Thought for the Relative of Mind

Here's the quote of the day (actually dating back two days) -

After having just completed an unprecedented slur campaign in which nothing was considered off limits, the postmodern candidate tells CNN in a fit of projection by which he inadvertently discloses his own tactics, that "'nough is 'nough--no more lies and fake outrage!" He doesn't specify whom he is addressing but it is inferred he means his rivals, otherwise known as 'the menagery.'

Because of the basic fallacy in their philosophy Pomos are incapable of successfully integrating a single train of thought, unable as they are to distinguish between cause and effect, fact from
opinion, reality from wishes. They are mental drifters. Truth, lies, spin, framing and re-framing, everything blurs into a impenetrable mental fog of random snippets of ideas and fragments of thought - all equally flexible and stretchable - to be used, abused, denied or evaded as is expedient to the self-interest of the moment.

Postmodernism plays dementia to liberalism's mental disorder. If thought creates reality as they claim, it stands to reason that something unpleasant evaded or denied, makes it go away. This psychological phenomenon, coupled with the mechanism of projection, is a permanent fixture in the subjectivist inner world. We just witnessed eight years of BDS. If McCain-Palin wins the presidential race, prepare for another epidemic.

- Chart: cognative dissonance -

Man survives by brain power. In anthropological terms, hunting as well as homesteading takes not just physical prowess, but requires planning and cooperation based on ratio. A botched plan can easily claim lives. Unfocused reason leads to anxiety because survival hangs in the balance. Reality becomes threatening, a cause for more evasion, denial and anxiety. Emotion is elevated above truth. And so the irrational vicious cycle continues.

The only way out for the postmodern subjectivist is reaching zombie status through the use of Prozac or other emotional flat-liners. Alternatively a quest could be undertaken to withdraw within the confines of the skull: New Ageism offers countless paths towards becoming master of your own personal universe.

Since integrating thought is a conscious decision - this being the seat of volition, free will - evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices. This state of affairs is profoundly destructive. In Objectivist terms: in epistemology it invalidates a mental process; in ethics it is the essence of evil.

Ultimately evasion, denial and projection stem from the notion that only Leftism is capable of walking the moral high-ground; righteousness is on their side. Confusing what is (reality) with what ought to be (the ideal), the Left are the party of nice people; they intensely hate the 'unethical' people, the Rightists, the nasty ones!

This contradiction (nice people do not hate) goes unnoticed, and combined with the Pragmatism that 'our ultra ethical end justifies any means--dead bodies case need - mind, all for our own good' leads to permanent cognitive dissonance (see chart) and rational inconsistency. The more they hate, the more the psychological defense mechanism of projection asserts itself. The opponent becomes the one who is 'hateful.'

A further inner conflict consists in contradictions stemming from Pragmatism, which is solely guided by the expedient and so combines the irreconcilable: social and cultural relativism with political absolutism; rejection of preconceptions while being committedly biased; absolutely rejecting value judgments while passing them if politically correct; being led by one set of moral rules while lumbering the opponents with another (the Dialectics). Roger Kimball worded it rather poetically as follows in a recent posting on PJM titled "The Palin Portfolio, Phase Two: Damage Control: or, The Clash of Civilizations comes home":

“Harvard,” I noted in the post mentioned above, and the “progressive” consensus it represents is sophisticated about everything except its own naïveté. It champions cultural relativism–absolutely. It is suspicious when someone shows up peddling “the truth,” especially about moral matters; but it embraces its perspective on the world as inarguable. According to the gospel of “Harvard,” all right-thinking (i.e., left-leaning) people agree with the various positions set forth in the catechism of liberalism. To champion the various dogmas set forth in that catechism, says “Harvard,” is simply to exhibit one’s contact with reality. To dissent from them is to exhibit one’s ignorance, bad faith, or malevolence.

This is the ground zero of hypocrisy, dishonesty and double standards, truth and reality being relative to expedience. At some point they're bound to blow a fuse: that moment is nigh.

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" -