Part 29 (1/2)
[ITOE, 106.].
Mysticism requires the notion of the unknowable, which is revealed to some and withheld from others; this divides men into those who feel guilt and those who cash in on it. The two groups are interchangeable, according to circ.u.mstances. When being judged, a mystic cries: ”I couldn't help it!” When judging others, he declares: ”You can't know, but I can.”
[”The Psychulogy of 'Psychologizing,' ”TO, March 1971, 1.]
There is only one state that fulfills the mystic's longing for infinity, non-causality, non-ident.i.ty: death. No matter what unintelligible causes he ascribes to his incommunicable feelings, whoever rejects reality rejects existence-and the feelings that move him from then on are hatred for all the values of man's life, and l.u.s.t for all the evils that destroy it.
[GS, FNI, 202; pb 162.]
The advocates of mysticism are motivated not by a quest for truth, but by hatred for man's mind.
[”An Unt.i.tled Letter,” PWNI, 123; pb 102.]
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket-by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.
[GS, FNI, 190; pb 153.]
I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind-a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence. And more: no man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary a.s.sertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: ”It's so, because I say so,” will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later. Communists, like all materialists, are neo-mystics: it does not matter whether one rejects the mind in favor of revelations or in favor of conditioned reflexes. The basic premise and the results are the same.
[”Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” PWNI, 85; pb 70.]
Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality-the attempt to a.s.sert the primacy of consciousness over existence.
Although skepticism and mysticism are ultimately interchangeable, and the dominance of one always leads to the resurgence of the other, they differ in the form of their inner contradiction-the contradiction, in both cases, between their philosophical doctrine and their psychological motivation. Philosophically, the mystic is usually an exponent of the intrinsic (revealed) school of epistemology; the skeptic is usually an advocate of epistemological subjectivism. But, psychologically, the mystic is a subjectivist who uses intrinsicism as a means to claim the primacy of his consciousness over that of others. The skeptic is a disillusioned intrinsicist who, having failed to find automatic supernatural guidance, seeks a subst.i.tute in the collective subjectivism of others.
[ITOE, 105.].
Only three brief periods of history were culturally dominated by a philosophy of reason: ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the nineteenth century. These three periods were the source of mankind's greatest progress in all fields of intellectual achievement-and the eras of greatest political freedom. The rest of human history was dominated by mysticism of one kind or another, that is: by the belief that man's mind is impotent, that reason is futile or evil or both, and that man must be guided by some irrational ”instinct” or feeling or intuition or revelation, by some form of blind, unreasoning faith. All the centuries dominated by mysticism were the eras of political tyranny and slavery, of rule by brute force-from the primitive barbarism of the jungle-to the Pharaohs of Egypt-to the emperors of Rome-to the feudalism of the Dark and Middle Ages-to the absolute monarchies of Europe-to the modern dictators.h.i.+ps of Soviet Russia, n.a.z.i Germany and all their lesser carbon copies.
[”The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age,” pamphlet, 5.]
See also AXIOMS; CAUSALITY; CONSCIOUSNESS; DICTATOR; EMOTIONS; EPISTEMOLOGY; G.o.d; FAITH; KANT, IMMANUEL; KNOWLEDGE; LOGIC; MYSTICS of SPIRIT and of MUSCLE; OBJECTIVITY; PERCEPTION; PHYSICAL FORCE; PROOF; REASON; RELIGION; SECOND-HANDERS; SKEPTICISM; SUPERNATURALISM.
Mystics of Spirit and of Muscle. As products of the split between man's soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man's body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind.
The good, say the mystics of spirit, is G.o.d, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of G.o.d. Man's mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of G.o.d, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man's right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man's life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.
Selfishness-say both-is man's evil. Man's good-say both-is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man's good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice-cry both-is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man's reach.
[GS, FNI, 171; pb 138.]
The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to a.s.sert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they a.s.sert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it ”another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it ”the future,” which consists of denying the present.
[Ibid., 184; pb 148.]
What is the nature of that superior world to which they sacrifice the world that exists? The mystics of spirit curse matter, the mystics of muscle curse profit. The first wish men to profit by renouncing the earth, the second wish men to inherit the earth by renouncing all profit. Their non-material, non-profit worlds are realms where rivers run with milk and coffee, where wine spurts from rocks at their command, where pastry drops on them from clouds at the price of opening their mouth. On this material, profit-chasing earth, an enormous investment of virtue -of intelligence, integrity, energy, skill-is required to construct a railroad to carry them the distance of one mile; in their non-material, non-profit world, they travel from planet to planet at the cost of a wish. If an honest person asks them: ”How?”-they answer with righteous scorn that a ”how” is the concept of vulgar realists; the concept of superior spirits is ”Somehow.” On this earth restricted by matter and profit, rewards are achieved by thought; in a world set free of such restrictions rewards are achieved by wis.h.i.+ng.
And that is the whole of their shabby secret. The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilization, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality-is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish.
[Ibid., 185; pb 149.]
For centuries, the mystics of spirit have proclaimed that faith is superior to reason, but have not dared deny the existence of reason. Their heirs and product, the mystics of muscle, have completed their job and achieved their dream: they proclaim that everything is faith, and call it a revolt against believing. As revolt against unproved a.s.sertions, they proclaim that nothing can be proved; as revolt against supernatural knowledge, they proclaim that no knowledge is possible; as revolt against the enemies of science, they proclaim that science is superst.i.tion; as revolt against the enslavement of the mind, they proclaim that there is no mind.
[Ibid., 196; pb 158.]
See also MYSTICISM.
N.
National Rights. A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation-a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens-has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense)....
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
[”Collectivized 'Rights,' ”VOS, 138; pb 103.]
Dictators.h.i.+p nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade n.a.z.i Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent ”rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it. when and if it so chooses.
[Ibid., 140; pb 104.]
See also COLLECTIVISM; DEMOCRACY; FOREIGN POLICY; FREEDOM; INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; SECESSION; SELF-DETERMINATION of NATIONS.
Naturalism. [Today we observe] two broad categories of art: Romanticism, which recognizes the existence of man's volition-and Naturalism, which denies it.
[”What Is Romanticism?” RM, 81; pb 99.]
[The] basic premises of Romanticism and Naturalism (the volition or anti-volition premise) affect all the other aspects of a literary work, such as the choice of theme and the quality of the style, but it is the nature of the story structure-the attribute of plot or plotlessness-that represents the most important difference between them and serves as the main distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic for cla.s.sifying a given work in one category or the other.
[Ibid., 83; pb 101.]
Instead of presenting a metaphysical view of man and of existence, the Naturalists presented a journalistic view. In answer to the question: ”What is man?”-they said: ”This is what the village grocers are, in the south of France, in the year 1887,” or: ”This is what the inhabitants of the slums are, in New York, in 1921,” or: ”These are the folks next door.”
[”The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age,” RM, 114; pb 124.]
The pract.i.tioners of the literary school diametrically opposed to mine -the school of Naturalism-claim that a writer must reproduce what they call ”real life,” allegedly ”as it is,” exercising no selectivity and no value-judgments. By ”reproduce,” they mean ”photograph”; by ”real life,” they mean whatever given concretes they happen to observe; by ”as it is,” they mean ”as it is lived by the people around them.” But observe that these Naturalists-or the good writers among them-are extremely selective in regard to two attributes of literature: style and characterization. Without selectivity, it would be impossible to achieve any sort of characterization whatever, neither of an unusual man nor of an average one who is to be offered as statistically typical of a large segment of the population. Therefore, the Naturalists' opposition to selectivity applies to only one attribute of literature: the content or subject. It is in regard to his choice of subject that a novelist must exercise no choice, they claim.
Why?
The Naturalists have never given an answer to that question-not a rational, logical, noncontradictory answer. Why should a writer photograph his subjects indiscriminately and unselectively? Because they ”really” happened? To record what really happened is the job of a reporter or of a historian, not of a novelist. To enlighten readers and educate them? That is the job of science, not of literature, of nonfiction writing, not of fiction. To improve men's lot by exposing their misery? But that is a value-judgment and a moral purpose and a didactic ”message” -all of which are forbidden by the Naturalist doctrine. Besides, to improve anything one must know what const.i.tutes an improvement -and to know that, one must know what is the good and how to achieve it-and to know that, one must have a whole system of value-judgments, a system of ethics, which is anathema to the Naturalists.
Thus, the Naturalists' position amounts to giving a novelist full esthetic freedom in regard to means, but not in regard to ends. He may exercise choice, creative imagination, value-judgments in regard to how he portrays things, but not in regard to what he portrays-in regard to style or characterization, but not in regard to subject. Man-the subject of literature-must not be viewed or portrayed selectively. Man must be accepted as the given, the unchangeable, the not-to-be-judged, the status quo. But since we observe that men do change, that they differ from one another, that they pursue different values, who, then, is to determine the human status quo? Naturalism's implicit answer is: everybody except the novelist.
The novelist-according to the Naturalist doctrine-must neither judge nor value. He is not a creator, but only a recording secretary whose master is the rest of mankind. Let others p.r.o.nounce judgments, make decisions, select goals, fight over values and determine the course, the fate and the soul of man. The novelist is the only outcast and deserter of that battle. His is not to reason why-his is only to trot behind his master, notebook in hand, taking down whatever the master dictates, picking up such pearls or such swinishness as the master may choose to drop.
[”The Goal of My Writing,” RM, 163; pb 164.]
The Naturalists object that a plot is an artificial contrivance, because in ”real life” events do not fall into a logical pattern. That claim depends on the observer's viewpoint, in the literal sense of the word ”viewpoint.” A nearsighted man standing two feet away from the wall of a house and staring at it, would declare that the map of the city's streets is an artificial, invented contrivance. That is not what an airplane pilot would say, flying two thousand feet above the city. The events of men's lives follow the logic of men's premises and values-as one can observe if one looks past the range of the immediate moment, past the trivial irrelevancies, repet.i.tions and routines of daily living, and sees the essentials, the turning points, the direction of a man's life.
[”Basic Principles of Literature,” RM, 60; pb 83.]