Stream of Consciousness IV 22-04-2012

I'm not a Reductionist because I believe that it robs the natural universe of its beauty and splendor.

I'm not a Solipsist because it seems that it would be a completely dreary and meaningless existence.

I'm not a Capitalist because I view it as generally exploitative, and believe that it naturally devolves into an authoritarian brand of Corporatism.

I'm not a Communist because, in spite of my idealism, I have grown up in a world that has seen only a few notable attempts at Communism, all of which have been inherently stateful and ruthlessly devoted to the one-party architecture.

I'm not a Libertarian, at least in the American, neo-, Randian sense, because I believe it is too rigid, often destructive and ultimately disheartening in its attempts to negate and dispel altruism and cooperation for their own sakes.

I'm not a Nationalist because I identify first and foremost with my fellow Man, and disdain any attempts by some third party to draw arbitrary borders amongst Humanity.

I'm not a Nihilist, in a pure sense, because I affirm the Self and her ability to define her own meaning.

I'm not a Kantian because I do not abide by the idea of moral absolutism.

I could go on and on forever about the things that I am not and the ideals that I do not espouse. But these statements are meaningless. Mind you, I was was commenting in a way that I do genuinely view myself (ie. I really am not an absolutist and I really am not in favor of nationalistic policy). But stating these ideas as such means nothing.

Why? Well the most simple answer is that in a universe of infinite possibilities to state what something is not provides no information. But that's a bit of a Reductionist response so I'm going to go in a different direction. You might now expect me to state something to the effect of, “It's much more valuable, socially and individually, externally and internally, to affirm what one does identify with and how one does feel.” Possibly. But I will follow a different path still: the labels themselves lack meaning. Capitalist versus anti-Capitalist versus non-Capitalist, Empiricist versus Rationalist versus Pragmatist, Romanticist versus Realist: these terms offer us nothing other than sheer convenience.

While many will attempt to provide objective definitions for any and all of these terms, the reality is that they are inherently subjective, to a given culture, to a given individual, to a given mindset. How the American populace interprets Libertarianism is innately different from how the European populace does. How I interpret Nihilism is innately different from how my best and closest friend interprets it. Every one assigns different meanings and values to these terms in their heads and then attempts to rationalize and fit them together when in conversation with another individual. And though we may share many archetypes and symbols for these terms, we are still communicating on completely different frequencies. But still, because it's so much easier to use one word than hundreds to describe one's philosophic or economic or political stance, the constant labeling of our Selves persists. And that's the real tragedy.

Hypothetically, when I tell some one I am a non-Capitalist, and she responds that she is a Capitalist, all we have done is to define ourselves as in opposition to one and other. It is almost certainly not an active nor aggressive opposition, but it is a deep and principled one nonetheless. Of course we can continue past the inane pleasantries and get into a true dialogue, and we can even get meta and discuss the terms we are using in an attempt to clarify and to parse further meaning, but we started from a corrupt foundation. No matter how much clarity is provided or how much information is exchanged, our initial findings were binary: I was 0, she was 1. We were divided.

And it is not as though this is done with malice or out of ignorance. It can happen completely subtly and innocuously. She queries, “So what sort of economic ideals do you have?” He responds, “Well I guess you can say that I come from the Austrian School, but let me preface that with...” It's perfectly innocent, but in her mind, as soon as he throws the label of “Austrian School” into the mix, she begins to draw up symbols and assign value judgements. It's perfectly natural, but it's divisive.

We should just skip the labels as much as possible. I know it's impossible to completely ditch them; that would be tantamount to rejecting language, and thus communication, altogether. But we should try to break symbols and words down into baser, more fundamental constructs. If we can deconstruct the big overarching labels and positively discuss what we are and what we believe in terms of simpler, more atomic ideals, then we can better understand each other. And then maybe we can be a little more humane and a little less reactionary.

So when you read that previous paragraph and go, “Hey, sounds pretty Reductionist from my end,” try to remember that we are all nuanced. If you want a no-frills, surefire way to describe yourself without a wink of ambiguity or confusion, you've got one option:

“I'm a person.” And, well, we all are. So at least we've got that in common.