January 21, 2009
On the Perverse Mind
I ponder, from time to time, what makes the liberal mind cycle. Not often, but certainly enough to generalize an hypothesis or two. And yes, I like generalizations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them. Exceptions prove the rule, they say. Stereotyping, that finest of pastimes, gets consistently bad press. In point of fact, it gets the stereotypical bum's rush, if you will.
The primary manifestation of a liberal mind is the contrarian impulse. This can be outwardly manifested negatively, as shock value, or positively, as sanctimony. The former attempts to revel in one's contrarian nature by shocking the sensibilities of the "uptight", "bourgeois", or "traditional" classes with outrageous exposition. The latter attempts to create a plane of higher moral authority upon which to cluck pietistically at the lower removes of the evolutionary ladder.
Hence the supposedly progressive self-regard from those espousing vulgarity, antitheism, and promiscuity on the cultural side, and wealth redistribution, socialism, anarchy, and nanny statism on the political side. And although conservatives and classical liberals are constantly debased as puritanical bigots, it is actually the liberal who is the classic, traditional scold. Scolding is of immense importance for the liberal, for without it there is no proof of one's higher measure of sensitivity, concern, altruism, avant garde taste, and collectivist superiority.
This is all knowable, of course, and provable both dialectically and empirically. Why, it is almost stereotypical, one might say.
No, my search for the gist, the kernel, the raison d'etre of the liberal mind sensed something else, something more intrinsic than the mundane finger-splaying of the self-possessedly smug. Knowing this idea had germinated somewhere in the burgeoning thought processes of my youth, I reached back and found it in my Poe.
He averred that we all have within us the "spirit of perverseness", the predisposition to committ vile or petty acts against the ordered structure merely for the malicious pleasure of doing so. He more eloquently than I referred to this inclination as
"...the unfathomable longing of the soul to vex itself..."
Just so. The difference in us lies in the liberal's capitulation to this tendency, and the overcompensation required to maintain one's dignity in the process. To wit, any demonstration of antisocial behavior is simultaneously couched in terms of bravery or exposing hypocrisy or speaking truth to power. As if masturbating on stage is morally equivalent to civil rights activism. The construct of the valiant battler against cultural hegemony is the staple of the liberal's vexation of himself.
The problem with this conceit, of course, is the reality of the bottomless barrel. For even as the formerly provocative becomes the commonplace, the quotidian, the liberal must find a new way to vex himself. Or, more appropriately, you. The outre is always the last die cast, the furthest profanation, the most recent desecration. And so Hair gives way to Satyricon, which gives way to Caligula. There ultimately is no bottom to the barrel, until one finds oneself in sexual congress with brute beasts, for instance, and even then there is an eminence gris such as ethicist Peter Singer to elucidate for us why this is perfectly normal behavior.
Most rational humans, in the course of developing from adolescent to adult, learn to control the spirit of perverseness, and evolve to intellectually as opposed to emotionally guided beings.
Which is not to say the conservative or classical liberal is immune to the depradations of the impulse to perverseness. We are none of us innoculated against this most human of foibles. Why, I occasionally post diatribes, such as the one below, which are naught but the tongue within cheek espousal of this weakness. Why do I scribe these? To outrage and irritate the mortally aggrieved. To playfuly poke the eye of the perpetually peeved. For the perversity of it all, of course.
Hopefully my pained fellowmen will take solace in the fact that I not only vexed them, I vexed myself. Not that I shall forebear as the mood strikes me. I stand proud as the exception to the rule, fully aware of my status as the irascible fiend who immodestly offers violence to my own nature. The difference, to me, is that I am sentient of the fact, and am loath to appreciate those who are not. Posted by Velociman at January 21, 2009 6:09 PM | TrackBack
This makes a great deal of sense. How else to explain why we continually respond to the intellectually empty drivel spewed by various pathetic trolls who continually haunt conservative websites? It's abundantly clear that they are incapable of learning anything; I'm surprised they were ever weaned. Anyway, I'm resolved that this self-vexation will not continue. The hell with them.
Posted by: ginsocal at January 21, 2009 7:59 PMginsocial: school me, convert me, show me the error of my ways through the force of your intellect and bent towards righteousness.
I'm open, friend. I'm here not to argue, in truth, but to read and hear and possibly understand. Like I said, I enjoy this site for the man's way with a keyboard, but also to understand what makes the vitriolic anti-liberal mind click. Seriously. I'm all eyes.
Welcome back, Tuco.
Posted by: Blondie at January 21, 2009 9:08 PMI believe I made a comment about Reconstruction on this blog some time ago...
Posted by: rob sama at January 21, 2009 9:32 PMDogGONE it V-man! Here I go banging away at my keyboard like a monkey at a typewriter, trying to mumble something that vaguely resembles the sentiments expressed herein, and you not only hit the nail on the head, but you spiked that fucker to a cross and hung it high on a hill called Golgotha where all the world could see and approach with awe and fall to their knees at the awesome perfection and weep in humility!
Yeah, what *he* said, people!
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 21, 2009 9:42 PMYes, all of that; but it still brings a smile to my otherwise stone face..and I'll bet you wore a cheshirelike grin while crafting it as well.
Pace yourself though; this administration has only begun to vex.
Posted by: serr8d at January 21, 2009 9:52 PMCthul- you think this is vitriol?
Sorry. Only the left is truly capable fo the kind of disengaged-from-reason vitriol that made the word famous. A rant here is like a DaVinci sketch. A structure on which something ageless and beautiful is created.
Posted by: og at January 21, 2009 10:19 PMC'thulu: Read Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. I think you will find it truly helpful in your quest for understanding what makes us "click". And, perhaps, you will lose some arrogance in the process - as I have.
Posted by: PeggyU at January 22, 2009 12:23 AMI'd love to masturbate on a stage. Does this mean I get grant money?
Posted by: bitterman at January 22, 2009 8:20 AMKnow what I find in a small way ironic, V-man? You know who it was first came up with the idea of cultural hegemony, right?
Go on, admit it: you did that on purpose...
Posted by: Mike at January 22, 2009 8:23 AMBitter, if you were a woman, I might give you money.
Posted by: Casca at January 22, 2009 10:04 AMRead, c'thulu, read. Start with Liberal Fascism. Then go to While Europe Slept (Bruce Bawer), Heaven on Earth (Joshua Muravchik). Anything by Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. Bernard Lewis on the Middle East. Real history, not the hallucinogenic drivel cranked out by Howard Zinn.
You will then be educated, and finally understand.
Posted by: ginsocal at January 22, 2009 1:17 PMginsocial: Jonah G's book is something I've, true, only perused; but found it tainted by a Coulteresque stench of dishonesty. That said, I read him on the Corner, and find him interesting. As far as the other books: Lewis I've read and have little disagreement with, as I don't with the general push of Bawer's book - or what I know of it; I haven't read it yet. Truth is, I'm no lover of Islamic fundamentalism, nor of any stripe, yet before I'm accused of head in the sand relativism, I strongly believe the danger posed by the Izzie Fundies is Gojira on steroids compared to that of say their Jewish or Christian cousins. Ignoring the threat posed by a culture so deeply rooted in the past, and filthy with intolerance, not to mention suicide as virtue, would be fucked up folly plus. That said, I still hold no love for how the past administration went about things. I can read Sowell, who I have for years, and Lewis until my eyes fall into my skull, and, while I find them stimulating and important, it won't change my mind about Bush, or the failures of what so-called conservatism has become. Not to mention the ratty thread thin interpretation of patriotism. But, you know, I'll take out up on this, check out what I don't know. Everyday is another to learn, and I'll take what feels right, and discard the rest. Have a good one.
Posted by: C'thulu at January 22, 2009 2:17 PMEverytime this fucker writes, a thousand bloggers lose thier wings or pens or computers or some shit like that. I am off to drink vast amounts of Jack Daniels and burn my computer.
Posted by: James Old Guy at January 22, 2009 2:57 PMI ponder, from time to time, what makes the liberal mind cycle.
The answer is sex crazed gerbils.
Posted by: Cappy at January 22, 2009 5:21 PMC'thulu -
The last line of your previous post perfectly exemplifies what Velociman is talking about:
"Everyday is another to learn, and I'll take what FEELS RIGHT, and DISCARD THE REST."
What FEELS right?
Facts are facts. Truth is truth. Past experience is past experience. If an ideology (socialism, liberalism, et al.) brings about societal downfall EVERY time it is instituted, does "feeling" that it will work and benefit society "this time" change that fact?
Does you feeling that it would be best if the sun did not rise tomorrow change the fact that it will?
A child hopes and wishes that circumstance will change.
An adult realizes that what "is" IS, what "was" WAS, and regardless of how you "feel" about it and wish it were different does not make it so.
C'thulu, if you had demonstrated the perseverance to actually read Goldberg instead of merely perusing him, and spent additional time poring through the copious footnotes and citations, you would realize your flippant dismissal of his work as being "tainted by a Coulteresque stench of dishonesty" is itself dishonest. Coulter is of course casual and insulting in approach and logic. It is her calling card. Goldberg's work is scholarly, deeply researched, extremely well edited, and self-evaluating.
You should give it another try. From a more serious perspective.
Posted by: Velociman at January 22, 2009 8:12 PMV-man/
I've lurked around since '04--sort of thought you didn't need any "improvement"/encouragement from
me--you seemed to be doing o.k. all by your lonesome. But I feel compelled to take mild umbrage
in re your coments about Coulter. Granted her approach is indeed "casual and insulting,"
nevertheless it should be noted most of her books are well researched and fairly heavily footnoted--she is a lawyer, after all--so whatever "that" ethical handicap means--at least she knows how to footnote.
Oh, c'mon. Coulter resorts to the ad hominem all the time. Every reference she's ever made about Ted Kennedy involves booze, for instance. I don't care one way or the other, that's her schtick. But it is a schtick. So I'll give you logic and raise you two approaches.
Posted by: Velociman at January 22, 2009 9:55 PMCoulter (for all that she would hate to hear it) is the Ayn Rand of the religious right. Her conclusions may be correct (usually), her research is meticulous (always), but her delivery is calculated to infuriate anyone that doesn't already agree.
I haven't figured out yet if she's doing the world more harm than good, nor do I give a good Gotdamn. She's fucking funny, and I read her as any other comedian.
Posted by: Randy Rager at January 22, 2009 10:30 PMMelville, Ferguson, Bellow, Kempis, Tolstoy, Wittgenstein
There is something wrong about the man who wants to help. There is some where a deep defect, a want, a brief, a need, a crying need, about the man.
As long as we need to control others, however benign we believe our motives, we are captive to that need. A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorace when the need for illusion is deep.
Bring peace to yourself, before bringing it to others. If you cannot mould yourself as you wish, how can you expect others to be to your
liking? Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.
Just improve yourself; that is the only thing you can do to better the world.
E. Hamilton: Yes, I will take what feels right, once the research is done, and only if I accomplish what is nearly impossible for anyone: separating oneself fully from preconceptions and belief systems. If you've been wired and educated towards a conservative bent, you're more likely than not going to dismiss things that counter what you hold to be true, no matter where the facts might lead. Case in point: the New Deal argument. Both sides have "facts". Both sides hold to those "facts". No one is budging. I might budge, when the "facts", yes feel right. At the moment, while I believe in a higher ideal and hold this nation to my heart as unmatched in its greatness and further potential, I do not find current "conservative" voices to be reflecting both the ideals, or the potential. Again, I'll read, back to Lewis as of last night, though he wasn't the issue, I guess, I pretty much always felt simpatico with him; but one thing at a time. Be well.
And yes, the same goes for those entrenched in a liberal mind set... goes both ways...
Posted by: C'thulu at January 23, 2009 12:44 PMThat's ridiculous. I grew up with the preconception and belief system that the New Deal was successful. It was only recently when I began learning the facts that were so long suppressed that I realized what an abysmal failure it was. Anyone with an open mind can learn. That's why conservatives speak in facts and liberals speak in platitudes. And only a liberal would put quotation marks around "facts". As if differing opinions are two valid sets of contradictory "facts".
Posted by: Velociman at January 23, 2009 2:09 PMI concur Velociman. Thomas Sowell was once a Marxist. You may have read much of Sowell, Cthulu, but if you have not read A Conflict of Visions, then you owe it to yourself. It addresses exactly the question you are asking. I have read some of Sowell's other works as well, but I thought that this one had more depth to it than most. It was not an "easy" read for me, and I had to reread and mull over passages of it. But ... I think it offers a logical dissection and analysis of liberal vs. conservative thinking, without being condescending to either group.
Posted by: PeggyU at January 23, 2009 5:41 PM...... you are not drinking enough, brother.........
Facts do not speak for themselves; truth does. Facts only speak for competing ideas--
Thomas Sowell
I have a suggestion, nay, a request...
Is it possible, without the confusion created by a dozen or so varying opinions of what might make each individual appear more worldly and intelligent than the other, to compile a list of top ten reads?
Perhaps a poll... but in the end, a conclusion of just ten or so books that one might set upon to expand one's knowledge and understanding of the serious re philosophy, religion, politics, human nature, etc...
Vman, I trust that you have, tucked away somewhere, just such a list.
Posted by: jmflynny at January 24, 2009 9:32 PMWell, flynny, I pretty much learned everything I need to know from Faulkner's Sanctuary. It's like my Bible. But your request is valid. I'll ponder it, and put up a list that my readers can mercilessly savage as clueless, biased, and just plain stupid.
Posted by: Velociman at January 24, 2009 9:53 PMDamn, I had the thesaurus on my left knee, Merriam Webster on my right knee and my Idiot's Guide to Spanish right there on the floor and I finally plowed through them big words. I'm guessing you don't like Democrats! Out in Iowa we like them cause they'll pay us to grow nothing! Now there's sensible government!
Posted by: Bill Kenny at January 29, 2009 4:20 PM