In An Experiment In Explanation I wrote about what I like to refer to as Know-It-Allism. I described it as a disease found in individuals and groups who boldly assert that I/We have all of the questions and all of the answers.
I also said that an understanding of Explanation is the best defense we have against Know-It-Allism. But is it? Well, in one sense, yes, it is.
On the other hand, in another and very real sense, no, it isn't, at all (for what is meant by an understanding of Explanation see PRC: An Introduction).
Intellectually, an understanding of Explanation is certainly the best defense that I can think of when it comes to dealing with those who operate in the realm of the absolute, as Hegel might have put it. Nor is the mention of Hegel inapt, since, for all the barriers he presents to his readers, his work can be profitably reduced to three things, Explanation, Cultural History, and Transcendence, as in Cultural Transcendence, the beating heart of PRC.
But humans don't live by the intellect alone. In fact, hardly ever. What we do live by is power, roughly defined here as, the control of human behavior.
And now we're back to why, in another and very real sense, an understanding of Explanation is, more often than not, completely defenseless against the tyranny of the know-it-alls of this world, which is why they're so destructive and dangerous whenever they get into positions of power, especially in positions of great power, like they are today.
However, an understanding of Explanation truly is the best defense against Know-It-Allism in the sense that such an understanding enables one to explain both themselves and the know-it-all. That understanding can be used not only to keep us from falling into the trap of know-it-allism ourselves, which happens, but also to help us defend ourselves from the know-it-alls.
The know-it-all, on the other hand, is unable to explain themselves. And the reason why is not because they are unintelligent. It’s because they are not interested in understanding Explanation. They are interested in power.
This is not to say that the know-it-all is not interested in Explanation. They can't help but be, no matter what particular mode of explanation they use as a means of controlling human behavior, which is what in the end all explanations do, or what they are used for, the control of human behavior.
From that perspective, though they are not uninteligent, they are not as intelligent as they could be, because they are only interested in believing themselves to be right and good and everyone else wrong and bad.
And because their life depends on believing this to the point of calling their belief the truth, anyone who disagrees with them is seen as a threat and so deserves to die, the sooner the better. The idea here being kill or be killed.
The know-it-all exemplifies a very unpleasant, but undeniable, fact.
The only way to get rid of a point of view you disagree with is to kill everyone who disagrees with you. A fact that a glance at ancient history, current events, and everything in between, will easily confirm. The proposed alternative here at PRC to Know-It-Allism is Cultural Transcendence.
The difference between Know-It-Allism and Cultural Transcendence is this: Know-It-Allism - in any form - is interested in a power-based ideology.
Cultural Transcendence is interested in knowledge-based power.
Is it a coincidence that those who hate freedom of speech and want to abolish it, forever, fit this description of the dogmatic know-it-all?
And since freedom of speech is a creation of the West, is this the reason they are so anti-Western? It can’t be the crimes the West has commited because from that perspective neither the East or the Middle East are innocent.
When it comes to History no one is innocent, except the children.*
*That being the case, maybe the children should be humanity's common bond.
So then the question of history is not a matter of one truth against another, but a matter of historical interpretation, which itself is based on interpretation. And though we have a general theory of relativity, we have no general theory of interpretation, so there can be no such thing as historical truth, because there can be no such thing as truth, since there's only us and our interpretations, which means we live in an interpreted world.
And the only way to determine whether or not our interrpetations have any predictive value, in other words, the only way to determine whether or not our interpretations are adaptive or maladaptive, is to debate and test those interpretations which requires freedom of speech. To abolish freedom of speech so as to impose by force, and without correction, a monolithic interpretation of the world is to render the species maladaptive, not only because we would then have no way of examining the validity of our interpretations, but also because if force fails there's no alternative.
Also, since whites are the race associated with the West, is this the real reason for the hostile elite's goal to abolish whiteness? It can’t just be because White Man Bad and Wrong because that would mean everyone else is automatically and always good and right, an impossibilty. Could it be that what really lies behind all of this White Man Bad antiwhiteness is the desire of the antiwhite* to place themselves above criticism – forever?
*Of course, as everyone knows, the antiwhite includes some whites who, speaking of delusional, think that being antiwhite will somehow or other get them into Woke heaven. Spoiler Alert! It won't. Hence the digusting spectacle of them feeding the aligators, sometimes even using their own children.
To consider and debate this requires both freedom of choice and speech.
In any event, it’s one thing to be attracted to the difficult, because that brings out the best in us, even if we fail. It’s another thing to demand the impossible, because that requires the delusion of perfect adequacy. And those who believe in the perfect adequacy of themselves and their beliefs are simply Playing God! And who today is playing God? Identity Politics!
Do you think it's a coincidence that a group of people who routinely mock Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, have appropriated the Latin word for God, Dei*, for their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? It's not just to avoid the embarrassing and far more appropriate DIE. Not at all.
*Not only is this, by their own pretzel logic, cultural appropriation, which is really cultural dependency (as in co-dependency) since they are dependent on the very culture they are attacking, it's also a continuation of the barbaric, pre-modern concept of Original Sin.
The point of it is to impose, by force, its monolithic view of the world, called the truth, of course, while mocking another religion. Which, by the way, is exactly what Identity Politics is, or amounts to, another religion, another orthodox religion. How progressive. But Identity Politics is much more than an orthodox religion, it's a Super Tyranny, a hard-headed, cold-hearted Super Tyranny, that is about one thing and one thing only - power.
Is this what the world needs right now? A sick, crazy, and stupid political ideology chock-o-block full of dumbshit know-it-alls acting as if reality itself has flung its doors open to them and them alone and only they get it.
Really?
The question now is this; What is more adaptive, billions of people organizing in groups for the sole purpose of Playing God, or the human race accepting its obvious imperfection and using that imperfection as the starting point and justification for continuous learning, change, and growth?
No explanation of the world is worth killing people over. But some are worth fighting against. The verbal cancer that is Identity Politics is worth fighting against. And make no mistake about it, this is a fight to the death.
So be it.
One thing is certain. To state one’s case in the matter requires Explanation, and to repeat. since no explanation can be perfect and final, to decide what explanation we will live by requires freedom of choice, and to discuss all of this with each other in our attempt to answer the all important question - How are we going to live together? - requires freedom of speech. So, from that perspective, we may already have our answer to the above question.
If so, then maybe at long last we can ditch the delusion of perfect adequacy, stop Playing God, and start being ourselves by becoming who we are. Once we learn to accept ourselves we can then learn to accept each other. This acceptance could be the common bond we need to begin building lasting communities in a world we would be proud to pass on to our children.
It very well may be.
Comments