So, what was the point of all of this? Well, we started with an establishment of basic principle, in which we can root further discussions of ethics. In particular, we can use the concept of implicit assent to establish the points in the Uniform Base Code of Morality, which, once given, lead to the assessments of Divine morality used in "Constructing God". From there, our changed view of the nature of Divinity impacts on the nature of our view of myth, and the ritual derived from it.
This brings us to a point that we view as being of such importance, that we try to pound it in, to what we fear might occasionally be an annoying extent. Religion is not a grab bag of randomly chosen customs and metaphysical ideas. Each thing is rooted in another, in a circle of conceptual influences that ultimately reaches back to any point of beginning one might try to choose, and there are reasons for everything. This is why we object to some of the casual eclecticism we see, in which a Tibetan prayer wheel is spun in the name of Loki, during a festival dedicated to Raven, after which ... etc. To us, it seems that to try to construct a religion in this way, is like grabbing the organs of a number of living animals, and trying to create a new animal by sewing the heart of one, to the arteries of another, going to the lungs of a third ... and wondering why the resulting conglomeration never takes a step on its own. We feel that the discordant elements being thrown together will serve to undermine each other, rather than reinforce the feeling behind each other. For this reason, we like to stick with one line of tradition, for the most part.
But, what of the rest of this mess, from the point at which Robert storms off? First of all, how much of this actually happened?
The answer is, to an extent, up to rephrasing and patching together, it almost all did. However, we tidied it up a bit, eliminating a lot of interruptions, and repetition made necessary as a result of having to start over, for the sake of readability. So, if you were wondering if people were simply letting me, or anyone we know, roll off lengthy speeches while they sat there quietly - no, obviously not. But these points were eventually put across, and the discussion of those points, is the point of our semi-fictionalised discussion.
Now, what was the point of the rest of the discussion? Well, as we've tried to make clear, we don't see culture as a set of rules, but rather, as an ongoing process, and the act of discussion is at its core. The problem is, that there are some, who rather than trying to take part in the process of discussion will try to subvert it, and that certain concepts of "etiquette" enable this effort. Consequently, in the name of the far older, and better conceived notion of civility, (*) we cast the Victorian era texts of etiquette aside when encountering manipulative or dishonest behavior, and have at it, on an honest and direct level.
To do this, though, we have to come to recognise when it is, that our buttons are being pushed, and think of explanations that will help others understand this recognition. For this reason, we've put a small effort into studying how some of the slicker "nice people", who play these games, work their rhetorical magic.
Some will walk away thinking that the argument is basically between Tractatus and Robert, and that Irene is a concerned friend. On a very superficial level, that is true. But Robert, in this account is a clown who is easily disposed of. It is Irene who is the far more formidable adversary, and for the sake of a cause just as unwholesome. Irene is sort of a composite of the "peace at any price" crowd, who seek to short circuit the process of argument so that they will not have to cope with the existence of an argument in their presence. But if we can't confront the absurdities that become fashionable, then they run unchecked, with frequently tragic results. In her own way, she's far worse than Robert.
So, Irene, while she abides by the "High Society" concept of etiquette, is being quietly, but actually quite appallingly uncivil, in her dishonesty, while Tractatus, in tearing up those "rules", is the very embodiment of civility here. Let us note that he does not initiate hostilities, but merely makes sure, once they are initiated, to put the one initiating them in his place. He restores the expectation of order to the floor of discussion in the process, by insuring that misbehavior (here, defined as that which, when made habitual, reduced the likelihood of the consensus moving toward the truth) is not rewarded with success. In doing that which helps to empower Robert, and those like him, Irene partakes of a portion of the incivility that each can be expected to commit.
The biggest question gets the shortest answer. Why do we bother? Obviously, the semi-fictional Tractatus isn't making friends in the course of this discussion, and doesn't especially like the people he is meeting. The answer is because in seeking to affect public attitudes, we must look to the long term. In the short run, yes, people expect Tractatus to roll over, because its "good manners". (Read : because it is less hassle for them in the very short run they are willing to think of, when the rule that calls on him to give in, is obeyed.) The initial reaction will be negative. But, history teaches us that patient and assertive resolve does pay off, eventually.
As for what we think of the people we meet, and the society they're helping to create - well, Tractatus doesn't think too highly of them, and with good reason. So, why does he bother? Because he acts out of love, not for their current selves, but for their true selves - those acquired natures which, given their innate natures, they are, at best, capable of. And likewise with the ever sicker society before us.
Some, unable to shake off Standard Christian conditioning, will say that none of this seems especially religious. To this, we would respond, consider the story of Christ chasing the money-changers from the Temple, or of any number of stories of Divine wrath, from any number of mythoi. Anger isn't always bad. Some will ask if, in such a discussion as we've illustrated here, one couldn't just be sweet and nice, and let people see what jerks Robert, et al., are by comparison. The answer is "no", because one has to work in the world as it actually exists, not as we wish it did.
In the real one as most of it currently exists, people side with those who seem strong to them, not those who seem right. If we are to change this reality, we will have to accept the reality that this will be a fight, until people are willing to be honest enough with themselves to admit that this is what their attitudes have made the process of discussion into, and that this is not how things should be. On that day, those who seek to win through manipulation and intimidation, will be asked to leave by those around them, but until then, we will have to seem a little more fearsome than our more disruptive opposition, if we are to be heard at all.
So, the questions we are left with, here, are when do we fight, why do we fight, and how do we fight, with a sense of honor and integrity, but also with force. If we, as a society, are ever to escape the collective insanity of our era, this is what we must learn to do, as a people.
That's all that has been edited for posting on this loop so far, though much more has been written, and is waiting to be edited, and put up. Let us return to the previous thread of discussion you were on ...
(*) This is not to be confused with the Anglo-American concept of "civility", which is little more than a recent fabrication put in place in order to make the manipulation of others easier than it might otherwise be. Click here to go to the discussion of Civility in the Uniform Base Code of Morality.