The Earthquakelike Sense of Bewilderment and Confusion that Occurs as a Result!

Image may contain: sky, cloud and outdoor

Do not despise hypocrites too much. See them through. They are sometimes a sign of what we should like to be. We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the World. Incidentally, while a person’s conscious experience may be whole-object experience, a split may be maintained at less conscious and more primitive levels. Original individuality has been lost through a process called “identification,” a process which does indeed exist. However, what we must allow for is that there are people whose individuality and selfhood have never been established. False Selves present an appearance of individuality, with those who have an individual self but on occasion regress back to a state of mind in which they are still merged with another being, under their guidance, control, and influence. This is because people have an original wholeness which is split into parts—also known as ego-splitting. They are seeking to merge with another being, physically and mentally, not necessarily sexually, and take on characteristics of those they bond with. The excitement, the frustration, the hostility, the lack of hope are there, so is the bad self-imagery and the bad object-imagery. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

The individual may well feel self-reproach on one day, blame the World on another occasion, and just feel mopey or angry at yet another times. Many people live in a life in which self, other, and relationship have not been tidily separated. To distinguish between them is hard work. The reason is that originally the experiences come in basic units, basic units in which self and other have not yet differentiated. We, the observers, see something of the excited individual and the exciting but frustrating World around one, but the individual’s experience is one of alternating excitement and disappointment, in which there is as yet little or no consciousness, let alone self-consciousness and perception of the other person in a mutual relationship. We are not nearly as good at keeping self, other, and situation conceptually and verbally distinct as we like to think. At a more primitive level, we may entertain the possibility that such frustrating, exciting relationships come about when separation-anxiety has gone past some critical point of tolerance, when the attachment figure was needed and not available. This makes a person experience a black hole, an agonizing place where an attachment should have been. And the individual can make no distinction about where the distress is coming from. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

One is thinking with a state of mind which is not yet sufficiently structure or has been damaged by injury or substance abuse to the point the individual is not capable of the questions “Is this me or is it another?” “Am I wrong to expect help or is one wrong to withhold?” “From whom does this excitement come, me or the other?” This is why some people fall prey to manipulative individuals, cults, and group think or pack mentality. Whereas normal adults would be able to see that a person is clearly not a good leader or is in some way deranged, people with a false sense of self are looking to bond, be loved, be accepted, and be coddled by someone. The feeling is in the basic unit, in self and other relationship. That self and others should be so easily confused, and so hard to tell apart, may seem amazing at first glance. An important source of defensive aggression is aggression as a reaction to any attempt to being repressed strivings and phantasies into awareness. This type of reaction is one of the aspects of what Dr. Freud called “resistance,” and it has been explored systematically by the psychoanalytic method. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

Dr. Freud found if the analyst touched upon repressed material that individual would “resist” one’s therapeutic approach. This is not a matter of conscious unwillingness on the part of the individual or of dishonesty or of secretiveness; one is defending oneself against the discovery of the unconscious material without being away either of the material or of one’s resistance. There are many reasons why a person may repress certain strivings, often throughout one’s life. If one’s repressed impulses were known to others (or to oneself, in so far as self-respect and self-love are concerned), one might be afraid of being punished, of not being loved, or of being humiliated. Psychoanalytic therapy has shown the many different reactions resistance can generate. The individual can turn away from the sensitive topic and talk about something else; one can feel sleepy and tired; one can find a reason not to come to the interview—or one can become very angry against the analyst and find some reason to quite the analysis. Here is a brief example: a writer I was analyzing, who was proud of his lack of opportunism, told me during a session that he had changed a manuscript because he thought by this change, he would make a better case for his message. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

He thought he had made the right decision and was surprised that afterwards he felt somewhat depressed and had a headache. I suggested that his real motive probably was that he expected the changed version to be more popular and to result in more fame and money for him than the original one; furthermore, that his depressed mod and his headache probably had something to do with this act of self-betrayal. I hard hardly finished saying this when he jumped up shouting at me with intense rage that I was a sadist trying to cook his brain, that I enjoyed spoiling his anticipated pleasures, an envious man begrudging his future success, an ignorant man who knew nothing about his field of writing, and many more invectives. (It mut be noted that the individual was normally a very courteous man who, both before and after this outburst, treated me with respect.) He could hardly have done more to confirm my interpretation. The mention of his unconscious motivation was to him a threat to his self-image and to his sense of identity. He reacted to this threat with intense aggression, as if it were a threat to his body or property. The aggression in such cases has one aim: to destroy the witness who has the evidence. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

In psychoanalytic therapy one can observe with great regularity that resistance is being built up when repressed martial is touched. However, we are by no means restricted to the psychoanalytic situation in order to observe this phenomenon. Examples from daily life abound. Who has not seen the mother who reacts with fury when someone tells her she wants to keep her children close to her because she wants to possess and control them—and not because she loves them so much? Or a certain type of patriot who is reminded of the profit interest behind one’s political convictions? Or a certain type of revolutionary who is reminded of the personal destructive impulses being one’s ideology? In fact, questioning another’s motivation violates one of the most respected taboos of courtesy—and a very necessary one, inasmuch as courtesy has the function of minimizing arousal of aggression. Historically, the same thing happens. Those who told the truth about a particular regime have been exiled, jailed, or killed by those in power whose fury had been aroused. To be sure, the obvious explanation is that they were dangerous to their respective establishments, and that killing them seemed the best way to protect the status quo. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

This is true enough, but it does not explain the fact that the truth-sayers are so deeply hated even when they do not constitute a real threat to the established order. The reason lies, I believe, in that by speaking the truth they mobilize the resistance of those who repress it. To the latter, the truth is dangerous not only because it can threaten their power but because it shakes their whole conscious system of orientation, deprives them of their rationalizations, and might even force them to act differently. Only those who have experienced the process of becoming aware of important impulses that were repressed know the earthquakelike sense of bewilderment and confusion that occurs as a result. Not all people are willing to risk this adventure, least of all those who profit, at least for the moment, from being blind. The problem of paternalism deserves some discussion here, since it has been mentioned in the argument for equal liberty, and concerns a lesser freedom. In the original position (guarantees each citizens a robust package of liberal rights to such things as freedom of conscience, freedom to vote, and stand in elections, and rights to due process, and also ensures fair equality of economic opportunity as well as shares of income and wealth that are maximally beneficial to people with the least amount of income and wealth) the parties assume that in a free society they are rational and able to manage their own affairs. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Therefore they do not acknowledge any duties to self, since this is unnecessary to further their good. However, once the ideal conception is chosen, they will want to insure themselves against the possibility that their powers are undeveloped and they cannot rationally advance their interests, as in the case of children; or that through some misfortune or accident they are unable to make decisions for their good, as in the cause of those seriously injured or mentally disturbed. It is also rational for them to protect themselves against their own irrational inclinations by consenting to a scheme of penalties that may give them a sufficient motive to avoid foolish actions and by accepting certain impositions designed to undo the unfortunate consequences of their imprudent behaviour. For these cases the parties adopt principles stipulating when others are authorized to act in their behalf and to override their present wishes if necessary; and this they do recognizing that sometimes their capacity to act rationally for their good may fail, or be lacking altogether. Thus the principles of paternalism are those that the parties would acknowledge in the original position to protect themselves against the weakness and infirmities of their reason and will in society. Others are authorized and sometimes required to act on our behalf and to do what we would do for ourselves if we were not rational, this authorization coming into effect only when we cannot look after our own good. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

Paternalistic decisions are to be guided by the individual’s own settled preferences and interests insofar as they are not irrational, or failing a knowledge of these, by the theory or primary goods. The theory of primary goods are goods that are supposed to be desirable for every human being, just as they are also useful for them. Natural primary goods: this category includes intelligence, imagination, health, speed, et cetera. Social primary goods: this category includes rights (civil rights and political rights), liberties, income and wealth, the social basis of self-respect, et cetera. As we know less and less about a person, we act for one as we would act for ourselves from the standpoint of the original position. We try to get for one the things ne presumably wants whatever else one wants. We must be able to argue that with the development or the recovery of one’s rational powers the individual in question will accept our decision on one’s behalf and agree with us that we did the best thing for one. The requirement that the other person in due course accepts one’s condition is not, however, by any means sufficient, even if this condition is not one to rational criticism. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

Thus imagine two persons in full possession of their reason and will who affirm different religious or philosophical beliefs; and suppose that there is some psychological process that will convert each to the other’s view, despite the fact that the process is imposed on them against their wishes In due course, let us suppose, both will come to accept conscientiously their new beliefs. We are still not permitted to submit them to this treatment. Two further stipulations are necessary: paternalistic intervention must be the fact that the process is imposed on them against their wishes. In due course, let us suppose, both will come to accept conscientiously their new beliefs. We are still not permitted to submit them to this treatment. Two further stipulations are necessary: paternalistic intervention must be justified by the evident failure or absence of reason and will; and it must be guided by the principles of justice and what is known about the subject’s more permanent aims and preferences, or by the account of primary goods. These restrictions on the initiation and direction of paternalistic measures follow from the assumptions of the original position. The parties want to guarantee the integrity of their person and their final ends and beliefs whatever these are. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

Paternalistic principles are a protection against our own irrationality, and must not be interpreted to license assaults on one’s convictions and character by any means so long as these offer the prospect of securing consent later on. More generally, methods of education must likewise honour these constraints. The force of justice as fairness would appear to arise from two things: the requirement that all inequalities be justified to the least advantaged, and the priority of liberty. This pair of constraints distinguishes it from intuitionism and teleological theories. Taking the preceding discussion into account, we can reformulate the first principle of justice and conjoin to it the appropriate priority rule. The changes and additions are, I believe, self-explanatory. The principle now reads as follow. First Principle—each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Priority Rule—the principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. These are two cases: (a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all, and (b) a less than equal liberty must be accepted to those citizens with the lesser liberty. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

It perhaps bears repeating that I have yet to give a systematic argument for the priority rule, although I have checked it out in a number of important cases. It appears to fit our considered convictions fairly well. However, an argument from the standpoint of the original position I postpone until the full force of the contract doctrine can be brought into play. Now, you have only to think for a moment to glance and see the behaviour of professing Christians currently to realize the practical outcome of holding the law and obedience to the law to be irrelevant to the life of faith in Christ. The basic practice in the New World of Christianity today is, I fear, strongly antinomian. Here is a true story from the current Christian scene. Test our theology on it: A human—a long-tie, faith church member—comes to his pastor and says, “I am going to divorce my wide and marry someone else.” The pastor, aghast, says, “You cannot do that! You are a devoted Christian, and so is your wife. Divorce in these circumstances is clearly wrong.” “Yes,” the man replies, “I know that, but I am going to do it anyway. I just cannot stand her any longer. I know it is wrong, but after it is all over I will ask God for forgiveness and he will forgive me. He must, because I believe that Christ died for me. That is what you teach.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

Image may contain: sky, pool and outdoor

You can extend this to imaginary cases: murdering someone who “deserves it,” a once-in-a-lifetime, career-making, crooked deal, and so forth. How, precisely, does our version of salvation rule out a judicious use of sin? And, if one can hold such a use in reverse, what does growth in Christlikeness mean? Just something to think about. The cognitive faculty does not move except through the medium of the appetitive: and just as in ourselves the universal reason moves through the medium of the particular reason, so in ourselves the intellectual appetite, or the will as it is called, moves through the medium of the sensitive appetite. Hence, in us the sensitive appetite is the proximate motive-force of our bodies. Some bodily change therefore always accompanies an act of the sensitive appetite, and this change affects especially the heart, which is the first principle of movement in terrestrial beings. Therefore acts of the sensitive appetite, inasmuch as they have annexed to them some bodily change, are called passions; whereas acts of the will are not so called. Love, therefore, and joy delight are passions; in so far as they denote acts of the intellective appetite, they are not passions. It is in this latter sense that they are in God. Hence, God rejoices by an operation that is one simple and for the same reason He loves without passions. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

In the passions of the sensitive appetite there may be distinguished a certain material element—namely, the bodily change—and a certain formal element, which is on the part of the appetite. Thus in anger, the material element is the kindling of blood about the heart; but the formal, the appetite for revenge. Again, as regards the formal element of certain passions a certain imperfection is implied, as in desire, which is of the good we have not, and in sorrow, which is about the evil we have. This applies also to anger, which supposes sorrow. Certain other passions, however, as love and joy, imply no imperfection. Since therefore none of these can be attributed to God on their material side, as have been said; neither can those that even on their formal side imply imperfection be attributed to God; except metaphorically, and likeness of effect, as already show. Whereas, those that do not imply imperfection, such as love and joy, can be properly predicated of God, though without attributing passion to Him, as said before. An act of love always tends towards two things; to the good that one will and to the person for whom one wills it: since to love a person is to wish that person good. Hence, inasmuch as we love ourselves, we wish ourselves good; and, so far as possible, union with that good. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

So love is called the unitive force, even in God, yet without implying composition; for the good that God wills for Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence, as above shown. And by the fact that anyone loves another, one wills good to that other. This one puts the other, as it were, in the place of oneself; and regards the good done to one as done to oneself. So far love is a binding force, since it aggregates another to ourselves, and refers one’s good to our own. And then again the divine love is a binding force, inasmuch as God wills good to others; yet it implies no composition in God. God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above that God’s will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God will some good. Hence since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will goo to anything, is not the cause of its goodness. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

However, conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness. We are not to believe that the World-Mind deliberately directs the Universe consciously attends to every detail of its operation. That would be to turn it into a Big Human—and to minimize the powers of Mind. According to the simpler unintellectual religious views, the universe requires a Being to create it, then to maintain it, and lastly to guide it along a certain orderly way. This is the mistake all too often made by those who ask the age-old questions: they see that every creature’s life has a beginning, so they assume God must have had one to. However, the Life-Force which appears anew in every babe comes from God, its source, has always been and never began. Any other assumptions make Him like the creatures—finite—and is a false one that contradicts the very idea of God—the Infinite. Humans get no such treatment from life that one could believe it takes heed of one’s personal feelings. It treats one quite impersonally, as if it were itself quite impersonal. Thus the test of experience contradicts the belief in a person governor of the Universe. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

If you discuss the concept of God as a creator, you discuss a personality. However, such must have a beginning and an end. If you discuss the concept of God as Impersonal, however, these limitations are n longer necessary part of it. We arrogantly superimpose our merely human ideas upon the Universal Mind and impertinently expect it to display anthropomorphic attributes, under the delusion that they are divine ones merely because they are displayed on a gigantic scale. It is inevitable that we believe that the Infinite Power works as we humans work but it is also fallacious. To think of God as a person is to think of a finite and imperfect being. God is a principle being. The Deity cannot be limited like a finite human being, using a personal will to achieve a particular end, or thinking a series of successive ideas that move through time. A less erroneous picture is that of the electronic computing machine, which performs millions of different operations in a single second. It is impossible for a rational mind to believe that the Infinite and Eternal Deity is subject to momentary changes of mind or suffers occasional lapses from continuance of the cosmic laws. The Greek conception of the World being directed by Intelligence is surely higher than the Hebrew belief in a capricious, jealous, and angry despot of a personal God. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

God is Love and Justice, Wisdom and Truth and Law, attributes which have been worshipped by humans from ancient times. The God who magically creates and personally manages the Word, as separate from one, is the first simple concept of humans. The God of out of whose being the World beginningly and endlessly comes into birth is the next developed concept of more cultured humans. The notions of Deity which popular religion provides for its followers are well suited to the early stages of mental development but not to the more advanced ones. A child needs the comfort of living with its father and mother, but an adult becomes self-reliant enough to live on one’s own. The popular notions of God as a Father or as a Mother belong to the early stage and objectify God as some kind of glorified human being. They are human ideas picturing a human Deity. To this stage, too, belong not only the notions of a jealous, wrathful, or capricious God, but even those of a sentimental, kindly, emotional, elderly gentleman who is constantly hovering around listening to the prayers of his devotees—and then running off to fulfill their wishes or, according to his mood, refusing to do so. The maturer notion provided by philosophy will naturally seem cold, and cheerless to those who need the popular one. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Dear Lord in Heaven, to you I pray, to you I call, as you sit between this World and the next: God of the in-between, to you my words go out. I ask for your help. Please grant me the courage to do what I must do. Please grant me the wisdom to understand its necessity. Please grant me the peace that you have found, the peace that is found in the land between the Worlds. One generation shall laud Thy works to another, and shall declare Thy might acts. On the majestic glory of Thy splendor, and on Thy wonderous deeds will I meditate. And humans shall proclaim the might of Thy tremendous acts; and I will recount Thy greatness. They shall make known the fame of Thy great goodness, and shall exult in Thy righteousness. The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, long forbearing, and abundant in kindness. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. All Thy works shall praise Thee, O Lord, and Thy faithful ones hall bless Thee. They shall declare the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy might; to make known to the sons of humans His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom. Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. The Lord upholds all who fall, and raises up all who are bowed down. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

The eyes of all look hopefully to Thee, and thou gives them their food in due season. Thou opens Thy hand, and satisfies every living thing with favour. Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three Heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak. It is the salvation which the saints seek. “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do,” reports 2 Nephi 25.25. Justice demands that a penalty be paid for ever violation of the Lord’s laws. If these punsihments and rewards were not consistent throughout the Universe and in all of eternity, justice would be violated. Briefly stated, then, the law of justice is that for every violation of the law there is a punishment (ultimately suffering and misery), and for every obedience to the law there is a reward (ultimately joy and peace). Also embodies in the concept of justice is the idea that humans are punished only for those things of which they themselves are guilty. This would make it unjust to punish one human for another’s sin; likewise, if though ignorance or lack of accountability there is no guilt, it would be unjust to mete out punishment. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20