![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Freedom of Materialism
Apologies if this train of thought is beginning to bore anyone, but I feel like there’s some deep and vital shift in my thinking going on – and it just so happens to be running its course by way of an alternative re-envisioning of “classic” conspiracy theory narratives.
Classic conspiracy theory basically states that there exist shadowy cabals which run world affairs from behind the scenes. It’s no great stretch of the imagination to believe that there is some truth to this. Where conspiracy theory falls down a lot of times – I think – is that it insists that these groups all are necessarily “evil” and have nothing but ill intentions towards the rest of humanity. Again, looking at the state of the world and how people are treated, this is also a tempting conclusion. But there are several others which could be drawn as well. And perhaps if we fuse them all together, we will be closer than ever to the truth.
My alternative premise so far goes something like this: modern science arose as a result of Enlightenment values, which go hand in hand (more or less) with those of Classical Liberalism. Leaders of the Enlightenment in Europe believed themselves to be an elite who were leading Europe out of the Dark Ages of tradition, superstition and religious rule. Likewise, the cause of science and individual freedom found a ready home within secret societies such as the Illuminati, who were ostensibly formed to “dispel the clouds of superstition and prejudice,” and to free men from religious persecution, so that they could believe anything they felt to be right.
Ken Wilber explains it like this:
The classic Western Enlightenment - with its philosophy of liberalism - came into existence, in large measure, as an anti-religion movement. The liberal philosophers and political theorists of the Enlightenment sought, among other things, to liberate individuals from the dictates of state religion and herd mentality …
This stance lead invariably to what today is decried as moral relativism: that no internal state is better than any other state. But as one author puts it, “The Enlightenment appeal to liberty invariably led to the suppression of religion, which led to the suppression of morals, which led to social chaos.” The classic example there being the horrors which followed the French Revolution.
In order to avert the chaos caused by moral relativism, it would seem that we require an alternative standard to be installed in it’s place. So let’s say that you wanted to be true to this idea of internal liberty, and that you wanted people to be able to think or feel or believe whatever they see fit – but without letting things get totally crazy socially. How would you ensure such a thing? There are two interlocking solutions that I see, one of which comes from the article linked above.
[Auguste] Comte [usually refered to as the “father of sociology”] advanced the concept of a “sociocracy,” defined as a new “religion of humanity.” Sociologists were to identify the principles of this new faith and to implement them through a “sociolatry.” The sociolatry was to entail a system of festivals, devotional practices, and rites designed to fix the new social ethics in the minds of the people. In the process, men and women would devote themselves not to God (deemed an outmoded concept) but to “Humanity” as symbolized in the “Grand Being” and rendered incarnate in the great men of history.
Queen Elizabeth I supposedly said “I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls.” Under such a philosophy of internal liberty, none would be necessary. First off, you have replace traditional religion with a civic religion. But more importantly than that, you would adopt a strictly materialist stance in all things. Why? Because materialism (along with behaviorism, etc) tends to free you from having to worry about things you can’t see. And you can’t see, touch, feel or measure interior states.
But you can measure things that appear in our common material reality. We can all agree that there are twelve inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, and so on. Measurement, in its purest sense, is entirely democratic, because the same data is available to and easily provable to anyone. Anyone can get the same results, and thus materialism becomes the new standard of truth and objectivity.
Though we often describe a materialist worldview as ignorant of spiritual realities and lacking of such intangibles as “humanity”, I believe that is exactly the point. It was initiated as the guiding philosophy behind the technocratic system of governance for exactly that reason: because they believed that government should not make windows into men’s souls, that we should be free to think, feel and believe anything that we want. Our internal states are ours alone, because their instruments cannot see it: all they can see is our outward behavior, which they do mandate adheres to certain rules of regulations in order to promote a functional and cohesive society.
A strictly materialist government, in other words, enables you to be the spiritual authority, and enables you to determine what it means to be fully “human.” Or in phildickian terms, the Empire is inhuman, because being human is *your* job, not its. I recognize that this is probably an overly idealistic and possibly naive reading of these ideas, but I personally find it to be very compelling and optimistic. If that really is what “they” were, or are, thinking then there are many things which I need to seriously go back and reconsider. A more negative and probably popular reading of these same ideas would probably go something like this:
An exclusively scientific approach jettisons all “axiomatic values.” The “esthetic and moral judgments” that preserve man’s humanity must be totally disregarded in a purely scientistic society. In fact, man himself must be altered. Because man’s humanity poses a problem for a state governed according to a system of quantification, that particular attribute of his being must be expunged. A scientific dictatorship requires a scientific man. Of course, such a being would cease to be human at all and this is precisely what the social engineers of the scientific dictatorship are endeavoring to create…
Science, in a sense though, should be amoral – shouldn’t it? I’m not sure myself, but I can phrase the argument appropriately, I think. It would go something like: how can you search for the truth if there are certain questions that are off-limits? What good is a hammer if it’s only allowed to strike certain colored nails? How can you face the unknown if you’re not ready to jettison everything you already know or think you know? What many consider science’s blindspot may also be its greatest strength, and liberating power. Liberating us into what, is the question. But then, maybe it’s not science’s job to answer that, but ours.
- Free Love & STDs
- Freedom Definition #1
- Protecting Our Freedoms
- Dawkins: Is Science a Religion?
- Is The *Illusion of Freedom* Freedom?
- Prev: Technocracy & The Noble Lie
- Next: Is Logic Logical?
July 28th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
We could also sneak the Prime Directive in here I think as well:
July 28th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
I think it is important to remember why romanticism came about in Europe at the turn of the 18 century- it basically wanted to incorporate the best aspects of the enlightenment but also be a rebellion against a sort of tyranical form of reason.
But an important value of liberalism is pluralism- pluaralism acknowledges different operational levels in which society can function. The founding fathers gave people the freedom to choose their own spiritual paths without fear of the state breathing down their backs. But they balanced it out by putting checks so people could not the use the state for their own religious purposes.. So we live in a pluralistic society where people are free to be materialists, religious, etc. and no one really has to fear prosercution from the state.
And lastly we have a world where people are intergrating science with spirituality. My two favorites Colin Wilson, and Robert Anton Wilson
July 28th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
both colin and robert ask some great questions and are brave enough to wade into areas of experience such as ufos and drugs that science buts a cordon around as best it can. you will be laughed out of any serious scientific debate regarding these and other topics that science will only allow to be one way.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I ahte reading crap like this. Religion has not been suppressed, it has blossomed. We have LESS chaos, less murder, longer lives, medicine & technology, all impossible without the freedoms brought about by the enlightenment.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Tim, you’ve essentially re-invented the wheel on the “Ahrimanic current” here. Which is fine, and you’re easier to read than Steiner. That said, there is something to be said for the TOTAL FREEDOM!! offered by Scientific princibles: at the same time, it sort of turns into a Murder Factory World. Did you watch the Power of Nightmares? It’s got a lot that fits into this… Zac has examined this witha lot of depth as well.
I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I don’t know if it’s necessarily false. I find that a lot of the apologism for the errors of our current ways revolve around this arguement and so I am wary of it. Likewise, there was a relevant quote from one of the talking heads of The Power of Nightmares: “People who don’t believe in anything are always afraid of people who believe in something.”
July 28th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
well, certainly church and state are necessary to control the masses and are a good thing for the greater population but they are a trap for the individual……….so my social hat says keep it up with the dogma and the rules and regulations but the rebel shaman says fuck you.
July 28th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
well, religion as an external political force should always be challenged- as any force that is a force of repression. religion as an internal force is more difficult to understand because it can be dynamic and allow you to enter inner realms which the skeptic can not comprehend. It can bring about profound change with positive results
Secular humanists who are compassionate materialists are wrong to assume that the idea of God should just vanish and we will have peace.
Expanding theological concepts of God so there is no conflict between science and the mystical, inner and the outer, personal- non personal, reason and intuition is happening and is dawning in more and more people especially those who call themselves ’spiritual but not religious’.
July 29th, 2006 at 3:18 am
Ah! These comments and others remind me of the great experiment that took place in the world over two hundred years ago. The idea of Enlightenment, liberty, and such is how the Founding Fathers came up with the United States which they were not sure would work, but they hoped against hope to change world views at the time. (All of this over-simplified, of course).
July 29th, 2006 at 10:31 am
See, it seems to me the opposite is true. No agnostic ever blew up a building for his lack of belief…people who believe are almost always people with agendas- and the stronger the belief, the bigger the agenda.
Somewhere in their thought process, they’ve decided to accept something as objectively true..the problem is usually that ‘objective truth’ comes with someone else’s rules attached: gays are ‘disordered,’ liberals can save the world, meat is murder, God gave us the promised land, etc etc ad nauseum. Not always bad but always with a flip side.
OTOH, the seeker is seldom a threat to anyone, nor is the apathetic person.
Rose- I’m not sure to what extent it’s ‘worked,’ except that we heretics are not currently being burned or having stakes driven through our tongues…that’s an improvement, at least.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Oh, good. Cause I thought I was just shooting in the dark on this one. I have read some stuff regarding that and “got” it in the past, but I think now I really am starting to understand how this works. And the key thing that I have always been missing in these equations is how to understand what the people think they are or were doing who have been involved in this. They don’t see themselves as doing evil - they think they are helping us.
Hell, maybe they are! Who knows? I’m still working out my reaction to this current.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Right! That’s exactly where I am going with this, and with the Freemason pieces as well.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Thank you for your post, Tim.
I’m so glad that two plus two still makes four here. I think we should all remember the importance of what you’ve said in the block quote above.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:45 pm
[…] This seems to tie in well with my recent explorations of the philosophy behind materialism, where I said: … you can’t see, touch, feel or measure interior states. […]
August 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Semi-relevant article I want to keep track of: “Postmodern” Attacks on Science and Reality
August 13th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
[…] This seems to tie in well with my recent explorations of the philosophy behind materialism, where I said: … you can’t see, touch, feel or measure interior states. […]