CCXVII – Voluntary Atlas

I think we like to burden ourselves to feel important. I really don’t know how to preface this idea, and I don’t mean it as an insult: it feels like a natural impulse. I can sense it in my life and can see it in others, at times. You would be right to say, “Physician, heal thyself!”, yet I don’t think that diminishes the truth of the phenomenon.

Let me break it down a little bit. What do I mean by feeling important? The highest sense is that our lives have purpose and meaning. Properly ordered, it seems to me that feelings of purpose and meaning come from God. It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone who has no reverence for God cannot well understand their role in creation. God provides the omniscient context for our lives, so without that context, it is like a unit-less number: naked, meaningless, prone to having meaning assigned to it incorrectly.

There are lesser orders of feeling important. Self Actualization is a buzzword that I run into sometimes, and to my understanding it means that we are doing everything we want to do the way we want to do it. Absent a higher order–God’s divine context–self actualization can be for good or ill. Liberalism (in the classical sense) is the idea that anything anyone wants to do they should be able to do. So a hobo living on a park bench can be self actualized if he doesn’t want anything else. This is usually where third parties enter the Liberalism equation to say that he would want something else if he had more opportunity. Yadda yadda–that’s not what I want to get into here but I wanted to note that other people have a different idea of how you should be self actualized than your own idea of your own self actualization.

Continuing the descent down orders of importance, I would say about equal are ideas of vocation or responsibility. Vocation has a couple different meanings and everyone seems to have a different idea of how exactly vocations work. I am using it in the sense of “God’s calling” for us. We all have a universal vocation to holiness, for example, but not everyone will feel equally called to, say, serve the poor. An important thing about vocations is that there is a gap between what we feel called to do and what we are doing. Responsibility functions in a similar way, but I would contrast it by saying it’s the world’s calling for us. If you have kids, you are responsible for those kids–you cannot shirk that responsibility. There can be a gap between what you are responsible for and what you are behaving responsible for.

When someone has lots of responsibilities they sometimes feel important. When someone is fulfilling their vocation they feel important. When someone is self actualized they feel important. When someone believes in the intrinsic dignity of their own life as a unique and specific of God’s creations, they feel important.

Lets talk about burdening ourselves now. A responsibility is a kind of burden: having kids is an important responsibility, and it limits the way we live because we must order our lives around satisfying that responsibility well. It is possible to take on too many responsibilities. If you have kids, are president of the Rotary club, are on the Parish Council, coach your sons baseball team, and are in charge of the Planning Committee at work–you have a lot of responsibilities. When we do not feel important enough, we are tempted to add responsibilities, seek out vocations, more perfectly self actualize until we feel important.

When our time cannot fit any more obligations, whence can we take up burdens of importance? Now we arrive at the thing on my mind when I began: We take up mental burdens.

Mental burdens are a species of burden which we worry about but cannot do anything about. Politics, the stock market, sports drafts, corporate strategy–these are all things which occupy our minds and very few of us can do anything tangibly to influence. These are things which take no time to worry about and yet which cost us greatly in terms of energy. Now, I do not mean to suggest that feeling important is the only motivation for worrying about these things. There are infinitely many reasons to worry about them. The species that I am most susceptible to is this idea of feeling important.

How does worrying about politics, the stock market, sports drafts, or corporate strategy make us feel important? Lets simplify this with an analogy. In Politics, the stock market, sports, or Corporate strategy, your “tribe” can be winning or your tribe can be losing. You naturally want your tribe to win, and so worry about the performance of your tribe. Any action taken in any of those spheres I listed will either result in a win or a loss for your tribe. A win will result in your elation, because this is something you worry about and your tribe is winning. A loss will result in your depression, because this s something you worry about and your tribe is losing. When your tribe is winning, you are winning, and so you feel more important. When your tribe is losing, you are losing, and so you become outraged, and so you feel more important.

Scenarios: Governor Dingus raises taxes: If you want higher taxes, your tribe wins; If you don’t want higher taxes, your tribe loses. A company whose stock you own releases a new brand of widget: If the stock price goes up, your tribe wins; if the stock price goes down, your tribe loses. Your sports team plays in the national championship: If they win, your tribe wins; if they lose, your tribe loses. Your company opens a Springfield branch: If you think this is a good decision, your tribe wins; if you think this is a bad decision, your tribe loses.

In every one of those examples, a person would receive emotional whiplash from external factors controlling their peace.

It is very much like we are all our own kind of Atlas and we voluntarily take these burdens on to weigh us down. What meaning would Atlas have if he didn’t have the weight of the world on his shoulders? If we have a properly ordered dignity from God, we don’t need any extraneous material things to give our lives meaning and purpose. Laying down the burden of politics frees us from the emotional whiplash of changing political fortunes. Trusting in God–beyond that, abandoning ourselves to Divine providence–frees us from all Earthly concern.

And yet: Christ calls us to pick up our cross and follow him; to accept an easy yoke and a light burden. We can shrug and lay down the world, and when we pick up our cross find importance in the only thing that really matters: glorifying God through our lives.

AMDG

CXXIX – Pandemic Dialogue

Ed: Today lets discuss the Coronavirus pandemic. What are your initial thoughts? Who would like to begin?

Matt: It’s terrifying. Death stalks the land! I have bought toilet paper, food, I even went out and bought a gun for the first time. Anything, for security! These are scary times and It feels necessary to prepare for a long siege.

Peter: But do those things bring you peace? It seems like you are fueling your anxiety even more.

Matt: Does anything–any thing bring peace? These are necessities. I can survive, safely, in my home for a week, maybe two if I’m careful. My disturbed peace has moved me to act out of necessity, and while I may not have peace, I have confidence that comes from a well stocked larder.

Peter: So what happens three weeks from now? A month from now?

Matt: Do you think it will last that long?

Peter: Suppose it does! Fear prompts you to prepare, preparation brings you confidence. What eventuality doesn’t merit immediate concern?

Matt: I’m as prepared as I need to be right now. I can prepare more, or not make any additional preparations, later. The situation changes daily.

Peter: I’m more getting at, whats the time horizon for preparation? You say you’re prepared for a week, maybe two. Why that and not, say, a month? two months?

Matt: That seems irresponsible doesn’t it? That’s hoarding. I’m just taking reasonable precautions.

Peter: But there’s no marginal difference between a months supply and a weeks supply, vis a vis hoarding. Hoarding is a subjective term, really all “hoarding” says is that one dislikes the amount of preparation another has done.

Eric: I think you both have a point. Matt values a certain time period of foresight enough to make purchasing decisions. If he valued a different time period, he would have bought that amount, but he didn’t. If someone else did, that doesn’t necessarily make it hoarding, just a different value judgement of goods.

Paul: Hoarding is a measure of social ill. Matt–for the sake of example–may purchase enough to satisfy his needs, but may not purchase so much that there isn’t any for the next person. That’s the ceiling and floor.

Eric: But that’s kind of the point of the free market, right, to efficiently distribute goods based on not just needs but values. It is valuable to Matt to purchase two weeks worth of goods, and it is valuable to the shop to sell him those goods. The social responsibility aspect comes from the stores actively seeking to supply everyone; but that’s not so much social responsibility as profit motive. If there’s a run on goods at their store, that’s money they make. If they run out of goods, people go to a different store, and give their money to a different vendor. The supply chain is stressed, sure, but it’s hard to argue its irresponsible for vendors to sell goods.

Paul: So what if a billionaire walks in and buys the entire contents of a store and ships it to their bunker?

Eric: So what? I think that still fits just fine with what I’m describing. It’s valuable to the billionaire to buy the entire contents of a store, and tomorrow the supply chain will restock what they can.

Peter: Well, if he goes in with the intent of depriving other people of goods, that would be a problem I think.

Paul: How do you differentiate a well intended purchase and an ill intended purchase at the point of sale? That’s where regulation exists to aid the public good. Anti-hoarding promotes both the wide distribution of goods and reduced strain on the supply chain.

Eric: But intervention in that way changes the markets behavior. It reduces efficiency.

Paul: In the spirit of social good, though.

Ed: How far can government push regulation in the spirit of social good?

Paul: We see with Government reaction to Coronavirus now, some lockdown measures. That is a common sense measure to help contain the spread of disease.

Matt: That prevents me from being able to make decisions. If I think it’s best that I stay in, then I’ll stay in. If I don’t think it’s best, then I’ll go out. The consequences will play out however they will, and that data will inform my decisions the next time.

Eric: Necessity is the mother of invention. If the government intervenes then it removes necessity, and we will have fewer solutions. Anti-hoarding measures remove incentives to find supply chain efficiencies. Social lockdown removes incentives for other economic activity. Plus it’s not a full lockdown, so I doubt it’s actually achieving what they say it will achieve. The government’s foremost priority in a crisis is to preserve the status quo.

Peter: I’d also like to ask, when did Government become the arbiter of social good? It used to be that people would take care of each other. Which came first, Government arbitrating the social good or a cynical and distrustful populace?

Paul: I don’t know that I would say the government’s first priority is to preserve the status quo, it seems to me that stability is paramount. Society can function when society is stable. Back in the day there used to be a revolution every time a king died as everyone fought to assert or defend a claim to the throne. Not very stable, not a lot of progress. And, Peter, implicit in the mandate of government is social good. Shoot, explicitly in the Constitution does it say “promote the general welfare”. Imagine if it was indifferent, or antagonistic to the general welfare? That’s instability. The two concepts go hand in hand.

Peter: General welfare according to who? Eric makes a compelling point that anti-hoarding measures are inefficient for the economy. Matt points out that compelling lockdown is actually removing initiative from the populace. A case could be made that the government in this case is not promoting stability. What values are guiding our governments actions? Is it a horse sense for good and bad, bent to the consensus of a vote?

Paul: General welfare doesn’t necessarily mean general happiness. You don’t have to like the measures, even if they benefit you.

Matt: That is fallacious though, because the premise that the government always works for social good hasn’t been accepted. If I want to go and buy supplies to make masks, if the full weight of the law forces me to stay in my home, I can’t help anyone. Initiative dies.



To be continued

XCI – A Collection of Ideas

I have a few article ideas in my queue that I’m sitting on. They are empty frames that need rigging to turn them into seaworthy ideas. Here’s a sampling of their draft titles:

  • “Letting Go of Politics”
  • “Apologetics of Indifference”
  • “Citizenship”
  • “Churchstate and Statechurch”

The common thread that links all of these is the idea of what things belong to the realm of politics (“render unto Caesar”), and what things belong to the realm of God. I planned to explore our relationship relative God, and was going to touch on some issues facing the Church right now. There’s a lot going on and I can’t claim to have answers but maybe I can help assemble a lot of disparate information in a coherent and useful way.

I saw an article that outlined “Rules for Catholic Radicals” and I think it’s a coherent way of approaching all the articles I’ve been stewing on above.

The basic premise is similar and congruent to the “Unite the Clans” concept. How can Catholics live and speak in a consistent way that allows us to effectuate the restoration we all desire?

So this article doesn’t get into any of that. I just want you to know that I’m thinking about this. Praise God that He has chosen us to live in such times!

AMDG

XI – The Fallacy of the Abortionist

There are two questions you might ask in response to my ravings about privileges allowed by government. “Who cares? Sounds like you’re calling it six of one and half a dozen of the other.” Another question you might have is, “If it’s that bad, what can I do about it today?”

Why It Matters

The words we use to describe things are extremely important. It helps us frame ideas in a more accurate light. To lean on my recent Dictionary, a nominalist view describes reality in ways that conform to the describers personal biases about a thing. That is to say, if a nominalist is talking about Rights, they are talking about their idea of rights, which may not even be remotely the same as your idea of rights.

A Right to something is, in addition, ontologically different from a privilege. In short, a right is an entitlement: “You have to give me this”; a privilege is a responsibility: “I have this and you can take it away”. What people mean when they describe Rights is privileges, so why not speak about the thing accurately?

American society is built on this very fundamental idea, that has been disguised by mythos and personal bias tied to patriotism and politics. If we can liberate ourselves of that metaphysical baggage that constrains our thought. American society cannot change or improve if we remain tied to that baggage. And that is where we get to the crux of the matter.

American society and American Government are not properly oriented to lead citizens to Virtue. They are presently oriented to maximize choice, under the auspices of freedoms, disguised in the language of entitlement-rights. This is imprisoning.

Let’s look at an example:

Right to Choose vs. Right to Life. The reason abortion is even remotely an issue is because two groups are looking at a thing and calling it different names. One side believes a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body. They view restrictions on that as tyrannical, because they are taking away a woman’s rights. The other side believes a baby is a person, and killing it is an offense against God. They view prohibiting abortion as a virtue, the same way that the Government restricts a persons ‘right’ to murder at will, to drink and drive, or do other things that are harmful to oneself or others.

These two perspectives are not reconcilable by compromise or any other ‘middle way’. And there will always be tension unless Government adopts a view supported by faith; otherwise Faith and Government will be in opposition, because faith supersedes government.

Let’s examine this right to Choose, and a woman’s right to ‘choose what she does with her body’. First, let’s restate this using my earlier methodology: This side of the argument asserts that “The Government allows me to decide what to do with my body”. But lets restate this even more, because Abortion is the only choice they are fighting for. If they get pregnant, it is currently legal in all 50 states to carry it to term and have a live birth. So the only choice that is in question is the ability to get an abortion. So let’s restate it again: “The Government allows me to get an abortion.” And nowadays, that is an accurate statement. But a fertilized egg will become a person 11 times out of 10 (because sometimes they become twins!), and all people at all stages of life are children of God, endowed with a grace and dignity all their own.

So, to be brutally honest, what they really mean is: “The Government allows me to kill a person who is a gift from God.”

But what they are saying is: “I have the right to choose.”

The language we use is extremely important.

So What Can I Do About It?

Well, we really need to know what the problem is? I would argue the problem is that our government is not oriented towards virtue. And the solution to that must come from the ground up. We will not out-vote the masses, if one group promises ‘free choice for everyone’ and the other promises ‘limited choice, but for a good reason’.

So the answer is to live virtuously. Inspire your peers to live virtuously. Raise a virtuous family. The challenge is that this is more than a generational problem. This is a civilizational problem. So my answers to this question sound like platitudes. But all of these are things you can begin to work on today

Fraternal correction is an important part of Catholic Faith. If a fellow Christian strays, tell them so, bluntly and firmly. It is not easy. I have not fully grokked what it means to live this way. But that is what is required. It has it’s own set of challenges, but it’s not impossible to practice.

In order to remake the world, one must first see the world as it is. Grokking that is the first step.

AMDG

III – Idealism vs Pragmatism

Idealism vs. Pragmatism

I’m an idealist. That’s why i’m writing here: I believe that at some point, someone will read this and get something out of it. No one is reading it right now. But in the future, someone might. I consider my idealism to be borne out of the same part of me that held on to Faith through the years and the wax and wane of my fickle predilections. So, very naturally, I connect Faith and Idealism together.

However! There is another part of me that is very practical. When I finish asking “How should things be?” I tend to ask how to bring it into reality. My conversion to Catholicism was a very idealistic event, up until the big day. Then it became practical, and the character changed entirely. I had to shift gears from ‘learning’ about Faith to living faith. I had to really grok what it means to be Catholic. That took another period of some months and I suspect may never actually end.

This has all been very well and good, and has been very edifying. But where Pragmatism and Idealism collide in a–to me, so far–irreconcilable way, is politics.

Politics of Faith

Zippy has explained better than I ever could how Liberalism is a scourge[1]. So how can it be corrected? An idealist would say we need a different system. A pragmatist would say we need to use the current system to adopt pieces of the ideal system. The former is not actionable and the latter is not consistent with ideals.

I still haven’t quite reconciled the two. I think the best answer comes from Scripture[2]:

Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

That is to say, when I begin to start thinking too big, I should ask these questions: Am I loving God with my whole being? Am I loving my neighbor as myself? Too often politics becomes divisive and tribal, and enacting these big changes doesn’t allow for one’s neighbors to correct themselves.

Advocate for the Truth, always. But don’t sacrifice loving thy neighbor for ideological consistency. By which I mean: Doing nothing because it doesn’t comply with how things should be is a political ‘Benedict option’ in which I would have to withdraw myself from political society because it is Liberal. That’s keeping your Gold piece hidden until the master returns, and not making an effort to multiply it. But we also cannot accept certain aspects of our society, which is abortive, homoerotic and usurious. Knights run into the breach, not away from it. So when I say don’t sacrifice loving thy neighbor for ideological consistency, please don’t mistake me for asking you to soften your stance for social convenience. I am saying your neighbors need you to lead by example.

AMDG


[1] Note: Liberalism, here, is not to be confused with American Leftism, but rather the overarching philosophical umbrella in which all American politics operate. American rightists and American Leftists are both different flavors of Liberal. ‘Classical Liberal’ I think would also be appropriate.

[2] Matthew 22:36-40