealous of their female partners. Heterosexual males can feel threatened by the homosexual male who is able to befriend potential heterosexual female partners—precisely because that profound jealousy is absent. If real phenomena like this is part of the mix, and includes a truth heterosexual males may not normally admit when asserting a prejudice, this is surely part of the science of the whole topic, and should not be suppressed.

Why a person holds a belief is always more important than the belief itself.

If the issue is really heterosexual jealousy—or whatever perceptual threat homosexuality poses to the heterosexual—this does not mitigate in any way the importance of the issue in the form of scientific inquiry, whether it is prejudicial, or not.

The problem of rehabilitation is acute, since human science examines, but does not coerce. Prejudice is so entrenched in humans in so many ways, that human science finally fails as a science, as religion takes over.

Either/or is just as important to avoid in the realm of human science as it is in politics.

Defer, defer. Be wise, like Socrates.

A great deal of inquiry, especially in the humanities, does not depend on facts; indisputable facts, such as: ‘the American Civil War ended in 1865,’ are not the issue here. Humanist inquiry hinges on many divergent opinions held by many different kinds of people— and all opinions must be welcome.

Religion is the most seductive Either/or there is. This is why we don’t go to church.

But then we come at last to Holy Love, and here, finally we succumb, we must succumb, and only here, in love, do we surrender to Either/or. Only in love. Oh, God! We choose!

And when the bitter circumstances of love, infected by politics and science and religion, destroy us and break our heart in two, we have one more thing to turn to: divine poetry.

As poets, especially, we must be alive to people first, opinions second, and we really must favor what is, in fact, true inquiry over prickly political biases based on what is glibly considered intellectually “smart.”

And all of this is crucial not because politics is not important, but because, even to the poet, it is.

 

 

 

Advertisements

34 Comments

  1. Diane Roberts Powell said,

    February 16, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    What “we” are you writing of? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or is it the royal we you mean? It think that “we” means you, Thomas Graves AKA Thomas Brady because all of your compadres have flow the coup except Nooch.

    You don’t believe in evolution, and yet you’re an atheist? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

    You speak of banning homosexuals, and think that your opinion should be respected just like any other. Except that, you are not respecting homosexuals so people have a right to stand up to your ridiculousness. Do you even actually believe half of this crap you write about? What are you, some kind of John Bircher?

    Yes, I feel you did indeed come from an educated liberal background. Someone has some mommie or daddy issues that would be better expressed by lying on a sofa in a shrinks office, instead of splashed over a poetry blog.

    • thomasbrady said,

      February 16, 2015 at 8:37 pm

      Diane, you have a right to your opinion, but sadly for you, my salient points go right over your head. You react like a child trying its first cigar or brandy; you lack sophistication and you lack philosophy. You read on the lowest and crudest level possible. ‘Brady say homosexuals bad.’ I didn’t say that, dear. Try reading it, again. ‘All your Compadres have flown the coup” What does this even mean? We have thousands of visitors a week

      • Diane Roberts Powell said,

        February 16, 2015 at 9:00 pm

        Christopher, Cordel, and Des all split. People read this site because you are a train wreck waiting to happen. You mangage to alienate almost everyone with your right wing ramblings.

        I think I’ve got you figured out. You are a Republican because you see yourself above the hoi polloi. Tell me, does it bother you that the fundamentalist Christians have been lured into the GOP? Does having to rub shoulders with the rank and file disgust you?

        If you would have bothered to read any of my posts, then you can see that I don’t find much difference between the parties, on a national level anyway, because they all wind up supporting the corporations and the bankers against the citizens. Of course, someone like you doesn’t have time to notice anything like that. And besides, you would have to pull your head out of your ass to notice anything in the first place.

        You are a disgusting Ayn Rand lover!

        • thomasbrady said,

          February 16, 2015 at 10:14 pm

          Diane,

          You know so much. Are you angling to be Scarriet’s historian?

          You and I agree both political parties support bankers against citizens.

          But you know what? My ideas are my ideas. Yours are yours. If you want to get yourself in a twist that I’m a “right winger” and I’m a snob, etc etc you are entitled to your indignation.

          I’m a “disgusting Ayn Rand lover.” I’m not sure what this means. She likes Aristotle but I prefer Plato. Is she a poet? Why do you connect me to her? Odd.

          • Diane Roberts Powell said,

            February 16, 2015 at 10:23 pm

            Go take a piss, and leave me alone Tom!

            • thomasbrady said,

              February 16, 2015 at 10:36 pm

              Leave you alone??? You are coming on my site and misreading me! Perhaps you need to take a break from Scarriet. You don’t seem to enjoy it. There’s always Downton Abbey…

              • Diane Roberts Powell said,

                February 16, 2015 at 10:45 pm

                Maybe YOU need to get back to writing a poetry blog and stop with the pissing and moaning about liberals, feminists, and homosexuals.

                I won’t leave. You will have to ban me. Get back to work, Tom.

                • thomasbrady said,

                  February 17, 2015 at 12:04 am

                  Diane, I’m not telling you to leave. If you feel you are doing valuable work here defending liberals, feminists, and homosexuals, I encourage you to stay. All I’m asking is that you don’t wildly misread me and utterly distort what I write and get yourself all upset. I love all humankind and it hurts me that you don’t see that.

                  • Diane Roberts Powell said,

                    February 17, 2015 at 12:09 am

                    Now I’ve heard everything. I wish what you said were true.

              • Diane Roberts Powell said,

                February 17, 2015 at 2:17 am

                Here is a Sarah Palin Video for you to masterbate to, Tom:

                • thomasbrady said,

                  February 17, 2015 at 2:58 am

                  Some people cannot discuss politics. Dumb. Politics is dumb. I told you it was dumb. You didn’t read my essay. The points I make go right over your head every single time. What’s your point, Diane? Are you my mommy? Bad boy! You don’t like Hillary Clinton! You’re in trouble now! You and your videos. Write something coherent or go away. I’m going to bed.

                  • Diane Roberts Powell said,

                    February 17, 2015 at 3:42 am

                    Am I your mommie? Das someone vant a little spanking?

                  • Diane Roberts Powell said,

                    February 17, 2015 at 3:50 am

                    Nighty night!

              • Diane Roberts Powell said,

                February 17, 2015 at 5:25 am

                Ya, Ich bin Supergeil!

      • Diane Roberts Powell said,

        February 16, 2015 at 9:15 pm

        And what is all this rehabilitation of homosexuals crap? You mean locking them up and giving them shock treatments, to try to change their orientation, like they did in the 50s? You are sick!

        And who cares if a guy is stupid enough to be jealous of his wife’s gay friend? Maybe the husband needs a “rehabilitation” to work on his issues and stop acting like a jerk.

        Are you drunk?

        • thomasbrady said,

          February 16, 2015 at 10:31 pm

          You are being intentionally obtuse in order to libel me. I did not write in support of rehabilitation or shock treatments. I was using the issue of homosexual rehabilitation as an example—no where do I advocate for it and I wrote ” human science examines and does not coerce.” Diane, I do appreciate your passionate attention to the site but will you please try to read more carefully? Thanks.

          • Diane Roberts Powell said,

            February 16, 2015 at 10:42 pm

            You are an ass. Go on and ban me again, you stinking hypocrite!

            • thomasbrady said,

              February 17, 2015 at 12:08 am

              Oh quit trying to be a martyr. You were never banned. I accidentally banned you.

              • Diane Roberts Powell said,

                February 17, 2015 at 12:11 am

                Sure, accidently on purpose.

    • Coop D'etat said,

      February 17, 2015 at 7:19 pm

      Hey Diane I’d like to flow a coup with you.
      Right-wing or Left-wing?

  2. noochinator said,

    February 16, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    The title of this post reminds me of a quote by Quentin Crisp (PBUH): “Being loved can never be a patch on being murdered. That’s when someone really gives their all for you.”

  3. noochinator said,

    February 17, 2015 at 12:46 am

    Lighten up and watch some of these SNL 40th Anniversary Special clips:

  4. thomasbrady said,

    February 17, 2015 at 10:25 am

    Diane,

    We need to break up. You’re illiterate. You’re impolite. And you have disgusting taste. Strike three. Buh bye.

    • Diane Roberts Powell said,

      February 17, 2015 at 9:46 pm

      Ach wirklich? Du bist ein scheisskopf!

  5. noochinator said,

    February 17, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    Maybe if this poetry blog focused more on poetry, things would be less rancorous — here’s A. MacLeish reading four by Emerson: “The Snow Storm”, “Brahma”, “Music”, and “Fragments”:

    • thomasbrady said,

      February 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm

      Emerson is chiefly interesting because his prose style was taken up by Whitman as poetry.

      Whitman, aided by F.O. Matthiessen at Harvard, gradually eclipsed Poe as the important American poet among intellectuals to the point where Harold Bloom threw down this “Either/Or” in the New York Review of Books (Oct 11 1984):

      If you like Emerson, you don’t like Poe.

      • noochinator said,

        February 17, 2015 at 3:30 pm

        Emerson is also interesting because he inspired Nietzsche. And he’s interesting too because his essays are like an alternate Bible; they read like Scripture for a new religion. And maybe Nietzsche tried to do that too with Also sprach Zarathustra….

        • thomasbrady said,

          February 17, 2015 at 5:01 pm

          Good point, yes. Emerson has a very dark side. He’s actually darker than Poe. Far more pessimistic…

          • noochinator said,

            February 17, 2015 at 5:26 pm

            Speaking of E.’s dark side, here’s his heartbreaking “Threnody” given a powerful reading by Archibald MacLeish:

  6. Coop D'Etat said,

    February 17, 2015 at 10:45 pm

    I wonder if Diane thrives on coming across as a jerk in public?
    She seems to fly off the handle a lot – like a bad battle-axe…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: