Thordaddian Stock Response Repository

This post can probably be ignored by most of my readers unless they happen to be Thordaddy or have been following his voluminous comments and my responses in the comment sections to other blog posts. For an example please see the comment section of my previous post.

Most of our interactions revolve around the same subject matter. Because of this I thought it would save some time and effort on my part to put my stock answers in one post which I can then refer to when the subject arises again. I suspect this post will be edited on an ongoing basis.

Subject #1 – Thordaddy’s Use of Private Jargon / Secret Language

Thordaddy chooses to communicate in a purposefully obscure and at times annoying manner. He does this in various ways including:

(1) making up terms such as (a) radical autonomy and (b) self-annihilation and not adequately defining or providing examples of these terms so that I can properly understand what he is attempting to communicate;

(2) creating new definitions for terms such as (a) supremacy and (b) perfection and then refusing to adequately define or provide examples that would fit within these definitions;

(3) using punctuation in a non conventional manner such as “(P)erfection” and then not adequately explaining what this use of punctuation means, then expecting me to employ his convention without understanding what it implies;

(4) annoyingly substituting homonyms or near homonyms for regular words in an effort to appear clever or perhaps comical. An example might be instead of writing, “why to you think that?” he might write, “why do Jew think that?”

The problem with this form of communication that Thordaddy seems to not be able to grasp is that we cannot have a conversation about the ideas he is articulating unless we both share a common definition. For this reason it would be preferable if we both used standard English syntax.

It is entirely possible that Thordaddy does not want to actually have a conversation about his ideas and that is the reason why he persists in this behavior. I have never received a clear statement of his intentions as to this point.

Subject #2 – Thordaddy’s Concept of Radical Autonomy

Thordaddy has accused me of being “radically autonomous” but has consistently refused to define this term or has provided inconsistent and obscure definitions. His comments to this blog post articulates this pattern well.

In a comment Thordaddy provided the following definition for “radical autonomy”:

The consistent application of tolerance and nondiscrimination, ie., the continuous exercising of liberal ideology. Ergo, “radical autonomy” is an all-accepting indiscriminancy, ie., the surest path to self-annihilation.

He also articulated that “autism” is an example of “radical autonomy” because an autistic person “cannot know his parents.”

When asked how I fit these definitions and examples he responded:

You are radically autonomous because *you* claim that “Roman Catholic” teaching is in accord with anti-racist ideology. The reality of this contention is the exposure of your deracinated state of mind and self-annihilating tendencies. So Roman Catholic teaching isn’t of the fathers (read: racial), but rather, a matter of devoted osmosis (read: permeatingly ideological).

The standard definition for “radical autonomy” might be “extreme independence” but this begs the question as to what I am being extremely independent from. In these comments he seems to be saying that a person who is “radically autonomous” has achieved extreme independence from his race. To wit, a person who tolerates other races and tries not to discriminate on the basis of race is distancing himself from his own race / ancestors and therefor does not know his parents in the sense that his parents’ racial identity is the most important part of their identity. I suppose the connection with autism here is that in extreme cases an autistic child cannot emotionally connect with his primary care givers and therefor does not know them. I am not sure this is a good example, however, because (a) some autistic children certainly can know their parents and (b) autistic children are not autistic by choice.

In summary, if Thordaddy does define “radical autonomy” as “extremely independent of one’s racial identity” I wonder what he hoped to achieve by resisting, defining this term all this time. Secondly, I suppose my response to his accusation would be, “so what?”

Subject #3 Thordaddy’s Concept of White Supremacy

Thordaddy has defined what he refers to as “white (S)upremacy” as:

White men who believe in and therefore strive towards objective (S)upremacy are white (S)upremacists. … [T]he definition of objective (S)upremacy is (P)erfection. What is (P)erfection? HE WHO WILLS ALL (R)IGHT.

This definition seems to be an attempt to distance his concept of white supremacy from the commonly understood concept of white supremacy, which by its plain meaning promotes the idea that white people should be supreme over (and thus hostile to) other “nonwhite” races. Thordaddy has at times argued that “white (S)upremacy” has nothing to do with other races and that “striving towards objective perfection” is something akin to white people trying to be the best they can be. He becomes very dodgy when asked what “perfection” means in this context nor does he seem to be able to provide concrete examples of what a white man would do whilst in the act of striving towards perfection.

What confuses it further is that Thordaddy is at the same time, openly hostile to other races. He is frequently disparaging of blacks and Jews, for example. Perhaps he sees his “white (S)upremacy” and his hostility to other races as being unrelated and coincidental. But I think any reasonable person would find this argument dubious at best. So ultimately, it seems as if Thordaddy is racist according to the common understanding of this term but is unwilling to fully own his racism as is evidenced by his attempts to philosophically or “intellectually” justify it.

Furthermore, his “definition” above really does not make anything clear. Because declaring “objective (SIupremacy” means “(P)erfection” means “HE WHO WILLS ALL RIGHT” still does not give me an understanding of what these terms mean or what a person would do in order to strive towards objective (P)erfection. I assume the “HE” Thordaddy refers to is Jesus. But if one were to imitate Jesus, it seems very unlikely that they would act as Thordaddy does.

 

 

Advertisements

104 Comments

Filed under Psychology

What Would Moloch Do?

MolochIn a recent Orthosphere post entitled Freedoms of Speech & of Religion Open & Allow the Race to the Bottom the author Kristor argues:

The basic problem with freedom of speech and of religion is that … it opens the agora to the discussion of the pros and cons of every alternative cult. … There ensues a proliferation … of heresies and petty foreign cults. The cult of Moloch is then sooner or later bound to enter the lists.

In a previous post, Kristor defines his term, “the Cult of Moloch” as referring to modern, liberal notions of tolerance for multiple belief systems, which he equates to nihilism. He argues that a tolerant belief system cannot itself tolerate non-tolerant belief systems and so ultimately pushes them out of mainstream practice. I assume he uses this particular name because the Canaanite god named Moloch is associated with ritual child sacrifice. This of course is a reference to legalized abortion which exists within the modern liberal system. To the Orthosphereans, liberalism, tolerance, nihilism, abortion and all the other ills of modern society are related and mutually reinforcing.

Kristor goes on to say:

In an unruly competition of cults for the hearts and minds of people too dim to understand the consequences in their distant future of actions taken today, or to think with the necessary care and precision about metaphysics, political economy, and culture – i.e., of most people – the cult with the greatest short term hedonic payoff is going to prevail.

Because freedoms of speech and religion lead to the cult of Moloch, I assume Kristor is advocating the abolition of these freedoms and their replacement with the forced implementation of some other cult (presumably whatever form of Christianity Kristor adheres to) which would then regulate speech and religion in a manner more satisfactory to him.

BASIC PROBLEMS

The first basic problem I see with a belief system enforced by the government is that the belief system might not be true. I assume Kristor desires a government enforced belief system that is also true. Or perhaps in the absence of definitive proof of the truth of any one particular belief system, Kristor believes it is better to pick any belief system so long as it is not a tolerant one so as to avoid the inevitable slide into Molochism.

The second basic problem I see is that when a government enforces a belief system, the belief system typically gets watered down so that it can be acceptable to a large population. The watering down of the belief system then stops connecting with the people who take their religious beliefs seriously. This then gives rise to underground sects of true believers which work to undermine the government enforced belief system.

The third basic problem is that there will always be non-believers. This includes both people who take issue with specific tenants of the belief system and people who reject the system entirely. Similar to the second basic problem, this problem will also lead to the creation of subversive groups.

In addition to these basic problems it seems that many of the people who favor a government enforced belief system exhibit an unchristian disdain for their fellow men. This is articulated in the quote above where Kristor describes “most people” as “too dim to understand the consequences in their distant future of actions taken today, or to think with the necessary care and precision about metaphysics, political economy, and culture.”

I certainly do not want people of this ilk deciding what is best for me to believe and ordering the world in which I live. I do not want this not because I suspect they would not have my best interests at heart. I also do not want this because this disdain runs contrary to the fundamental Christian idea which is love (i.e., willing the good of the other as other). It might be argued that the desire to implement a government enforced belief system is motivated by a willing of good for other people. But the disdain articulate in Kristor’s quote (and quotes of other Orthosphereans) seems to indicate otherwise. Saint Paul’s description of the “Fruit of the Spirit” offers guidance when determining whether a person is advocating a policy that is born out of love. Specifically, “…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Gal 5:22-23). Disdain is noticeably absent from this list. 

CULTURE OF DEATH

Kristor concludes his OP by stating,

As permitting the advocacy and practice of the cult of Moloch, freedom of speech and religion, then, sow the seeds of national death.

So we observe at last that, like Molochism, freedom of speech and religion, too, are in the end autophagous. The nation that keeps those freedoms is doomed.

The Orthospherean position against liberalism is not baseless. There is are inconsistencies to liberal notions of freedom, equality and tolerance. No one can be completely free and the freedom of one person impacts the freedom of another person. People are not equal in their abilities and to legally make them equal to a certain extent negates this truth and creates problems. A tolerant belief system cannot completely accommodate non-tolerant belief systems and can become intolerant by attempting to enforce tolerance.

On the other hand, no political system is perfect. In order for liberalism to work well, there has to always be a balance of forces. Just because speech is labeled as “free” and is actually regulated to an extent does not mean that there are not nations where speech is very not-free and other nations where it is relatively free. And it also does not mean that a reasonable person cannot appreciate the difference between the two. In the same respect a “tolerant” belief system might actually be “intolerant” of certain taboos. But, there are more tolerant nations than others and reasonable people can appreciate the difference here as well. And yes a system might shift in terms of its level of tolerance depending on the situation but that does not mean that it will always, inexorably degenerate into Molochism in every circumstance. The pendulum may very well swing back the other way.

Also, do these “flaws” of liberalism really spell the doom of a nation more than any other form of government? All nations (and things of men) are doomed. Even nations with government enforced belief systems are doomed. How else would tolerant systems have come to replace them? Moreover, an intolerant belief system does not rule out the possibility of Molochism being practiced. It merely forces it underground where it cannot be observed and regulated.

Do freedoms of speech and religion necessarily open and allow a race to the bottom? I think reasonable minds can differ on that question. More importantly, would the alternative of a government enforced belief system create a preferable situation? We are all well aware that there exist countries that do enforce belief systems in the world, some of which Kristor himself objects to.

 

 

34 Comments

Filed under Political Philosophy, Religion

The Real Issue Behind the Border Wall Debate

January 22, 2019
By George Friedman

The Real Issue Behind the Border Wall Debate

For the United States, immigration has always been a necessity and an agony.
The debate over a wall separating the United States and Mexico goes to the heart of American society. The wall itself is about preventing illegal immigration, but the debate inevitably flows to the question of immigration in general, as it always has in American history.
An Agonizing Experience

The American nation was forged from fragments of other nations. The English, Scotch-Irish, Swedish, Germans, Catholic Irish, Italians, Jews and Africans joined together, or, better yet, were crushed together, to create the American nation. It was a painful process. At any given point, Americans believed that the way America was then was the way it ought to be. Thus the settlers from England were appalled at the arrival of the Scotch-Irish, who were seen as unassimilable and irredeemable brawlers, drunkards and thugs. When the Irish Catholics arrived, many feared they could not assimilate to a predominantly Protestant society. Indeed, the debate over whether a Catholic could become president dominated the 1960 election, more than a century after the Irish influx began.

Virtually all immigrants who came to the United States were those being crushed in their own societies (except, of course, for Africans slaves, who were brought to the U.S. through no choice of their own). They left families, customs and all that was familiar for a new start. The Jamestown and Plymouth colonies were built on this process. It was the core American experience: suffering through being a stranger in a strange land while being distrusted and even loathed.

The nation-building process in the U.S. was an agonizing experience. Some have romanticized it, forgetting that the melting pot was hot enough to dissolve human souls, and that the pain fell both on the immigrants themselves and on those with whom they merged. Yet immigration was essential. The first European immigrants who arrived were too few to create a nation that could settle and exploit the continent, spark industrialization, and win wars. Had the U.S. remained simply an English nation, it would have been annihilated long ago. Immigrants were indispensable to the creation of a viable country, and, inevitably, most would come from “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” as Emma Lazarus put it. The United States welcomed immigrants out of necessity and even desperation, the same factors that drove immigrants to the U.S. in the first place.

But the reality of immigration lies not only in the broad story of the American nation, where the agony is lost in the glory, but in the details. I immigrated with my family to the United States from Hungary as an infant. We settled in a tenement in the Bronx. The most important part of our story was not that we were poor, but rather that our family was torn apart. My parents brought my sister and me to the United States because they had no choice. Their home abandoned them in World War II, and America welcomed them. For immigrants, however, America is a mistress who gives generously of her pleasure but is ruthless in her demands. You must be completely devoted to America to enjoy her pleasures to the fullest. My parents had lived through too much and had grown too weary to pay that price. They didn’t hope for the ecstasy America offered; they were content with sanctuary, however meager.

My hopes diverged from my parents’ needs. My parents were loving, yet, in a way, they became irrelevant. They could not guide me on my path. In those years, many immigrants settled in the Bronx. The Jewish kids banded together. So did the Irish, the Italians, the Puerto Ricans and the African-Americans. They drew strength from each other, rather than from their families. The cruel paradox of immigration is that it divides parents and children. The children long for America while the parents long for relief. And when the children band together, they learn the first lesson of America: It has pity for the weak and respect only for the strong.

You learn this lesson on the streets, where you discover that pain is not the worst thing in the world. Cowardice is. Winning is everything. Fighting fearlessly and losing brings opportunity for redemption. Fleeing the field of battle to huddle with your parents denies you pride and entry into America. America is for those who have the strength not only to play baseball or to excel in school but also to learn the lesson of the streets and to pay the price of entry.

Imagine what the Bronx was like back then. Young thugs, or would-be thugs, roaming the streets, seeking and fearing the moment when they must prove their manhood. The boys and girls, driven by hormones, as much strangers to their parents as their parents were to them, alone in a world to make what rules they could. The law was what you made of it, and the cops were just another gang, albeit a very dangerous one.

The Bronx was once a genteel borough of New York, with stately apartment buildings and vast parks. But it was at the bare limits of gentility. Those whose families came a century before were now gone, and the children of the new immigrants turned much of the Bronx into a nightmare. The parents of these children lived their lives in terror, fearing every trip to the grocery store. The dream of a little safety brought them back to the war zone.

Share
Tweet
Share
+1
Email
A Predictable Response

Immigrants tend to move to neighborhoods with low rents, and they often live together so they have people around them who speak their language. They’re satisfied with simply making a home in their new land. But their settlement can create havoc for those who were there before – those who also live in low-cost neighborhoods and now must compete for jobs and housing. As the new immigrant group expands, word spreads that this particular group is uniquely dangerous, and the belief grows that immigration must be stopped. For those who have the means to insulate themselves from the fear and uncertainty, on the other hand, this process isn’t a cause for concern. For them, immigration is a concept, not a reality, and so they see it as a charitable endeavor.

The reality is that the United States cannot survive without waves of immigrants. It’s never been able to grow without immigrants, and there’s no reason to believe it can now. But the process of immigration becomes more painful the closer you come to it. The idea that those afraid of immigration are racist misses the point. Immigration directly impacts many of those who fear its effects. Many of those who don’t fear it live in well-off communities where new immigrants tend not to settle.

Fear is a predictable response to immigration. The English feared the Scotch-Irish. Protestants feared Irish Catholics. And the cycle continues. Even a group as disreputable and hated as the Scots made the transition, and now, fully integrated for centuries, they loathe and fear new arrivals.

In two centuries of debating immigration, both sides have been systematically oblivious to the realities underlying the debate. The advocates of immigration are oblivious to its disproportionate impact on those who live in poorer neighborhoods. Those wary of immigration are oblivious to the impact of ending it in a time of declining birthrates, and to the fact that immigration is embedded in the nation’s soul. The beauty of America is that every American can have an opinion that makes little sense. It is as charming as a gang brawl in a schoolyard. But in the end, America has survived this debate many times, and the outcome has always been the same.

The U.S. economy has always depended on a constant inflow of low-paid workers. What has been true since the founding remains true now or the migrants would not be still coming. This has brought with it tension, violence and pain, far more for the poorest Americans than for the wealthy, who have benefited from immigration. But we cannot stop immigration. Nor can we make those insulated from its effects understand or care about the pain this process inevitably causes. Welcoming immigrants is not an act of kindness but a necessity. Those who think of it as an act of kindness misunderstand the lives of immigrants and those who live among them. Immigration has always been a growing pain of the Republic.

Have friends or colleagues who may be interested in GPF?
Feel free to share this with others and on social media. Or tell your colleagues and friends to sign up to get free GPF content here

Leave a comment

Filed under Political Philosophy

Blue Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

bwThere is a pattern of behavior common to some of the people I have encountered on the internet who identify with the Spiral Dynamics Stage Blue mentality. I will refer to the people who exhibit this behavior a Blue Wolf. This pattern of behavior is as follows. When a Blue Wolf encounters a non-Blue (say an Orange or Green), the Blue Wolf will feel this person out. If this person is not immediately hostile and willing to hear the Blue position in a respectful manner, the Blue Wolf will at first appear to be very charitable and hospitable to the non-Blue. But, if after a brief period of time the non-Blue continues to disagree with or questions too much the Blue world view, the Blue Wolf becomes angry and aggressive. This switch happens suddenly and the suddenness of this switch suggests the anger and aggression existed from the start but was merely masked by the initial show of friendliness. Perhaps the Blue Wolf thinks he can persuade the non-Blue to his philosophy through friendliness. Perhaps the Blue Wolf legitimately believes himself to be a good, moral person but is easily triggered by the “enemies” who do not share his beliefs.

The Blue Wolf’s Ego Identifies With Being Blue

It is important to note that the Blue Wolf behavior is not displayed by all of those who identify with Stage Blue. Many Blues will simply cease to engage with the non-Blue once it is clear they cannot see eye to eye. A few Blues will patiently continue to explain their beliefs kindly and politely. It seems that these Blue Wolves are perhaps less self-aware or have their egos so identified with their Blueness that any challenge to it is experienced as a mortal threat. Blue Wolves tend not to want their motivations or psychology examined. One Blue Wolf told me he rejected the entire science of psychology as a liberal invention (which is a good way to never become self-aware in my estimation). But of course, being self-aware is not a Blue priority.

To a Blue, the priority is dedication to a higher power and not to self-actualization. To a Blue there is…

[a] single guiding force [that] controls the world and determine[s] our destiny… Abiding Truth provides structure and order for all aspects of living here on Earth and rules the heavens as, well… [A Blue will] willingly sacrifice [his] desires in the present in the sure knowledge that [he] look[s] forward to something wonderful in the future. (1)

This makes the hostile stance of the Blue Wolf understandable. For anything that conflicts with their believed Truth is per se un-Truth.  With that in mind, however, it is interesting to note that some Blues will react to challenges to their Truth in less threatened manners than others. Again, I attribute this different reaction to the degree of ego identification a particular Blue has with his Blue world view.

The Blue Wolf ‘s True Motive is to Argue With and Shame His Enemies

I encountered another Blue Wolf in the comment section of my last post “The Spiral Dynamics of a Christmas Carol“. I recognized this commentor as a reader of the Blue blog, the Orthospehere. True to the Blue Wolf form, this commentor adopted the persona of one who did not know anything about Spiral Dynamics and honestly wanted to understand it. His questions, which began as friendly, quickly turned adversarial when I did not accept his counter arguments to the answers I gave him. He then accused me of not following the proper rules of logic and debate. This is a typical Blue Wolf tactic I have observed. That is, a Blue Wolf will dismiss a non-Blue person and his point of view if the non-Blue violates a rule of logical debate even if the exchange is a casual one in a comment section and not entered into as a formal debate. This has the dual intended effect of allowing the Blue Wolf to exit the exchange seemingly in possession of the moral high ground while at the same time humiliating his interlocutor. Guilt and shame are the primary means by which a Blue enforces his social order. (2).

The Blue Wolf Cloaks His Motives in Logic and Objective Truth

I have observed Blue Wolves will often try to humiliate their non-Blue interlocutors while masking this intention in morality and truth. One Blue Wolf who is (I have heard) now deceased, took the position that the non-Blues who disagreed with him “lacked the capacity” to understand his arguments. This same person and his ilk would cry ad-hominem if a similar claim were made of them. However, when he questioned a person’s intelligence he claimed to be not doing so in order to undermine his interlocutor’s position but rather to describe the truth of the situation. In this way he could (hypocritically) avoid the appearance of committing the ad-hominem fallacy to the like-minded readers of his blog who would readily agree with his position.

Conclusion

I ended up deleting most of the argument from the thread in my previous blog post. I know this is considered to be bad form for the moderator of a comment section. People (Blue Wolves especially I suspect) like to see the documentation of their comment section arguments. Perhaps they feel that a piece of them has been removed when their arguments are edited. In my defense, I did not feel like we were debating. It seemed as if he was asking questions about Spiral Dynamics and I was answering them to the best of my ability. I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the subject. I only claim to have an interest and am blogging about it as I learn more about it. For this reason, I am not interested in documenting any supposed debate a particular Blue Wolf believes we are having.

Post Script: There is a great example of a Blue Wolf interaction in the comment section to this blog post. It is interesting how this Blue Wolf accuses me of being intellectually dishonest for deleting his argumentative comments in the previous blog post when he was (in my estimation) being intellectually dishonest by pretending to want to know more about the Spiral Dynamics model when in fact he only wanted to debunk it. Of course he only bases his debunking attempt on reading my blog posts and I never claimed to be an expert on the subject.  Nor did I claim to want to debate it even though he chooses to frame the interaction in that manner. I could not have scripted the interaction better if I tried. I un-deleted his comments in the previous post in order to document the nature of his comments because it is relevant to this post.


(1) Beck, Edward and Cowan, Christopher, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change,  Blackwell Publishing, 1996, pg 229.

(2) Ibid, pg 232.

395 Comments

Filed under Political Philosophy, Psychology

The Spiral Dynamics of “A Christmas Carol”

[T]he wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for.

marley's ghostIn Stave One of “A Christmas Carol,” Charles Dickens makes this observation in reference to him not knowing why the phrase “dead as a door-nail” aptly describes the extent to which Jacob Marley is actually dead. From a Spiral Dynamics viewpoint, this observation expresses a very Stage Blue sentiment. That is, it not only expresses reverence for the wisdom of ancestors but it also connects reverence for this wisdom to the Country’s well being. Of course, the term country could easily be replaced with tribe, race, religion or culture. In Stage Blue, these identities are of primary importance as is the belief that one’s identity is supreme and the beliefs and values of the identity are true. This naturally implies that other identities are inferior and the beliefs of other identities are false.

Of course, Charles Dickens lived in 19th century England during the industrial revolution. This was a time when the country in which he lived was transitioning from Spiral Dynamics Stage Blue to Stage Orange. You might say that it had one foot firmly in each stage. Religion at the time still had great influence over the culture, the white race was supreme in England and increasingly so around the world. At the same time Stage Orange capitalism, scientism and liberalism were taking on a larger role. The Stage Green doubt of white supremacy had not yet formed in the European consciousness or in the consciousness of Europe’s daughters (North America, South Africa, Australia etc.). But Stage Green does play a role in the story.

Indeed, the Stage Green sentiments of compassion for one’s fellow man are certainly strong themes in the story. In Stave One, the ghost of Jacob Marley rejects capitalism’s negative effects on the poor and disenfranchised by exclaiming:

“Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

In Stave Three, the most outwardly judgmental of the three spirits who visit Scrooge after Marley’s ghost, the Ghost of Christmas Present, chastises Scrooge for thinking that the religious authorities correctly represented divine Truth in all aspects:

“There are some upon this earth of yours … who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived.”

The “us” to which the spirit refers are spirits and the divine in general. Later, the same spirit chastises Scrooge’s political beliefs as to the government social policies of his day:

“Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!”

GCPHere we see a rejection of Stage Blue religion and Stage Orange capitalism. However, it is probably safe to assume that the “common welfare” to which the Marley’s ghost refers applied more strictly to his own country and not so much to mankind as a whole. In the same respect, the Ghost of Christmas Present’s criticism (in Dickens’ mind) probably assumed the supremacy of white Europeans and the truth of Christianity. Whereas, to our more modern sentiments (generally speaking) which have been more heavily influenced by Stage Green would interpret the ghosts’ references to have a more universal application. In this respect we can see the still strong influence of Stage Blue in the telling of the story.

When we speak of applying the principles of Spiral Dynamics to cultures we are necessarily speaking in general terms. The culture from which Dickens wrote “A Christmas Carol” was one transitioning from Blue to Orange with some influence of Green. By contrast, our culture at present can be described largely as transitioning from from Orange to Green with a waning influence of Blue. Within this larger dynamic, each individual can be described as embodying different stages in different amounts. Moreover, there are pockets of people who are influenced by various stages to greater and lesser degrees. For example, modern day San Francisco is more heavily Stage Green than is say Houston, Texas generally speaking.

A recent blog post on the (very Stage Blue) Orthosphere entitled “The Modern Cosmopolitan Cult Tends to the Cult of Moloch” is a very clear example of a Stage Blue mindset describing the Stage Orange and Green culture in which we live. The post argues that modern Stage Green notions of toleration effectively cannot tolerate Stage Blue notions of intolerance. From the Stage Blue perspective there is no higher stage than Stage Blue. Stage Orange and Green are errors. In fact, the entire Spiral Dynamics model is an error and salvation lies in a return to Stage Blue. Obviously, a Stage Blue person would not employ this terminology to describe this idea.

According to the Spiral Dynamics model, however, it is impossible to revert back to a prior stage except in extremely traumatic circumstances and this reversion tends to be temporary in nature. No, each stage is a necessary precursor to the stage that follows. Each stage solves the problems of the previous stage and creates problems that must, in turn, be solved by the next stage. From this perspective, we can see that the story of “A Christmas Carol” describes Ebeneezer Scrooge’s transition from Stage Orange to Stage Green. From a larger perspective, “A Christmas Carol” is an interesting time capsule within the larger Spiral Dynamic.

30 Comments

Filed under A Christmas Carol

Striving for Perfection Based in Shame

In John Bradshaw’s powerful book “Healing the Shame that Binds You” he talks about the many manifestations of “toxic shame” (as opposed to healthy shame), how they are generated and how to heal them. One important way in which toxic shame is generated is through cultural systems that require or encourage a striving towards perfection in thoughts, emotions and actions.

Perfectionism denies healthy shame. It does so by assuming we can be perfect. Such an assumption denies our human finitude because it denies the fact that we are essentially limited. (1)

Healthy shame, according to Bradshaw, is a feeling that informs a person of his limits. For example, when a person makes a mistake or engages in a shameful behavior the feeling of shame kicks in and informs the person to go no further. By contrast, toxic shame becomes internalized. Instead of a person being made aware that he has made a mistake and perhaps vowing to to better next time, the toxically-shamed person will feel that he, himself is a mistake and intrinsically flawed. This is an excruciating feeling to experience and one that cannot be easily remedied.

Unfortunately, according to Bradshaw, the modern incarnations of religion have played a role in this dynamic.

Religion has been a major source of shaming through perfectionism. Moral shoulds, outghts and musts have been sanctioned by subjective interpretation of religious revelation. The Bible has been used to justify all sorts of blaming judgment. Religious perfectionism teaches a kind of behavioral righteousness. There is a religious script that contains the standards of holiness and righteous behavior. These standards dictate how to talk (there is a proper God voice), how to dress, walk and behave in almost every situation. Departure from this standard is deemed sinful.

[Moreover, what] a perfectionistic system creates is a “how to get it right” behavioral script. In such a script one is taught how to act loving and righteous. [According to this system it is] actually more important to act loving and righteous than to be loving and righteous. The feeling of righteousness and acting sanctimoniously are wonderful ways to mood-alter toxic shame. They are often ways to … transfer one’s shame to others. (2)

Shame begets more shame because it is an uncomfortable feeling. This often inspires the person feeling the shame to engage in a mood-altering behavior. Consuming alcohol is a prime example of mood-altering behavior but it is not the only one. Interestingly, shaming another person (i.e., causing them to feel shame) has mood altering effects as well.  For this reason, many toxically shamed people will feel compelled to shame other people in order to temporarily relieve their own feelings of shame. This has the effect, however, of begetting more shame in both parties.

In this way, when a person claims to “strive for perfection” ostensibly based on religious grounds he is very likely motivated by shame. When this claim is also associated with behavior or rhetoric designed to shame others, this motivation is only confirmed. This is not to say that people should not strive to be the best people they can be, however, this striving is called into question when it involves internalized shame and the shaming of others for mood-altering purposes. It is called into question because at its heart it is really an attempt to obscure the truth disguised as an attempt to improve the self morally or in some other positive way.


(1) Bradshaw, Michael. Healing the Shame that Binds You. Health Communications, Inc. 2005. p. 88.

(2) Ibid. p. 94.

214 Comments

Filed under Psychology

Auto-Suggestion: Chapter Four of “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill

round silver and gold coins

Photo by David McBee on Pexels.com

This post is a continuation of a series of posts analyzing Napoleon Hill’s curious book entitled “Think and Grow Rich.” The other posts can be found here, here and here.

MENTAL FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS

In Napoleon Hill’s conception of the human mental process, the conscious mind and the subconscious mind are two distinct entities capable of communicating with one another. More specifically, the conscious mind sends the communication and the subconscious mind receives the communication. It is unclear whether the subconscious mind is capable of communicating back with the conscious mind but it can communicate with “Infinite Intelligence” which seems to be a divine, external entity that is capable of transmitting ideas back to the conscious mind in the form of inspiration.

It seems that (according to Hill) the conscious mind is continuously communicating with the subconscious mind and the subconscious mind then works with Infinite Intelligence to manifest the substance of this communication. Most of the time this communication is not directed or is “unconscious” in nature. Often these communications are negative which explains why unfortunate events seem to happen to negative people. However, the conscious mind can hack this process by purposefully communicating with the subconscious mind through “auto-suggestion.” This is the intentional repetition of an idea either verbally or mentally. This action, especially when combined with positive emotion and actual belief in the outcome will (according to Hill) work to inspire an idea or plan to achieve the tangible result.

USING AUTO-SUGGESTION TO CREATE WEALTH

Of course Hill is particularly concerned with growing rich through the power of thought. As such, when one employs the power of auto-suggestion to create wealth, that person must intentionally repeat an affirmation or mantra related to obtaining wealth.

[C]onsider the possibility of playing a perfectly legitimate “trick” on your subconscious mind, by making it believe, because you believe it, that you must have the amount of money you are visualizing, that this money is already awaiting your claim, that the subconscious mind MUST hand over to you practical plans for acquiring the money which is yours.

In the preceding quote, Hill suggests the practitioner of auto-suggestion employ a kind of double-think. That is, he or she must “believe” that the desired outcome behind the auto-suggestion will occur and that it is the belief itself that makes it occur. If one accepts the truth of this process then one is actually believing in something that is presently untrue in order to make it true in the future, which in turn justifies the belief.

The subconscious mind or “imagination” (as Hill refers to it in the following quote) acts behind the scenes to accomplish the “how” of the desired result. Because this process takes place below consciousness, the conscious mind remains unaware as to how this is accomplished.

Hand over the thought … to your IMAGINATION, and see what your imagination can, or will do, to create practical plans for the accumulation of money through transmutation of your desire.

Knowing the “how” is not necessary according to Hill. The only requirement is that the message is conveyed with emotion and belief that it will work. Of course, mustering authentic belief is not an easy or even possible task for many people. But this is perhaps where the double-think comes in handy. If one can “act as if” he believes this might be sufficient to on some level convince the conscious mind to believe or experience the feeling of belief. As mentioned in a previous post, some of these concepts introduced by Hill will break down or become circular and confusing if examined too closely. As such it is probably efficacious to suspend your disbelief when employing these techniques.

When visualizing the money you intend to accumulate, (with closed eyes), see yourself rendering the service, or delivering the merchandise you intend to give in return for this money. This is important!

Moreover, as the preceding quote suggests, it does not hurt to embellish this process with imagination in order to make it more real and thus more believable.

EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION

After reading “Think and Grow Rich” I became naturally curious to implement these ideas. One of the inspirations I came up with was to create a website designed to match authors with other authors for the purpose of getting their work reviewed in a non reciprocal manner. So Adam will review Bill and Bill will review Carl and Carl will review Adam. This ensures that no person is motivated to create a false positive or negative review. I have since paid web designers to create this web site. It is now live and called www.binderreview.com.

This is all new to me. At this point, my plan is to build up a critical mass of users before making it a paid service. So, if any author (self-published or traditional) is interested in both reviewing another person’s book and receiving a review I encourage you to check it out. Again the website is completely free. I just ask that you provide me with feedback regarding your experience and how the website can be made better.

At this point, I have not exactly grown rich with this idea but it is still early. Moreover, not every idea is a winner. Persistence is the key.

Leave a comment

Filed under Psychology