Thank you for raising those challenges. The following is the best clarification I can give at present. Let me know if I missed something or if you have further qualms.
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
I was planning to write a piece expanding on this point in …
Thank you for raising those challenges. The following is the best clarification I can give at present. Let me know if I missed something or if you have further qualms.
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
I was planning to write a piece expanding on this point in the future. The following will have to suffice for now:
I got the seed of this idea from a documentary about a fundamentalist cult I watched years ago. My memory is hazy, but the relevant portion was an interview with one of the children. The child was asked whether he ever experienced any doubt about the beliefs with which he was being raised. “Oh, all the time,” he replied. (Note: My quotes aren’t exact. As I said—hazy memory). He then cited Romans 1:20:
'For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.'
According to the child, this verse precludes the possibility of honest doubt with respect to the foundational tenets of his group’s teachings. Doubters are “without excuse.” Next, he cited Genesis 39:12, which has to do with fleeing temptation (one is to leave one’s garment in the hand of the adulteress, literally or figuratively, and flee without hesitation).
Then he put the two verses together. Since honest doubt of his group’s fundamental doctrines is not possible, then how can he account for the fact that doubts do, in fact, continually and automatically arise in his mind? Simple. What he is experiencing is not really doubt, but a form of temptation—specifically, the temptation to evade certain truths which are self-evident and beyond questioning. And what are we to do with temptation? We are to flee it. We are to recognize it as a danger to one’s soul, and reflexively remove ourselves from its evil influence. This child had been trained from a young age to suppress thinking by noticing the inception of a contrary idea and blanking it out of his consciousness before it can take shape.
I then began to notice this as part of a broader phenomenon. It seems there can be such a thing as a set of ideas which, once accepted, insulates itself from further examination. Another version I’ve seen goes something like this: “Due to your status as a beneficiary of an oppressive system, your attempts to pose questions that challenge our movement’s resistance are exploitative and self-serving.” So here again we see the act of questioning the doctrine is defined as immoral by the terms of the doctrine.
As far as conspiracy theorists, I’ve often thought there could be a similar type of circular delegitimization trap at play, but I haven’t yet pinned it down exactly. If conspiracy theorists stopped at merely questioning official narratives, I’d have to say I see some value in that. I must admit a lot of information I rely on is outsourced to experts and “authorities.” But they don’t stop at merely questioning. Conspiracy theorists will confidently make huge claims to very specific knowledge which they can’t justify. “Such-and-such photograph is a forgery.” “This incident was a false flag operation with paid crisis actors.” Etc.
For me, the point of this aphorism is to serve as a self-check. Have I accepted any form of idea which requires me to forego reappraising my own conclusions? Taken this way, it potentially cuts every direction—against those who would disallow questioning of mainstream information, and against those who blanketly disqualify “mainstream” criticism of their conspiracy theories.
Aphorism 3: Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
This one is an attempt to unravel a counterproductive language game I see used a lot. Terms like “extremism” and “hate” are used as catchall denunciations in place of being specific about the content of objectionable ideas. For example, is the problem with white supremacy really that it’s just taken too far? Would we be Ok with a moderate amount of white supremacy? Or how about a mushy, non-hateful kind of white supremacy that just wants to preserve and celebrate white culture? And if we aren’t willing to tolerate any amount of it, doesn’t that make us the extremists? After all, we’re the ones taking an absolutist stand, unwilling to compromise or meet halfway. It should be clear that the problem lies in the content of the ideas. You said it strikes you as an empty statement. It is. The emptiness is the point. The point is that we can’t positively or negatively evaluate a position along some axis without being clear about what the axis measures.
Aphorism 5: Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
When I wrote this one I was thinking of the ‘battle of wits’ scene from the Princess Bride: the Wallace Shawn character feverishly calculating double, triple, and quadruple buffs ad infinitum in order to choose which glass isn’t poisoned. My intended meaning: If you adopt the cynics’ heuristic that people are generally acting on ulterior motives, you’re going to render yourself incapable of comprehending straightforward interactions. The result, comically, is that you end up less perceptive than an average person while fancying yourself to be more sophisticated.
Thank you for providing such a detailed response, I really appreciate it! This definitely clears up the ambiguity and confusion for me, and you've also really raised some new perspectives for me that I've never considered, particularly re the 3rd aphorism -- I look forward to your upcoming piece expanding on some of these. Also, I love how you've connected your 5th aphorism to that scene from the Princess Bride; it's definitely one of my favorite scenes in that movie, and I hadn't thought about how illustrative it is of that exact point.
Thank you for raising those challenges. The following is the best clarification I can give at present. Let me know if I missed something or if you have further qualms.
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
I was planning to write a piece expanding on this point in the future. The following will have to suffice for now:
I got the seed of this idea from a documentary about a fundamentalist cult I watched years ago. My memory is hazy, but the relevant portion was an interview with one of the children. The child was asked whether he ever experienced any doubt about the beliefs with which he was being raised. “Oh, all the time,” he replied. (Note: My quotes aren’t exact. As I said—hazy memory). He then cited Romans 1:20:
'For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.'
According to the child, this verse precludes the possibility of honest doubt with respect to the foundational tenets of his group’s teachings. Doubters are “without excuse.” Next, he cited Genesis 39:12, which has to do with fleeing temptation (one is to leave one’s garment in the hand of the adulteress, literally or figuratively, and flee without hesitation).
Then he put the two verses together. Since honest doubt of his group’s fundamental doctrines is not possible, then how can he account for the fact that doubts do, in fact, continually and automatically arise in his mind? Simple. What he is experiencing is not really doubt, but a form of temptation—specifically, the temptation to evade certain truths which are self-evident and beyond questioning. And what are we to do with temptation? We are to flee it. We are to recognize it as a danger to one’s soul, and reflexively remove ourselves from its evil influence. This child had been trained from a young age to suppress thinking by noticing the inception of a contrary idea and blanking it out of his consciousness before it can take shape.
I then began to notice this as part of a broader phenomenon. It seems there can be such a thing as a set of ideas which, once accepted, insulates itself from further examination. Another version I’ve seen goes something like this: “Due to your status as a beneficiary of an oppressive system, your attempts to pose questions that challenge our movement’s resistance are exploitative and self-serving.” So here again we see the act of questioning the doctrine is defined as immoral by the terms of the doctrine.
As far as conspiracy theorists, I’ve often thought there could be a similar type of circular delegitimization trap at play, but I haven’t yet pinned it down exactly. If conspiracy theorists stopped at merely questioning official narratives, I’d have to say I see some value in that. I must admit a lot of information I rely on is outsourced to experts and “authorities.” But they don’t stop at merely questioning. Conspiracy theorists will confidently make huge claims to very specific knowledge which they can’t justify. “Such-and-such photograph is a forgery.” “This incident was a false flag operation with paid crisis actors.” Etc.
For me, the point of this aphorism is to serve as a self-check. Have I accepted any form of idea which requires me to forego reappraising my own conclusions? Taken this way, it potentially cuts every direction—against those who would disallow questioning of mainstream information, and against those who blanketly disqualify “mainstream” criticism of their conspiracy theories.
Aphorism 3: Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
This one is an attempt to unravel a counterproductive language game I see used a lot. Terms like “extremism” and “hate” are used as catchall denunciations in place of being specific about the content of objectionable ideas. For example, is the problem with white supremacy really that it’s just taken too far? Would we be Ok with a moderate amount of white supremacy? Or how about a mushy, non-hateful kind of white supremacy that just wants to preserve and celebrate white culture? And if we aren’t willing to tolerate any amount of it, doesn’t that make us the extremists? After all, we’re the ones taking an absolutist stand, unwilling to compromise or meet halfway. It should be clear that the problem lies in the content of the ideas. You said it strikes you as an empty statement. It is. The emptiness is the point. The point is that we can’t positively or negatively evaluate a position along some axis without being clear about what the axis measures.
Aphorism 5: Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
When I wrote this one I was thinking of the ‘battle of wits’ scene from the Princess Bride: the Wallace Shawn character feverishly calculating double, triple, and quadruple buffs ad infinitum in order to choose which glass isn’t poisoned. My intended meaning: If you adopt the cynics’ heuristic that people are generally acting on ulterior motives, you’re going to render yourself incapable of comprehending straightforward interactions. The result, comically, is that you end up less perceptive than an average person while fancying yourself to be more sophisticated.
Thank you for providing such a detailed response, I really appreciate it! This definitely clears up the ambiguity and confusion for me, and you've also really raised some new perspectives for me that I've never considered, particularly re the 3rd aphorism -- I look forward to your upcoming piece expanding on some of these. Also, I love how you've connected your 5th aphorism to that scene from the Princess Bride; it's definitely one of my favorite scenes in that movie, and I hadn't thought about how illustrative it is of that exact point.