Do Not Read This, pt. 15

(my stepfather was a terrifying, quasi-religious, military-styled disciplinarian/psycho-drunk who used to scream that at me, a 9-year old kid, before slapping me around or picking me up by my ankles and dropping me on my head. my crime? doing absolutely everything i could think of to survive life in his household. that usually meant avoiding him, ignoring his commands, and keeping away from nearly everybody else in his house by creating my own little world. for this i was relentlessly guilted into feeling bad for the simple and courageous act of taking care of myself in defiance of the “good” kid that he’d rather i’d be. listening to Kiss or Led Zeppelin in my bedroom, to him, this was a big “F -You”. as one might imagine, i didn’t emerge from this domestic hell unscathed. nor did my two sisters. we did what we could for ourselves as kids, but in the end it wasn’t enough. all 3 of us have lived our lives unable to dislodge our feeling that we are flawed people unworthy of our natural place at the table of the banquet of life as members of the human race. emotionally speaking, we are homeless beggars unable to attract mates due to our torn, frayed and tattered souls. as adults, we’ve had no choice but to live under the idea “child as parental property” that was hammered into us as kids because to think otherwise, i.e., autonomously, was to be “selfish”. free, unfettered emotional expression by children was also deemed “selfish” as well in our house, due to certain feelings being regarded as self-indulgent, self-pitying, unacceptable, and upsetting to the “authorities” in command who at any time might choose to withdraw their peaceable care. whenever it came down to “child vs. parent”, guess who won?

fact: life does not drop what we need into our laps. the basics— food, shelter, clothing, these are things we all have to find a way to acquire for ourselves. this was true in caveman times and it is true now. of course, it being quite apparent that working together makes acquiring what we need much easier, most of us are willing to make use of our particular talents and abilities and so cooperate to make this happen. can you imagine, in caveman times, what would happen if a caveman just sat around waiting for others to feed him, to build shelter for him and make his clothes? he’d have been left behind in short order without a second thought as everyone else in the tribe considered the absurdity of taking on the burden of pulling his dead weight around as if he were some overgrown, helpless baby.

yet somehow, in our modern times, we generally consider ourselves saintly, selfless, holy beings if we take on, however momentary, the burden of the overgrown, helpless babies in our midst? and if we walk past them on the street without a second thought then this means we are heartless villains? granted, there are very good reasons that some people end up not being willing or able to meet their own survival needs, one big reason being that the heartless villains of the world have completed their fitful work upon the psyches of these individuals. as well, in some cases, physical deformity or damage prevents one from meeting ones’ own needs forcing one into dependence for life. but even these may find in themselves something others need or enjoy. and many do.

but in no case whatsoever is peaceable pursuit of ones’ own desires and goals to the exclusion of all else anti-social in any way, nor is this even remotely a despicable act. indeed, it is often the case that such pursuits wind up creating opportunities that benefit others to a very great degree.)

The Myth of Altruism

We are all born into a social environment set against the human individual. To be more precise, the official philosophical environment is actually anti-social. We are taught by word and deed that our purpose in life is for the glory of “God”, to serve our country, to help others, to deny self for the good of all. Deny self — that is the crux of the matter. The issue is not whether one chooses to help another or others for personal reasons, the issue is that individual choice is denied and the individual is regarded as nothing more than a means to ends not of his/her own choosing.

The command to deny self is heard in formal religion, the pledge of allegiance to flag and country, and oaths of governmental offices. Indeed, the command is ever-present and all-encompassing and sets our lot in life as servitude to alleged superior beings, or “others” as a surrogate “superior being.” This philosophy goes by the name, altruism. It is allegedly set in opposition to self-interest, which is assumed to be inherently “evil”.

This antagonism is sometimes called the great philosophical divide. (in some circles, aka STS vs. STO, service-to-self vs. service-to-others). In popular thought and in popular language usage, the impression is given that one has the philosophical choice of altruism or self-interest. No such option is available. It is literally impossible for anyone to knowingly go against what they conceive to be in their own best interest. Certainly, one may take an action and later discover that it was not in their interest, but at the time of the action, it was thought to be. Pursuing self-interest is as certain as consciousness and volition. What constitutes ones’ self-interest is dependent upon ones’ values, which in turn, are dependent upon ones’ beliefs. Whether one is aiding the poor and helpless or stealing from them, it’s still a matter of self-interest. Each intends to gain tangible or intangible reward. Material reward, either immediate or delayed, is just part of the picture. To leave out future expectations or intangible value as means of pursuing happiness denies the reality of the situation.

The condemnation of self-interest, per se, ties directly to the innate evil syndrome and a mind divided by a god-concept. Further, since everyone pursues self-interest, pretense otherwise has value only in hiding the specific self-interest pursued; not only hiding the specific interest from others, but from self as well. The hiding is not always of conscious construction, nor of conscious intent. It is a matter of derivatives of fallacious beliefs. The whole fallacy of philosophical selflessness can be easily exposed by a few simple observations.

The fallacy of philosophical selflessness is easily exposed by envisioning only two individuals. Aside from the fact that selflessness is synonymous with death, if one preaches altruism to the other, is he not asking to be served rather than “selflessly giving” as he would have us believe? Who are the “others” to be served, if not the one promoting the idea of altruism? Unless and until someone can demonstrate that he can go against his nature and act without the motivation of self-interest, the issue is not self-interest vs. non-self-interest — the issue is what those self-interests are and how they relate to the social condition of a believer and the persons with whom the believer interacts.

The god-concept self-interests of an “altruist” are multifaceted. If a believer feels subordinated, unworthy, and fearful of receiving help when needed, would it not be in the self-interest of the believer to have “evil man” subscribe to the philosophy of “altruism” and/or be forced to act for the benefit of “others”? This also serves the purpose of controlling “evil man” for the sake of “security”.

There is an even more sinister side of the altruism myth that may be seen in contrast with individualism. In a social environment of individualism and voluntary mutual exchange for mutual benefit, it is certainly quite possible that any individual at any given time may be in need of help. If someone chooses to offer such help, it may be gratefully received. However, this is a voluntary and temporary social situation and not a constant and prevailing philosophy of subservience.

On the other hand, “altruism” as a constant philosophy requires a constant pool of “the needy”. Obviously, if a believer is to promote and sustain “altruism”, it is in his self-interest to see to it that the pool of “needy” does not disappear. The multiple adverse effects of the god-concept illusion fulfills this requirement. The value of “the needy” is twofold: First, as one of “the needy”, the “group needy” provides a place in the recipient line of the sanctioned policy. The second value is once again best seen in contrast with individualism. In individualism where there are no “objective values”, nor superior and inferior beings, help needed, offered and accepted is simply a part of a harmonious social interchange with no lowering or raising of anyone in the process. In “altruism”, as a “giver”, “the needy”, provide subordination by which to act god-like in giving and exalting self-value via the god-dependent relationship.

While there may be some trace of human compassion in the scenario, when offensive physical force is added, there is no doubt that the main psychological drive is the god-concept values. Of course, the core god-concept self-interest is to “please God” by doing “God’s will”, or to “be a good citizen” by acting the “national interest”, etc.

Since nearly all hold a god-concept and seek to have all abide by “divine will” or “society’s values”, power is the ultimate value almost universally sought and revered. On any given day, one can read of or hear the reverence for power expressed or implied again and again. This value is so nearly universally accepted and unquestioned, it is spoken of as a matter of course and implied by attitude and actions to be a “natural condition” and a “natural value”. To a believer, it is incomprehensible that anyone would not want to hold dominion over others, that ruling or being ruled is equally abhorrent.

Since nearly all subscribe to the god-concept, the official socio-economic governmental system is set upon the belief in illusory altruism. It is implemented by “guilt drive” and coercion as each believer pursues self-interest in the name of non-self, i.e., the god-concept. Although the actual philosophy and agenda may be hidden by unspoken consensus or agreement, its’ hiding place is rather shallow and easily exposed as demonstrated above. Further analysis of mind principles lays it bare.

Literally every belief and value an individual holds plays directly or indirectly to the concept, self value. To grasp the significance of this, and to grasp the depth and intensity of the natural directive, observe that it is human nature to hold onto what one values and discard that which one does not. Ergo, ones’ value of self is directly relative to sustaining life itself. This is not to say that all the beliefs and values one holds are life-oriented— to the contrary, in a mind divided by a god-concept, many are not. In fact, all god-concept beliefs and values are anti-life. In formal religion with the idea of eternal life after death, one must necessarily value death as a means to achieve this goal. Outside of formal religion without the belief in death as means to an eternal life, allegiance to any other god concept is no less divisive and death-oriented. Whatever the confusion and contradictions, believers still seek self-value in the god concept context. It is this self-negating context that is the crux of the matter. Arbitrary labels and claims are irrelevant to effect.

A believer, of course, does not know that the god-concept is their own mental invention. To emphasize the point again, it makes no difference whether one calls the god-concept “God’s will”, “society’s values”, “American interests”, or whatever, it is all epistemologically, philosophically, and psychologically the same. A believer believes there are two beings, and therefore, two sets of values and two sets of interests: self, subjective value and personal interest; and superior being, objective value and superior being interests. Actually, self, being psychologically subordinated, is emotionally regarded as non-existent, thus negating the concept, subjective value, as well. However, self and self-interest are seen as contrary to the superior being and the superior beings’ interests. Since the superior being and superior beings’ interests are held as the ultimate good, it follows that self-interest is held as the ultimate evil. Hence, the popular notion that self-interest, per se, is to be condemned outright without any exploration of the specifics of any persons’ self-interests.

The god-concept has many self-interest directives, the main being ownership, i.e., the control of others. To control others via direct physical force or purchased physical force is to cause subordination. It is the god-concept realized in self and is regarded as the source of self-value. Fame is setting apart and adulation, and is simply another manifestation of subordination to enhance the feeling of self-value. This scenario has numerous drawbacks. First, everyone can’t be a god and achieve self-value in this manner. Second, even for those who achieve the god status, it doesn’t work. No matter what successes they may achieve in the god-concept values, the god-concept itself always leaves them with a feeling of subordination and diminished self-value. It’s the pursuit of illusion; the pursuit of some undefined, mystical, and emotional goal that doesn’t exist. The returns of such a pursuit are at best transient, shallow, and temporary, and at worst, none at all, except to compound the feeling of inferiority and unworthiness because the efforts to alleviate these feelings always fail. The feeling goes with the god-concept context. As long as one holds onto these beliefs and their context, the feeling of being self-diminished and unworthy is certain to be a constant companion.

The natural self-interest questions that everyone consciously or unconsciously asks are: What do I want? Can it be achieved? If so, how? From an individual identity perspective, it is a straightforward proposition that recognizes limits, ends, and means in a non-contradictory sequence of thought. The god-concept throws the whole thing into self-conflict. Needed self-value and self-confidence is sought in the god-concept that takes away these very things. Worst of all, while conscious mind may desire freedom and peace, the god-concept denies the individual and his/her freedom and sets a condition of rule as absolute. Thus, in conflict and confusion, domination and suffering are valued and “peace” is pursued by means of war. Such is the nature of the god-concept and its’ attendant myth of altruism.