[From: Bruce Nevin (Thu 931118 09:18:31 EST)]
I try to imagine myself doing what I perceive you, Hal, doing on CSG-net.
I imagine myself sending long, rambling, anecdotal posts about things
that are upsetting to me as a dedicated agent of social amelioration,
things that I think should be upsetting to my readers, upsetting enough
to incite them to take action. In this frame, I perceive these social
ills as so demanding of immediate action, the situation so critical, that
small (as perceived by me) violations of what is appropriate in my means
are justified by the importance of the ends.
The emotional stuff that I perceive within myself as I imagine myself in
this frame, is that of a child who has hit upon a way of demanding
attention and demanding affirmation by others of my importance and my
worth, a way that gets the desired results from many, a way that results
in many studiously ignoring me, and a way that provides justification and
means for me to sluff off and ignore the contrary responses of those many
others who aren't buying my pitch.
I note that this is a self-sealing premise . One example of this
extremely widespread phenomenon:
Ever since [their dissemination], the _Protocols_ have played an
important role in anti-Semiticism, and no matter what attempts have been
made to reveal their fraudulent nature, these vary attempts are seen as
further proof that there must be some truth in them. Otherwise why would
the Elders try so hard to prove there falseness? This is a classical
example of a self-sealing premise, i.e., a premise that is vindicated by
proof as well as disproof. (Watzlawick, Paul, _How Real is Real_, 80-81)
... even if ... the rumor turns out to be absurd, there is always a
maxim that allows the believer to save face. "Where there's smoke,
there's fire" is one such saying ("but a pile of fresh manure will do
just as well," the writer Roda Roda used to add). (ibid. 79)
(For some reason, I think of Mary relishing that last quote.)
The motivation for sustaining a self-sealing premise within myself--for
it does require some gymnastics to ignore its inconsistencies, their
inconsistent consequences, etc.--must be control of some other perception
that is important to me. The self-sealing premise, safe from refutation,
is perceptual means for controlling that other perception. Perhaps that
other perception is included in the emotional stuff noted above.
I recall times when I have embraced self-sealing premises, or, rather, I
recall those that I recognized as such and disabused myself of. I recall
a proliferation of perceived conspiracies and conspiracy theories. Stuff
about the Kennedy assassination, some of which may be true but not all of
which can possibly be true (because contradictory). Stuff about the
Catholic church probably promulgated among others by Masons, stuff about
Masonry promulgated doubtless by the Jesuits among others, stuff about
International Jewry like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (originally
a political tract against Napoleon III, adapted to antisemitism evidently
by associates of Rasputin in the Russian court) and other even more
preposterous forgeries, stuff about communists, stuff about capitalists,
stuff about fundamentalist Christians, stuff about racial and ethnic
categories of people, and so on, stuff stuff stuff. Having embraced some
self-sealing premise (and enjoying the control of some desired
self-perception that it seemed to afford me), I found some of this other
stuff sounding plausible. What it really was, was not plausible, but
useful: if it helped to shore up that desired self-perception, if it
helped me to sluff off and ignore the contrary responses of those who
weren't buying my pitch, it magically seemed more plausible to me.
Counterevidence was convertible into the arcane track-covering of
conspirators, according to the junkie logic that creates and sustains
self-sealing premises.
Cause it is junkie logic, Hal. Just like the addict who can sell you any
story and sell it well when his horse or his coke is on the line. The
ends do not justify the means. Please think about that. (See the end of
the first paragraph, above.)
Ironically, PCT offers you keys for understanding and perhaps really
affecting the personal and social issues that are the subjects of your
posts, personal and social issues that have been addressed for millenia
using the same sorts of means that you are using but are still (by your
own account) very much with us. You have yet even to notice that.
A professor of philosophy specializing in oriental teachings went to
see a certain Zen master. He talked with him a great deal, and with
evident enjoyment of the conversation. The Master listened a great
deal. He served tea. He filled the professor's cup. Then he lifted
the teapot and poured again. Tea flowed into the tatami mat. The
professor, his attention finally arrested, cried "Stop! It's full
already!" "Just so," said the Master, "you must first empty your cup
before I can put anything in it.
I remember a man who called himself Clear Marks. In the early 1970s he
lived in a converted milk truck on the streets of Berkeley. He parked
alongside supportive friends' houses, with their permission, with an
extension cord in a window powering his lights and typewriter. He was
writing a book on social change. He would show up in Berkeley Meeting.
I don't know if you've been to a Quaker meeting of the unprogrammed sort.
Anyone can rise in the silence and speak, and the others will listen.
Naturally, this is a great attraction for some visitors and attenders,
especially in a college town where in consequence you are apt to have
what is called a "popcorn" meeting. Needless to say, meeting was
irresistable to Mr. Clear Marks. The benches were set in V fashion,
opening toward the fireplace. He would rise to speak, not staying by his
seat as is normal, but striding to the apex of the V, manuscript in hand,
obviously relishing the captivity of his audience, and their pre-defined
(it seems) commitment to liberal social causes. It is not hard to see
that this was an abuse, and that Mr. Clear Marks was doing violence to the
meeting for worship and to its participants.
The Quakers are engaged in worship, which overlaps into personal change
and social change. We are not engaged in anything like worship, but we
are engaged in development of a science, which is similar at least in its
dedication of resources and its seriousness of intent. And PCT overlaps
in obvious (and also non-obvious) ways into personal change and social
change. But the focus in this net is the development of the science.
Issues of personal change and social change are relevant and appropriate
only insofar as they contribute to that shared purpose. By sending long,
rambling, anecdotal posts about things that are upsetting to you and
that you think should be upsetting to your readers, upsetting enough
to incite them to take action, you are doing violence to CSG-net and to
us, its participants.
So as an individual participant here on CSG-net I ask you: unless and
until you can participate in the conversation here, instead of demanding
that we participate in yours, kindly shut your yap.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbn.com