The Impossibility of Difference

There is an interesting result of believing that all things are absolutely equal. Before long, everything becomes the same. It becomes impossible for people who believe in absolute equality to long believe that everyone is not at same the base.

The first consequence is personal. The person who harbors ill will towards people soon comes to believe that all people secretly do as well, and that they are simply not honest about it. If someone is dishonest, or shifty in their dealings with others soon comes to believe that everyone is just as dishonest. We saw attitude in the political realm with Bill Clinton's travail with Monica Lewinsky. Many people, although to his credit not Bill Clinton, excused this indiscretion with the glib statement of "Well who hasn't."

The second consequence is a political, and social one. This is often the goals of those who use the ideologies of post-modernism. People who espouse absolute equality do not make any moral differentian. This is often called moral relativism, and this is what has the most impact in the political world.

In the modern world, each action is judgable, because there is qualitative difference between both people and actions. Although on the surface it may seem that two things are the same, they actually are not. e.g. There is a difference between withdrawing money out of a bank, and stealing from the bank are two totally different things, even if they have the same result of decreasing the total amount of money in the bank.

In the post-Modern world there are no such distinctions. All things are alike. (Only the very ardent Marxist, however would agree that there is no difference between robbing a bank and taking a withdrawal.) It doesn't matter the reason why you do anything, only the action itself matters. You may or may not love the 'state', or the 'people,' but it doesn't matter as long as you do what you are supposed to.

On a personal level, it doesn't matter what you believe because all beliefs are the same. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as it is good for you. (This doesn't hold absolutely true in practicality.) If you get stoned, and stay in your house all day, or if you go out and work and become an engineer, it is all the same thing. You see this in practice in the countries of Europe which have a collosal unemployment rate and taxes that support a tremendous welfare state that makes no distinction between the value of individuals.

This becomes important in the international realm especially now with the analysis of international affairs. People both in the United States and outside regularly compare so-called mujaheddin to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, to the ignorant there is a superficial similarity. If we only look at the very surface, we see a group of people in an area with people who speak a similar language fighting other people who are different in some way, and not from that same area.

However, these similarities ignore all of the differences. We have to accept the idea that all people are the same, and take it a step further, all Arabs are the same. There are of course fighters from within Iraq fighting coalition forces, but people who make that claim do not differentiate between them. Of course there is a large difference between Iraqis and other Arabs. Also, many of the Iraqi so-called mujaheddin are mere criminals, which actually brings us to the questions of motive.

The critical difference between George Washington, and by extension the modern Americans, and say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a question of intent. George Washington wanted to establish an independent country where people would be free from the tyranny of a king. Although Washington was not an absolute democrat, insofar as there was still slavery in the nascent country, the nation established at the time was largely free. Likewise, Americans are not fighting to establish a monarchy, but instead a democracy with Iraqis at its head.

Mr. Zarqawi, by contrast has the desire to re-establish the caliphate. This is an actual and literal return to a Middle Ages absolute monarchy, not some organization of Arab, or Muslim states. Make no mistake, while in terms of science the original caliphate was far in advance of European states at the time, it was still a dark ages Monarchy. Brutal repression, secret police, religious fanaticism, with all of the inquisitions that came with it, slavery, and coporal punishment of every kind accompanied that monarchy. Even a return to that monarchy would be a destruction of almost all of the rights that people have come to assume are theirs. However, at least that monarchy allowed people to be Jewish or Christian if they so chose. Zarqarwi has made it obvious that he has no intention of allowing the same liberties today.

How then could people possibly make a comparison between him and men like Washington who ,even given the opportunity to establish a monarchy, did not. Simply put, results and intention have no bearing in the post-modern world. Washington fought, and Zarqawi fought. That alone is enough of a similarity for comparison.

This helps to explain the colosally different world views that we are seeing, and we can see where post-Modern ideas have most taken root. There is plenty of room for disagreement over international policy. Modernism actually would encourage disagreement. However, there is a distinction to be made based on intention. People after all, are different and there is a need to look at the world through that perspective.

Egalite

There is an idea that I have been mulling around for some time now. Unfortunately, I am not so sure what is right.

The great ideological conflict today has three aspects: pre-modern, modern, and post-modern. Drawing the line between pre-modern and modern is fairly easy. I believe that we could, without a whole lot of controversy, say that Hobbes and Locke are the fathers of Modernity. The line between Modern and post modern is a little hazier. Perhaps it is Hegel, perhaps Rousseau, however the real birth of post-modern though is definitely with Marx, and Nietzche.

It is unfortunate that they are respectively associated with Communism and Fascism, and therefore carry a lot of emotional baggage. People who consider themselves democrats (little 'd', not the American political party) usually are appalled by the implication that they may be associated with such ideas. I suppose that avowed Communists and Fascists are not all that shocked, and perhaps even look to these people as prophets.

All that aside, the question that I wish to address is the difference in the idea of equality. I cannot yet say what pre-modern thought on this subject is for sure. I would posit that perhaps part of the problem is that no one ever asked the question if people were equal. Plato and Aristotle certainly viewed all people as inherently unequal, and life inherently un-fair. In fact, The Republic basically operates on that fundamental assumption. Later western thinkers seem to believe that while people are inherently un-equal that there is some way that we may become equal, for example entering into the City of God. However, there is a fundamental assumption that those situations are usually outside the natural realm.

Hobbes for the first time propose the equality of man in Leviathan, which seems stark in modern terms, but gave birth to much of modern though. However, it really grew to fruition with John Locke. Indeed, the American Constitution codified the ideas of Locke, and others, such as Montesqieu. You could say that the American Revolution was the first Modern Revolution.

Coincidentally, shortly thereafter, and at least nominally inspired by the American Revolution, came the first post-Modern Revolution, in France. The fundamental difference between the two is their attitudes on equality, value, and ultimately truth.

I will address only equality right now. Modern thought says that all men (and this is meant in the early Modern English sense of Man as opposed to Beast) are equal as men. There is something intrinsic within all of humanity that gives it its special-ness. And, since everyone has that something, they are equal. This is eloquently stated in the American Declaration of independence, which while it is vociferous in its complaints against the King, is very parsimonious in its enumerations of liberties. While every person is equal in worth, there is implicit in the ideas of modernity that not every person is of equal value, at least not to society.

Although some would disagree, I think that it is apparent that this is true. I do not limit it to the crass temporal worth of wealth, but instead I mean value to those around you. A doctor is obviously more valuable than a short-order cook is, because of the scarcity of doctors and the importance to our survival of their work. There is an abundance of short order cooks. In capitalism, we see this reflected in the monetary compensation they receive. (This is in no way meant to denigrate short order cooks. They are very important in society as well. I love my hamburgers, especially without spit.)

I suppose a better way to express this is that some people provide more use to those around them, than others do. While Modernists would say that being more or less useful does not necessarily degrade the worth of a person, insofar as they are not limited by personal ability, they determine their own value.

Post-Modernists would disagree. The banner of the Jacobins spoke of Liberte, Fraternite, and Egalite. (Liberty, Brotherhood (again in the non-gender specific Early Modern English sense), and Equality). Other than liberty, you never heard that during the American Revolution, and that had to do with more than just slavery extant in America at the time. The French Revolution had early communist support, although not Marxist, as he was not even born yet. In France, they believed that indeed everyone was truly equal. Being treated equally like crap by the aristocrats no doubt helped this along. It is difficult to draw examples from the French Revolution on this topic, however, because the economy never recovered until the Revolution was swallowed by nationalism (itself a pre-modern idea) and Napoleon, only a short while later.

However, we have practical examples of more articulated post-modern thought in Marxism, and Fascism. In Marxism, or Communism, all people are totally equal. In Marxism, all work is of the same value, whether a shoemaker or a doctor. Labor determines worth. In Fascism, people are also all equal as cogs of the state. All jobs that people take are, or should serve the state, and are therefore equal.

Now, the waters get a little murky when we take practical examples. Most, if not all, the examples of Fascism and Marxism, when applied injected a lot of practical politics. Nazism was vehemently pre-modern anti-Semitic, which ultimately proved counter-productive, not because it was necessary to rise to power (and maybe because of where the ideology took root). Communism was, at least in Europe, anti-Semitic as well as anti-Western, and anti-Colonial, not because it was an intrinsic part of the ideology, but because it was politically expedient for the survival of the state.

The waters become even murkier when I begin to suggest that people who are practicing members of the democratic community, of all political stripes, have ideas related to these. It is not because they are ashamed of their ideas, but because of the taint of the actions of previous proponents unrelated to thought. Suffice it to say, there are those out there, and they are numerous, who believe that all people are absolutely equal, as opposed to "created equal." The conflict is mutually exclusive, and is one of the major rifts in political society today.

I will talk about this later. Until then, keep your head down.

Self-Awareness

One of the most hilarious things in occurring naturally is when a dog, often a smallish dog with largish ambitions sees itself in a mirror. The hilarity that ensues is something not to be missed. However, sometimes the dog realizes that it is only a reflection of itself. Most recognize this as an indicator of self-awareness, in the sense that the animal is aware that it is his or her own actions that cause the corresponding action in the image in the mirror.

Of course, this happens in varying degrees in different animals, but it is very interesting that the actual number of people who are truly self-aware are very few. When I talk about self-awareness, I do not mean it in an amorphous, transcendental way but in the literal practical way that a dog is self aware of his own actions when he looks in the mirror. Many people are unable to look at themselves and see that they are taking action and that action has results.

Of course, part of the reason that this is true is the intrinsic nature of the difficulty of seeing your self. You never literally see your own face. The best that can happen is that you see a reflection of it. Likewise in life, you never can really see yourself as a person, for the same reason that you can never really see your own face; you are too close to the subject.

Consequentially we can only view the reflections of ourselves from other people. That is naturally problematic. Others will reflect us back, but also their view of us will taint that reflection. It can be rather like looking at ourselves through a funhouse mirror. If we know how we truly, the image in the mirror tells us more about the mirror than it does about us.

A better method is reflection on our world and the effects that our actions have upon it. This is sort of like how scientists tried to figure out what an atom was like by shooting particles at is and seeing how they behaved when they came into contact with the molecules, and atoms. If we look around at the effect that we have on the world around us, and the effect that it has upon us then we will have a much better idea of whom we are.

However, this is a painful process. I first realized this when I was in basic training. For some reason, every man in America believes he can shoot a weapon. You can tell this because the fellow in the movies who does not know how to shoot is always the butt of jokes, and often portrayed as a nerd. Everyone laughs at how he is inept at working a firearm, because they believe that it is something so simple that they could do it easily themselves, even though many of them never have.

In basic training, however, you must test your belief for real. You actually have to lie down and take real shots at real targets. Many young men, myself included, were embarrassed at first at how poorly on the whole that we did. I had done some, but little shooting before, but I at least had the good sense to swallow my pride, and listen to the Drill Sergeants. Ultimately, I succeeded, as did everyone else. However, for many of them, their natural confidence without basis was destroyed. Ultimately, it was replaced by a real confidence that has a basis in fact.

That moment of realization that you were not what you wanted to be was painful, for two reasons. First, we were faced with the fact that what we had though about ourselves was not true. Second was the realization that if that belief was important enough that we should make it true, we had a lot of work to do. Of course, we had to ultimately succeed because of our condition as trainees.

In real life, there are many such situations. Tied to every man's belief that he can shoot is the belief that he can and will defend his family. Well, soldiers no longer believe that, they know it because the do it every day.

Most people and many soldiers never put themselves into positions where they would have to find out what they are truly made of, because they are afraid of the truth. It is cliché but true to say the truth hurts. It hurts to realize that you are poor because you never worked hard, or you are lonely because you are a jerk. It hurts even more to realize that an undesirable condition is the result of something that is not your fault, but still a part of you nonetheless. The fact that you may not have been born with natural good looks, intelligence, or strength is certainly no ones fault, but they can cause undesirable conditions in our lives.

Many people do not want to look at themselves and see the truth. It is painful, even for the best of us. However, deflecting that truth has its own consequences. That is a discussion for another day.

Suffice it to say, who we are is where we start. We all have an idea of where we want to go, but without a starting point, we have no way to get there.