Patrick Moran made a post “In search of a Word!” on July
24, 2020 asking the following question:
“For the longest time I have been in search of a singular
word (or perhaps hyphenated)
The describes the following person:
Someone that will spend 20 minutes describing in detail why they
they do not have time or have other things to do in order to avoid
doing a 5 minute task that is squarely in their responsibility.
(something that they should have been doing all along.)”
I appreciate very much his frustration with a certain kind of
person who shirks his responsibility. Because my comment is long, and
because I think it could be of general interest, I put it hear as a
post.
Difficulty Deciding
I would say this. Suppose there is a
log over a stream and you have to cross it in order to get to the
other side, from point A to point B. You begin to walk on it without
hesitation, for if you slip and fall off, then you get all wet, but
you just get back on and continue. Now suppose instead that the log
is over a raging torrent. Now you are full of hesitation. If you slip
and fall you may well be swept away and drowned. You would think long
and hard about crossing on it. Maybe you do not have good balance.
You ask yourself if it will support your weight or if it is worth the
risk or if it is really necessary to cross it. It is a huge problem
and maybe one that is psychologically insurmountable.
Two different people see the log and
the stream quite differently. You see it over a calm steam, while the
other sees it over a raging torrent. The difference is that you
judges the world with reason, while the other judges the world
emotionally. You judges the crossing reasonably, while the other
judges the crossing emotionally. Because you have your emotions under
control with reason, you do not see it as a raging torrent. The
other, instead, whose reason is not developed sees only emotionally,
and for him it appears as a raging torrent. He is like the
claustrophobe who cannot get into an elevator. If you ask the
claustrophobe why he does not get into the elevator, he cannot tell
you because he does not know why. He just can’t, but because he feels
obliged to give a reason, he has to say something to save face,
something like he prefers the stairs. Maybe there is something in his
past that he remembers emotionally, but not consciously. Perhaps not
only this decision is fraught with danger, but every decision is
fraught with danger and so he ends up closing himself in a world that
is safe.
As I see it, the root of the problem is
this: Reason requires a reference in order to function. Reason
functions by recognizing correspondence with a standard. This is
particularly a problem for the fatherless, for it is the father who
establishes the law which is the standard which serves as the child’s
reference. The child becomes trained in reason by the father. Without
this, a child can only judge things on the basis of emotion. The
reasoning of the fatherless is self-referential because his standard
is his own internal emotional state. Two people can reasonably argue
only if they both share the same standard for reference. Thus, it is
not possible to argue reasonably with such an emotional person. For
example, no amount of evidence, statistics, data, or good arguments
makes any difference to the claustrophobic. He may be able to
recognize the truth of the data and logical arguments, but he still
cannot move. This is because the problem is emotional, not
reasonable. I, being a fatherless, can attest to what I have said by
my own experience. To this day I am plagued by this problem of making
decisions. It drives my wife crazy.
How can such a on take on a position of
responsibility in a company where his primary task is making
decisions? Reason recognizes what ought to be done, while emotion
knows what it wants to do. Responsibility means recognizing what
ought to be done and doing it regardless of how one feels about it.
The problem, of course is not black and white. It is not the case
that one is completely devoid of reason or completely dominated by
emotion. Rather, to the extent that reason is not developed, emotion
reigns. Reason can be corrected with better evidence or arguments
while it seems that emotion can only be corrected by conversion.
I will take the problem a step further.
A human being’s first and primary responsibility is his choice
regarding his destiny to the infinite. Point A would correspond to
this limited life in this limited world, and point B would correspond
to a life that transcends this limited life and world. If the little
decisions are difficult, how impossible this decision must seem. The
story of Lot in Genesis chapter 19 illustrates this problem. Lot is
in Sodom where the people are completely deprived of reason. They are
completely self-referential. They cannot recognize let alone
correspond to an objective law written in their own nature. They are
following their impulses as the way to reach infinity, i.e. beyond
every limit of law. Lot is the only one in Sodom who recognized the
goodness of the law and is able to reason. When the angels come to
pass judgement on Sodom for their crimes, they tell Lot to flee to
the hills which is a symbol for the transcendent. For, in reality,
all time and space bound life will come to an end. But, Lot,
depending upon his own powers, says he cannot reach the hills and
asks if he may not stop in that “little place” on the plain
before the hills. For him, going to the hills was like crossing that
log over the raging torrent. You cannot reach transcendence on your
own power, and Lot knew this. The problem is that Lot did not fully
trust the power and goodness of God the way that Abraham did who was
in the hills. Lot wanted a place that he could define and reach by
his own power. He ended up closed in a cave in an incestuous
relationship, i.e. in a box of his own definition and a relationship
in which nothing new could enter from outside.
Either we trust in God to transport us
to transcendence or we try to transform our little place on the plain
into transcendence by our own power, or we do not move at all. The
Left seeks to define and transform its little place into utopia and
thus transcend the limits of the world imposed by reality in nature.
For most, like Lot, their hope in transcendence is like the cow’s
hope in jumping over the moon, and so they do not really try.
Instead, they dedicate themselves to making their socially defined or
self-defined prison a little more comfortable. Traditional
religionists (in general) have their hope in God to transport them
into transcendence and hence, they do not need to transform the
world. They can leave it alone in its finiteness and relativity. This
is not to say that there is no need to do a work on the world to make
it incrementally better. Our work on bettering the world is our sign
to God that we want His gift of transcendence.
This is the choice before us. This is
the choice for which we are all individually responsible. Our
ultimate fate and the fate of the world depend upon how we choose.
Most of us are avoiding this choice, and we have all kinds of
convoluted rationalizations to justify ourselves. Perhaps it is
because going all the way to the hills requires sacrifice, and we are
so habituated to hoping in science and government to deliver us from
the hardship of sacrifice, i.e. the risks and hardships of personal
responsibility.
The Left has infiltrated and corrupted
all of our institutions, but more so, they have entered into and
corrupted the very souls of our children. We see the progressive
corruption in the succeeding generations, the latest being the
snowflake generation. Look at Antifa and other Leftist radicals. The
common image is that of a white, middle class youth or adult living
in his mother’s basement who has no job and no girlfriend. They are
unable to mature, grow up and take on responsibility because they are
unable to reason. No one introduced them into life or trained them in
reason. Life is passing them by and their radicalism is their last
ditch hope to find some meaning.
There is the belief that in order to
save our society we must become politically active, which is true.
But most of us are not in a position to know what is really going on
at the high levels of politics. The mind games are just too subtle.
It is to easy to get used. But we can look and see what is going on
in our local communities: the school board, the public library, the
city council, etc.
But, more fundamentally, we need to
save our children and our neighbors whose souls have been corrupted,
of all ages. Prof. Jordan Peterson, who has studied totalitarianism
in depth, says that the fertile ground for totalitarianism is a
population that does not exercise its own personal responsibility. As
I see it, we need to challenge anyone and everyone we meet to become
responsible. The first and primary responsibility is to acknowledge
what and who we are in relation to the infinite and act reasonably in
its regard. The Left has succeeded, not without our complicity, in
completely suppressing this question in modern society. The
suppression of this question is the reason we are now in this crisis.
Our task, regardless of whatever else we may be doing, is first of
all to live fully in this question, and secondly, to awaken this
question in others. If this question does not return to the vital
center of human life, personal and social, then we are doomed. Even
if Trump is re-elected and the onslaught of the Left is held at bay,
then it will only be a brief respite if we do not re-awaking this
question.
Confronting this question and
responding reasonably is the root of responsibility. Many people
spend their whole lives without ever considering it or in avoiding
it. Many people are offended when asked to consider it and will
accuse you of causing them distress and of being hateful. It will not
be easy. It will take a work. We have to dedicate time, energy and
resources to do it. I think it is more of an art than a science. The
Left will resist because it depends upon its suppression.
So, to answer Patrick’s question, I
would say that I understand one being disgusted as a first reaction.
But, on reflection should we not be struck by sorrow? I mean, if you
see someone who has been partially paralysed as a consequence of
being clubbed by a criminal, would you be disgusted because he cannot
meet your measure, or would you be sympathetic for his suffering,
or would you be angry at the criminal who robbed him of his life?
Unlike this example, the wounds of the fatherless are often not
visible. You can understand their wounds from their behavior.
Understanding the plight of the fatherless who are being consciously
cultivated and exploited by the Left, would perhaps make it easier to
see the weaknesses of others with compassion, and, hopefully, be
moved.