Thursday, 11 May 2017

Political Views & Identity


It's occurred to me whilst in conversation with a friend that the reason people get so hot under the collar when it comes to political views, whether right-wing, left-wing, anarchist or statist, is that it forms a part of their identity, their basic sense of self as a human being, so that when attacking or even merely inadvertently upsetting those views they take it as an affront on their person rather than merely on their opinions, i.e. angles on things.

The same is often the case of religious and atheist affiliations which often form a part of a person's identity and indeed one could make the point that political views, because they so often require belief as opposed to doubt, are quasi-religious in the meaning they give a person. 

I venture to say here, however, that I do not take a high view of 'identity' since I interpret it as relating to the lower, egoic self, as opposed to the higher, more illumined self which accepts diversity since in tune with the Whole which sustains the apparent separateness of human beings, the illusion of separateness being seen as the source of all evil in some ancient Eastern traditions (according to Manly P. Hall in his Lectures on Ancient Philosophy). 

Things that have helped me in overcoming too high a sensitivity when my philosophical/political attachments and views are challenged are
  • the insight that I might be wrong and have been wrong in the past
  • the insight that everyone is journeying, whether consciously or not, wether actually ascending, stalling or descending, up their own Mountain of Enlightenment and therefore that people with particularly abhorrent views may grow out of them in time and that lower forms of consciousness co-exist with higher ones as they always have done in history.
  • the humility that comes with my own experience of identity, whether it be my conservative, pro-capitalist, pro-US imperialism, anti-French views that I held when I left school - views which I find particularly flawed, immature and mind controlled now (I was very influenced by The Economist newspaper and interpretations of my life experience - see Experience as Interpretation) - or my more left-wing views that developed later to reach a point now where, despite all the reading and thinking that I do now, I do not identify with any views in the sense of having my ego, my sense of self (low form of identity) at stake in them.
Identity remains for me symptomatic of an emerging mode of consciousness - whether it be attachment to a nation, an ideology, a particular people, race or religious creed - that has yet to free itself from the false self, i.e. the ego, and therefore has yet to experience what Manly P. Hall calls the second birth that follows the first, biological, birth, which is in fact a death (of the ego) in favour of a realisation that puts oneself in touch with the higher Self rooted in the All, i.e. Being, and which therefore sees the metaphysical unity amongst the apparent, physical, diversity. 

Addendum - The same friend I had a conversation with, on reading this, said that political views can be moral views - not just any views - and I wholeheartedly agree. That being said moral views can be seen as an expression of higher consciousness rather than being part of egoic identity.

Video Games as Reactive - Responding and Reacting - Responsibility


It is said by some that unlike film-watching which is said to be 'passive' - a position that neglects to see how film-watching not only involves the senses but is often followed by evaluation and even interpretation, which are both far from 'passive' - video games are 'active' because you have a degree of control over the visual information displayed on the screen via a controller.

Yet in essence the control the 'gamer' feels he has in a game - a degree of control which is mathematically calculated by the game developers - is mostly always in reaction to the game's visual and audio information. Jump here, shoot there, brake here, collect there, place here, destroy there etc. 

In a very real sense then, gaming is reactive or rather, acts in reaction to pre-determined data.

This action-in-reaction to data in video games raises the question of when action is not reactive to pre-given data - is there such a thing as pure action, i.e. non-reactive action?

For instance writing this blog post, whilst a form of action, is also reacting to a desire to communicate an angle on video games, a desire triggered by reading a philosophy book. 

Actions based on the fulfilment and satisfaction of needs - such as going to the loo - are obviously reactions to data that our mind-body complex is giving us. 

A lot of online literature reacts to statements and angles offered by others, news items, social media trends, current world conditions and so forth and indeed the interplay of social interaction always involves an element of responding to the communications of others.

It could even be said, more widely, that in every single action we take we are responding (or reacting) to, at the very least, a thought or an emotion. 

We've reached the point in the argument where it is necessary to attempt to distinguish reaction from response. 

Both reaction and response are forms of action that are triggered not only by information in our mind and body but by external events. 

However a possible line of demarcation between the two can be drawn in looking at the shared root between the word 'response' and the word 'responsibility', the latter meaning, in its psychological sense, being in charge of something and accountable, i.e answerable, for it. 

A philosophical point could be made that in responding to something we are in psychological control and therefore can be held accountable for the quality of our response whereas in reaction the quality of action occurs almost despite ourselves in a practically involuntary way - the emotions that move us to react not being voluntary - so that we cannot be held so easily accountable for the deed that resulted from the reaction. 

In that sense reflexes are reactive, because reflexes are too quick and subconscious to be considered to have the same quantum of voluntariness as response.

So when Nietzsche wrote of what he called men of ressentiment (men of resentment) in contrast to active men of nobility that their their actions were really reactions, we could make an exegesis based on what I have argued above, that the actions, including the speech and writings, of these 'resentful' human beings lack the quality of agency and voluntariness typical of non-reactive responding natures who, having more agency and self-control, can be held more accountable for their responses and in that sense are more responsible. 

Turning it around we could say that to be responsible entails having the quality of someone who responds rather than reacts, who has agency over his thoughts, emotions and actions and therefore can be considered as having an element of free will and therefore is more answerable for his deeds and words in that he can answer, i.e account, for them. 

Addendum - Mark Passio, in his What On Earth is Happening video presentation series, points to the green language aspect of the word 'responsibility' as response ability, i.e. our ability to respond (rather than react). That both of us should have picked up on this idea in our own separate journeys shows the large amount of congruence between his and my way of thinking.