An Essay on Love, Relationships and Attraction

In William Gibson’s play The Miracle Worker, Anne Sullivan is hired to be the governess and teacher of the young, undisciplined Helen Keller. The play follows the real life story of Keller’s journey from a world where she is locked inside her own body and mind, sensible of only taste, touch and smell, to her triumph and mastery of communication through a series of hand signals made in the palm of her hand. Most people go through life blind. I do not mean that they are blind to the world as it is physically as was Helen Keller. Even an illiterate high school dropout can use his eyes to see objects and people and interact with them. The kind of blindness I refer to is a metaphysical blindness, a blindness to life as it is conceptually. Given the opportunity to learn, Helen seized on it. So also should the metaphysically blind seize on reason and drink deep, for as Alexander Pope reminds us: “a little learning is a dangerous thing.”
This metaphysical blindness occurs at many levels but today's post wishes to name this blindness as it manifests itself in terms of human relationships. Ayn Rand writes in her essay Selfishness Without a Self, that the metaphysically blind prefer those relationships which are obligatory rather than those relationships which are chosen. The preference for obligatory relationships is a product of metaphysical blindness. People, not knowing themselves and thus being incapable of knowing others, feel incapable of choosing their associations, that is their friends. Instead, they choose to associate only with those who share certain concrete qualities such as being from the same place, living in the same house, working at the same job etc... The family for such an individual, which he or she did not choose, becomes more important than friends, which he or she must choose from amongst voluntary candidates.
The reason such people choose family over friends is because family associations do not require the individual to make a choice about those with whom they associate they simply associate on the basis of some feeling that they are duty bound to do so. The real problem for these individuals comes when they are required to make decisions about who they will add to their family i.e. their group of people whom they associate with based on duty. For many,  this is the first and last choice they will make about those with whom they associate. At this point, the light of reason shines on most people and though not all obey it,  most are influenced by it somewhat. If people were to obey the light of reason in choosing their associations (in this case their mate), they would choose based on at least three categories: physical attraction, ideological agreement and equality of ability. Before I explain where most people go wrong, let me elucidate the reasons why I believe these three categories are important.
Physical attraction is important because the sexual act is part of how two people express their love for each other. Without this attraction, the love between two people remains the kind of love that friends can share. I think the human race will join me in validating this point.
Ideological agreement is also important because without it people cannot experience the joy of truly knowing each other. Furthermore,  the actions of a person follow from their thoughts so two people of differing philosophies will inevitably come into conflict,  especially if they dwell within the confines of a home. Now some people will argue that there ought to be some differences because it is out of a couple's conflict that the identity of their relationship is formed over time. This sounds sensible to those with some experience but is the most trite nonsense ever spun. It is true that the couple's identity will be formed but the individual's identity will be destroyed. The destruction of the individual is the antithesis of a productive relationship which ought rather to improve both individuals as part of its function.
The final element of a productive relationship is equality of ability. The relationship between a teacher and a student is one which is usually unequal,  the teacher knows and the student does not know. While human history is littered with plenty of examples of teacher-student relationships, they are all peppered with the taint of inequality. The Christian Bible even calls for women to be silent in church (a center of learning) and to learn at home from their husbands. Here feminists, is your patriarchy disabling women from self-representation. Such relationships are inevitably unfulfilling because they involve one participant worshiping the other. This is not to say that someone occupying the role of teacher and someone occupying the role of student cannot transcend this example. They might very well do so, if they are in fact, but not on paper, of equal ability. The products of an unequal relationship are feelings of resentment on the part of the student for never being able to repay the teacher and the same feelings by the teacher because they feel they have sacrificed and not received an equal reward to their sacrifice. Though the teacher in the relationship is often the one held responsible, they suffer equally with the student because the act of worship destroys the worshiper as well as the worshiped.
Now most people intuitively understand that they should benefit from their associations. Even the individual's membership in the family rewards them in exchange for their sacrifice of identity. So when choosing an association which will result in marriage, most people at least aspire to meet all three of these requirements. But here is the most common error: the assumption that the marriage relationship's identity will necessarily and appropriately replace the individual's identity. For most this assumption is unstated. Far worse off are those who marry without considering these categories. As an example, many marry because of the advent of a child i.e. on the basis of their sexual attraction which produced the child. Such a relationship, if not sustained by equality of ability and intellectual compatibility, will either make its participants miserable or simply not last. Worse off still are those who are shamed into marriage by a false ethic, in many cases a religious ethic. They have not even the necessity of caring for a child to unite them but only the assurance that they are ‘doing the right thing.’
In the first case of error (those who assess their mate but assume the loss of their own identity) the error is one of false premises. A whole life may be lived in marriage by two such individuals but there will be a persistent nagging feeling until the very end that despite what they have gained they have lost something irreplaceable (their own identity). Many associate this feeling with a nostalgia for youth (the last time they had an individual identity) and go looking for it when they begin to reflect on its loss (somewhere around the age of 40 or later). But many do not search for it – especially those who are reinforced by a philosophy or religion which upholds altruism as a noble value. This error is in some ways the worst error because an individual may live for years without knowing they have committed it.
In the case of the latter two errors, they are errors of action before thought. In such cases, marriage serves as a justification or rationalization for prior action. Though these individuals are worse off, the errors themselves are easier to avoid and many people are beginning to avoid making them. Nevertheless, religion continues to eclipse the light of reason in the minds of many modern people who are living according to an irrational ethic. Divorce has also provided such people with the option of undoing their mistake on paper though, admittedly, the mistake cannot be wholly reversed if there are children produced by the union.
So what is the proper ethic of marriage? Simply put, a proper marriage relationship grows from: 1) Both individuals consideration of their prospective mate based on the three categories above  (possibly more based on individual preference) and 2) Both individuals valuating their own identities as more important than the identity of the couple, which really has no identity without the identities of both individuals. Duty or, as it is often cast in certain circles of thought, ‘altruistic love’ must never enter the picture because any love which destroys those who are meant to share in its delight can be no love at all.

An Essentialist Feminist meets a Liberal Feminist or Why I don't think Feminists should play the Victim

E – Hi there, may I tell you about my movement?

L – Sure!

E – Women and men have their own set of essential qualities which define their respective sexes. For centuries, since the fall of the matriarchy, men have been glorifying their essential qualities (masculine qualities) while denegrating the essential qualities of women (feminine qualities).

L – That sounds horrible.

E – It essentially is.

L – Do you mind if I ask you some questions about all of that because I think I'm a little confused?

E – Sure!

L – Well, first what makes a quality essential?

E – That means it is associated with the entity in question, in this case the essential qualities of men are associated with men while the essential qualities of women are associated with women.

L – That's interesting. So how are these qualities associated with men or women?

E – Based on their use by one of the sexes.

L – So association is based on use?

E – Yeah, basically.

L – Are there some members of one sex that display the qualities associated with the other sex i.e. women that display qualities associated with men or men that display qualities associated with women.

S – Yes of course, there are lots of those types. A woman named Joan of Arc was a great military leader and even though King James I of England was male, he displayed many negative qualities which the patriarchy associates with women.

L – Was Joan of Arc considered a man because of her valor or King James I a woman because of his indecisiveness?

S – No, of course not that is silly.

L – So, despite their abnormal deviation from the set of essential qualities associated with their sex they remained members of their own sex?

S – Yes, isn't that obvious?

L – I'm the one asking questions. Why then are those qualities (valor and indecisiveness) associated with men and women respectively?

S – Because the consensus of history shows that generally speaking those qualities were associated with men or women.

L – Why does history say that when there are clearly exceptions to the rule?

S – Oh that's the good part. History is just this big cover up, as part of which men have striven to hide from memory those men who break the pattern and to suppress the memory of women who did not conform to their predetermined role.

L – Have men been successful in this cover up, because if so that would really suck?

S – No, because as we are aware of their attempt to do so and have acted to prevent its success or the continuation of the cover up.

L – Well that's good news. But is it possible that as part of this vast coverup they created a system of labels that associates certain preferred qualities with men and non-preferred qualities with women?

S – What do you mean?

L – It's kind of like they tried to deal us a bad hand in a card game by deliberately giving us bad cards to play with.

S – Oh yes, they definitely did that.

L – So then, should we accept this bad hand i.e. their attempt to label certain good qualities which lead to success as masculine and other qualities which do not lead to success as feminine?

S – You know what, those qualities that you're talking about, those are the qualities of men which they have glorified through the creation of a patriarchal hierarchy and a heteronormative society.

L – But are those qualities the essential qualities of men or is it simply that they would have us to believe that they are the only ones who can have those qualities?

S – It is possible that the male hierarchy has deceived us into choosing to use rhetorical tools (as well as display other qualities) which are inherently faulty. Tools such as rhetorical self-identification as the victim or rhetorical victimization which inherently place us in a subordinate role to the offending patriarchy.

L – How then should we respond when women self-identify themselves as victims (use the rhetoric of victimization) in the media?

S – With expressions of disgust. We are not subordinate to the patriarchy, we are equal to it and therefore we should not be constrained to using tools which only reinforce its power over us as victims.

L – So the logical conclusion of our conversation is that this whole system of essential qualities for men and women has been designed by men to trap us through the used of sex-based associations and labels?

S – Yes, we must reject the tools they have given us and take up the tools which they reserve for themselves.

L – But will the master's tools ever dismantle the master's house?

S – Haven't I heard that somewhere before? But the answer is that you have set up a false metaphor. It is not the master's house, it is the house if of all humankind who are created with equal rights to live in it and utilize the tools associated with it.

L – Just a thought: Is the logical conclusion of liberal feminism the abolition of sex based associations and the creation of a gender-blind society?

S – I think so, but honestly I am tired of thinking about all this. Let's go have a cigarette.

Fin

Sober Holidays

     Next week, I can look forward to the following: apathetic attitudes toward school work, repeated requests to watch Christmas films, quarrelsome questions about failing grades and a persistent preoccupation with the two weeks between Friday, December 16, 2011 and Tuesday, January, 2012. I will respond to all of these questions with the universally befuddling response: “I'm sorry, the computer says no...” But next week is really inconsequential, a symptom of a larger problem, that problem is that when the bell rings on Friday and my students leave the school, they will return to me more or less unchanged. Let me state clearly that I am not against Christmas as a religious or cultural holiday. But I am against the possibility of its acting as a giant “weekend” of relief for both my students and society at large in this nation.

     Economically, this nation is on the precipice of disaster. Our government has failed to address the real issues of our time, a few of which are: our nation's growing debt which we have no plan to repay, the completely disregarded impact our nation's industry has on the climate as well as our failed education system which public policy has failed to address. Americans have a tendency to behave like imperial citizens, many of us resign our responsibility to others who will “figure it out” but America is no empire, though its citizens often behave that way. Political discourse in a republic such as our own goes both ways: leaders shape public opinion and the public tells leaders what it wants to hear. The public has failed in its duty on these issues. On the left, politicians pander to the public on the dole which cares more about its benefits than the nation's economic prosperity. On the right, politicians pander to a public willfully blind toward climate change, which is symptomatic of the right's refusal to accept the conclusions of modern science.

     Underlying the first two problems is the third problem, one which I confront daily, our failed education system. Unless we first fix our education system, we cannot hope for a public discourse which meaningfully interacts with the real issues of our time in an effective way. The blame lies as much with parents, students and families as it does with teachers, principals and the system. If parents and students became more interested and involved in the educational process, we would be one step closer to a solution.

     This nation has not earned a vacation. We enter this holiday season with unresolved issues both at the societal and political levels and no one should forget that this Christmas. There are no bombers flying overhead or armies waiting to invade, but the same apprehension which loomed over London in December of 1940 should loom over us as well. The threat is not the same. The threat is that we habitually fail to recognize our own problems and often allow them to go unresolved to the point of crisis. So when you leave your job to celebrate Christmas, whenever that may be, ask yourself if you have earned the break, if you have accomplished anything worthy of reward. If your answer is yes then by all means have a merry Christmas relaxing with your family. But if not, I hope you accomplish something over the break and wish you the most sober of holidays.  

An Open Letter to Society

Humanity,

Forgive my melodrama, but I must confess a crime I committed against you. On May 14, 2011 I accepted a rather large bribe from the President of William Carey University. In exchange for my silence which began much earlier in the academic year I received one copy of a degree which I earned both through my academic achievements and through my silence.

It is to my eternal shame that I accepted the degree. To this day, it means nothing to me save what it signifies that I actually learned.

Some of you will not understand my confession, some of you could not care less. But to explain it, I must return to December 8. 2010, when I first came into open conflict with William Carey University's administration. Quite a few of the articles published on my blog (then rhaetor.wordpress.com) were critical of the university's policies and those that formulated them. I criticized the funds expended on founding the D.O. school, the University's censorship of the press and their poor logistical planning skills amongst other things.

--> If you linked here from facebook, start reading here <--

In an unpublished letter to the editor of The Cobbler, since lost, I advocated the dissolution of one man (Dr. King) ruling William Carey University. It was this letter which set events in motion. I was summoned to speak to Scott Hummel about the matter. At this point, I made my first mistake. After what I believed was an earnest conversation with him, I agreed to remove an article criticizing the D.O. school from the blog (this article has since been completely lost). I did so because he offered assurances, which could not be checked, that I had the facts wrong, I was naïve and stupid to bargain with such a one.

It was not long after this that I was ordered to remove two other articles from the blog, one which was critical of the university's censorship of The Cobbler (the irony!) and one which criticized the university's poor planning for parking. Both of these can be found republished for historical benefit at rhaetor1.wordpress.com. The orders were accompanied by a threat that the university would remove my scholarships if I did not comply. I was then summoned before Dr. Marilyn Ellzey who attempted, in a very brusque manner to persuade me to remove them, I was not impressed by her methods which seemed to run roughshod over the ideal of free speech. 

The university had wanted to contact my parents, even questioning whether my so called rebellion was the result of my coming a broken home. I am forever grateful that as a freshman I had not waived the rights guaranteed me by the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act. Nevertheless, I called my parents, who I thought would encourage me in such a black hour. They did not, in fact they discouraged me from continuing to resist. I was encouraged at times by dear friends and mentors, none of whom could provide me with the tangible support I needed to stay in school.

But this is my shame, that in tears I gave up. I surrendered and was complicit in silencing my own voice. This voice, the fire that burns inside every one of us should not be doused by the waters of religion, set adrift on a sea of social pressure or even covered by a veil made by money. I have kept my silence heretofore because I wished to disavow what I had done and to let the past be the past. I am equally content to allow the ghosts of the past the silence of sleep. I want no vengeance nor do I bear any malice but I must purge myself of my crime. I want no forgiveness or validation, only condemnation for my error.

I want no degree, I would rather have my fire back so that it might burn the more brightly now. I know that it will return to me, but it will be many years in the returning. Ayn Rand puts it best in her preface to the twenty-fifth edition of her book The Fountainhead:

“It is not in the nature of man--nor of any living entity--to start out by giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption... …Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing how or when they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, of abandoning one's values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential.”

I seek such a vision and if in finding it my losses are more tangible than my gains, my only hope is that I never grow bitter or forgetful of the importance of the fire. 

Yours, 

Thomas Duke

An Apology for my Methods

I recently taught a lesson on "Abraham and the Patriarchs" in my World History class. I chose to refer to the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as myths, which I told the children were "enduring stories told to convey ideas." This lesson drew considerable controversy, with many well-educated friends weighing in on my decision. But to all of you who did weigh in, I welcome the chance to respond to your thoughts and concerns. There are three arguments in my apology. The first concerns academic values, the second the why certain cognitive models are inapplicable with the final argument demonstrating why this method is best from the Christian perspective.

1. 

One of the very first arguments devised against my methods was that children are not cognitively developed enough to understand how a myth can be empirically false and yet true in a more abstract sense. I do not think this applies only to children, there are many adults who cannot make such distinctions. 

If therefore, people (children or adults) are incapable of making those distinctions should we merely let them proceed believing that events which are "regarded as historical although not verifiable" are grounded in the empirical reason used in academic settings. I should say not, in the absence of evidence which explicitly supports the existence of the patriarchs we can draw no conclusion about their existence based on reason and logic. It does no good to ignore the stories as they already know them. Therefore, we ought to teach such stories in school as 'myths' or possibly 'legends' but certainly not history. Even if people cannot grasp the distinction, secondary schools are designed to reinforce the individual's ability to reason not to reinforce cultural or religious values. Ideally, a teacher should also consider the various religious backgrounds of students in their class, though mine are quite uniformly somewhat christian.  

2. 

Bloom's taxonomic model, created in the 1950s and introduced to me by one of my critics, suggests that children start out learning by remembering, understanding and applying before proceeding to analyzing, evaluating and creating as represented in the following diagram taken from: edorigami.wikispaces.com.   

This seems simple enough but it fails in two ways. First, it fails to take into account the complex environment in which children learn. Children in High School are frequently asked to design projects and compose essays or other assignments. Categorically, these skills belong to the highest level of thinking - creating. By neglecting to teach them how to analyze and evaluate before creating we are by default reducing the quality of their creations. For a more detailed criticism of this model see: http://www.utechtips.com/2007/01/08/blooms-taxonomy-revisited/. In my case, it would be unfair for me to allow my students to construct a poster about the patriarchs if I had not offered them the information necessary to analyze the story and distinguish between important and unimportant "facts." 

Moreover, most students from the bible-belt already know the story of the patriarchs from churches and Sunday schools. For me to recite the stories would be redundant. If I offered them a slightly different way to look at and interpret the stories, education would take place. In fact, according to this model's approach we might move out of the lower categories and into the higher ones by basing the lesson on "facts" already in their minds and then offering a new way to look at them. 

3. 

Aside from the academic reasons I have for refusing to teach "Abraham and the Patriarchs" as historical fact, there are religious reasons for doing so as well. The present system encourages thinking about the world in terms of empirical facts and simply put, the Bible was not meant to withstand such scrutiny. Thus Christians who suddenly become aware of the "facts" have a tendency to, out of shock, reject the facts or reject their religion. Neither of these outcomes are desirable. 

Christian children do not need to be taught using a system of absolutes, it is no good in the long run to introduce facts now and introduce qualifiers later especially when it could affect a person's faith. Religious and philosophical truth have abstract characters and should be recognized as such.  

Bertrand Russell, one of Christianity's foremost critics argues that the only reason people become religious is because of indoctrination from an early age. Unfortunately, he is correct in more cases than he is not. That is why it is unconscionable to me to skip over the controversial bits (and so leave students in the dark) merely to prevent challenging their faith. I will not contribute to a system that essentially reinforces children's cultural and religious notions and results in their being good docile adult church members who listen to their priest and sing their mass in Latin... A person's faith is part of their personal journey which ought to be challenged at every turn not coddled and given the weak and unreliable support of empirical evidence. 

I know that many of you may disagree with me and please continue to do so, I find your comments enlightening, but I hope this post has served to justify to you my teaching methods.

On the Capitalist System and Small Business Owners

America has been almost wholly given over to capitalism, a system which enriches few, impoverishes as many as it enriches and which is presently attempting to dismantle our cherished liberties. William Wordsworth in an excerpt from his poem England, 1802, says it best. 


The wealthiest man among us is the best:
No grandeur now in nature or in book
Delights us. Rapine, avarice, expense,
This is idolatry; and these we adore:
Plain living and high thinking are no more:
The homely beauty of the good old cause
Is gone; our peace, our fearful innocence,
And pure religion breathing household laws.


It's very difficult to deny that wealth has become associated with social affluence and status in America, 2011.  We hear wealth praised every day in the media, not directly of course, but what else is all the political pandering about 'making the economy safe for entrepreneurs' about. These entrepreneurs or small business owners who the Republicans (and even some Democrats) pander to are the wealthy or those trying to obtain wealth through the founding of a business, which according to almost all Republicans will always be small and harmless, integrated into the community and owned by your next door neighbor. 


The truth is this, there is not one aspect of being a business owner (small or large) that ennobles a person. As Wordsworth says, "Plain living and high thinking are no more." If anything business ownership makes a person more susceptible to the vices of greed and envy and perhaps other vices such as gluttony and pride. Though I am obliged to credit capitalism with attempting to eliminate sloth by rewarding people for their labor. Yet even then, the capitalist system does not encourage people to take an interest in their work merely for the sake of the work but instead encourages them through the distribution of the filthy lucre we call money. 


Some weeks ago (September 7th) Ron Paul, a candidate whom I respect more than other Republicans, argued in the Republican presidential debate that government organizations like the TSA should be dismantled and the industry deregulated, allowing pilots to carry guns and private security firms to monitor passengers boarding planes. This suggestion received a great deal of applause from the audience. The American public, or at least Republicans, seems convinced in this instance as well as in the bigger picture, that businesses do a better job of providing services than the government. In the sense that they could possibly make the process more efficient, saving time and money, I agree. 


Imagine for me a deregulated industry and a private security firm doing the job of the TSA. Inevitably, these unregulated goons working for the airline would racially profile customers. Free from the oppressive jackboot of government regulation, there would be no incentive to prevent this racial profiling. We have also to think of what this private security firm would do with our data and information. Would they be given access to the no-fly lists generated by the state department, or national security databases? Would they store the naked images taken of us as we passed through a scanner where they could be hacked or leaked? On the whole the only thing which would prevent any of this from happening or offer any redress would be an extensive litigation process which no one wants to undergo. 


Let us remember that regulations (nasty rules which bind the noble hands and feet of America's entrepreneurs)  conceptually include laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race or religion when hiring an employee or selling a product to a customer. The concept of regulation also includes laws which prevent entrepreneurs from firing pregnant women who recently gave birth or paying men doing the same job more than women. Regulation (from the mouth of Ron Paul himself) also includes the minimum wage. Imagine eliminating the minimum wage which is not even a proper living wage. The poor would only become poorer, but businesses, driven by their bottom lines, would thrive as they do in China today.


The simple matter of fact is that the American dream is devoid of moral virtue. There is no incentive in the capitalist system for morality. Capitalists, entrepreneurs, small business owners (by any name) are of necessity driven only by one direct motive, profit. Doing what is right will not always be compatible with making money. It is this role which the government fulfills, to protect the poor and the middle class from the oppressions of the world's new feudal lords, entrepreneurs. 


As Wordsworth says in the most famous stanza of England, 1802:


IT is not to be thought of that the flood
Of British freedom, which, to the open sea
Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity
Hath flow'd, 'with pomp of waters, unwithstood...
...Should perish; and to evil and to good
Be lost for ever...*

Americans, the inheritors and guardians of that freedom, which is by no means exclusively British or even western, might take a note from Wordsworth and not "change swords for ledgers and desert the student's bower for gold." While we yet have the power at the ballot box, we should not exchange our ideals for economic prosperity and our moral virtue for a system that is servant to the bottom line. 

*For the full text of the poem go to: http://rantingstan.blogspot.com/2008/10/english-poetry-england-1802.html

I wish to add that although I initially wrote this in an earnest spirit, it no longer represents the fruit of my thinking in its entirety. I will leave it up because I believe that it conveys to my readers a picture of the progression of my thought.

Moments of Silence

What is a moment of silence?

Is it a response to our “disbelief, terrible sadness and quiet unyielding anger”

Does it demand our introspection,

Or do we know exactly what we feel in that moment?

In that moment of political, social silence,

undefined by the simple parameters of time,

are we fully aware of the empires we make?

Should we accept the silence?

Who does silence honor?

What does it say of a nation that it is

Speechless. Unprepared. Non-responsive. Irresolute.

In that moment we redefine ourselves recklessly.

That moment is stolen time, never to be returned.

It is a child that cannot care for those who occasioned its feeble and uncanny existence.

Its irony is deafening to a race distinguished by speech.

It is a moment of surrender,

To something new and foreign

Not terror but fear.

In that moment, while terror played the fool

Justice removed her blind

To gape at the spectacle

And despair with a tiny prick

Stole her virtue in the street.

So what have we to say of moments of silence

They are imperial bridges across the Rubicon

Assembled by the people working in silence