As previously indicated, a god concept is simply the expressed or implied positing of an "infinite entity" as a "superior being" to which the individual is subordinated. Whether it is called "God", "Society", "Majority", "Minority", "Public", "Nation", "Country", whatever, it is epistemologically, philosophically, and psychologically irrelevant. Except for the purpose of self-delusion, it's all the same. Since a god concept is illusion and the individual real, it creates a situation of mind dichotomy as also explained earlier. Since the god concept is the dominant belief, via principles of mind the premise is manifested in every logical derivative. The central and corollary derivative of the god concept is the concept, objective value. The objective value concept expresses or implies that there are universal values that constitute natural standards. This idea of natural standards is not confined to alleged standards of "moral values", but sets the psychological condition that all values are objective and constitute natural standards. It is these imagined standards that nearly all accept as objective and use as reference to judge self and others. The dichotomizing illusion plays havoc in many anti-social ways. Some are highly visible. Others are not, but play a key role in nearly every part of every believer's life. Let's briefly examine this by looking at a condensed sampling in the field of formal education.
A subject is selected, study material is taught, and a test is given. The student making the highest grade is directly or indirectly pronounced as highly intelligent and a superior being. All students may aspire to this position, but only one can make it. The inferior being position is not a desirable one and those so explicitly or implicitly designated feel denigrated and resent what they see as cause: The "superior being". This is not a comfortable and constructive position for anyone as alienation sets an anti-social condition. It's a no-win situation.
Some repress or suppress the feeling of lowered status and resentment and manage to move on without extensive damage to ego and values. Others closer to the bottom of the "objective value" scale feel helpless and hopeless because they know they have no chance of even coming close to the academic achievement of the "superior being". Neither child nor adult will pursue what is considered to be unattainable. In an ego salvaging psychological twist they denounce the system and cease to care about academic matters. Failure and defiance is the value they now pursue. The end result is not pleasant. It is a loss of unrealized potential. Worse yet, more often than not, many of the "inferior beings" turn to the "power value" and seek self redemption in dominating others - as they have been so thoroughly taught. Combine this value with the "value of money" and you have a large part of the answer as to the cause of bank robberies and other "street crimes". In no way do the conclusions above suggest the individuals in focus are not responsible for their actions. I am merely pointing out the underlying psychology and motivating influences that are inherent in the god concept and the idea of objective value.
The problem illustrated is neither new nor hidden. Teachers, psychologists, counselors and many others are acutely aware of it but, for them, it presents an unresolvable dilemma. They cannot by declaration or command raise the academic ability of the lesser achievers and solve the problem. So, what are they to do to escape the unwanted psychological effects? Lower the academic standards and cater to the lowest common denominator? They are in a quandary. Every proposal they consider has obvious drawbacks. In the end, they accept the "natural paradox" without a clue that the problem is derived from the contradictions in their thinking and philosophy.
This is but one of the many such circumstances of trying to resolve a problem without identifying it. It is the all-to-familiar situation of trying to resolve a problem within a context wherein the context is the problem. What is the context that poses the problem? You guessed it. The ever popular and much revered myth, objective value. Take any number of individuals in any endeavor, academic or otherwise, and interest and ability will vary from individual to individual in every instance. This is the natural and immutable condition of individuality. Is it inherently antagonistic and anti-social? Or is the actual problem caused by distorted additions and impositions of "natural standards" that deny the natural condition?
It is virtually certain that some individuals will be better in math, science, biology, mechanics, sports, whatever, than others. Some are clearly superior to others in these fields. The question is, how does this get transposed to "superior being" and the problem of relative devaluation of other individuals? Yes, once again, it's the objective value illusion that is the problem and the core of the problem.
Definitively, the terms superior and inferior refer to the objective evaluation of means in respect to a subjectively chosen goal. However, in the god concept, the "goal" is not subjectively chosen but objectively discovered. Focus upon the phrase, subjectively chosen goal, i.e., subjective value, for this is the denied reality of the situation. It makes no difference if 100% of the population chooses values dependent upon the knowledge of science, etc., the values are still subjectively chosen, not objectively discovered. The knowledge of persons in these specific fields is certainly superior to non-knowledge in respect to relative goals, but how does this constitute "superior being?" Answer. By the illusion that these goals and values are somehow inherent in nature and are an objective standard of measurement.
Value is not intrinsic and inherent in anything. Nothing has value until value is attributed to it by an individual. Value to whom for what purpose? This the reality of the situation. In light of this fact, how does one propose to rate the abilities of other individuals except in respect to his (her) own personal preference? Ergo, the alleged objective standard of value by which persons are rated as superior or inferior does not exist. The school problem and a whole lot of others are easily traced right back to the objective value myth.
Constructive individual interests and abilities are not antagonistic; indeed, are beneficial complements. Can you envision a world wherein all individuals have exactly the same interests and the same abilities. Even if such a world were possible, would you want it? Would you go to a doctor that knows no more of the body and medicine than you do? Would you get on an airplane whose pilot knows no more about flying than you do? What of the valuation of the person or persons who regularly collect your garbage? Do you not find this service of value? In respect to this particular value, is not the person or persons who collect your garbage much the superior of a politician who produces nothing? Although garbage collectors are usually not high on the list of "superior beings", they provide a service that many value in the same manner that they value services in other fields. Values are many and priority rating is merely a subjective exercise, not an objective discovery. It is this natural and individualistic difference that the concept, objective value, denies and believers ignore in their "natural standards of measurement".
In objective value thinking, it is implied that without the "place of honor" goal, school children and others will have no incentive to learn and achieve. This is like saying that a person alone on a desert island will cease to function and will die because there is no competition, no one to defeat, and no one to pat him (her) on the head for his (her) victory. Nonsense. From infancy on, one truth that is well ingrained in every mind is that learning and knowledge is an absolute requirement for survival and achievement of one's goals. The "superior being place of honor" may encourage effort by some (distorted incentive), but, as pointed out above, it also alienates and discourages effort by others.
Failure to measure up to the "objective standards" produces envy, jealousy, and doubts about one's abilities and diminishes the feeling of self worth. This combination of negative influences often results in just giving up with potential unrealized. This psychological condition is by no means confined to the area of formal education. It is inherent in the prevailing epistemology and psychology and is a factor in every area of every believer's life. This is what underlies the idea of the success of one equaling the failure of another. This leads to applauding the failure of others even when such failure of others may well be detrimental to one's own personal self-interest.
The problem is not individual differences in interests and abilities. The problem is failure to recognize this as a natural complementary circumstance. This failure results in an antagonistic attitude born of the objective value fallacy and the corollary fallacy, superior and inferior beings. From antagonism in elementary school up to and including global warfare, the god-concept-objective-value-superior-inferior-being fallacy is ever-present as perpetual destroyer.
Freedom, peace, and harmony is a valid equation. All claim to want peace, yet nearly all employ means that are certain to cause the exact opposite. Believers equate "freedom" with democracy, the "will of the people". They speak of "national interest" and the "values of society". They think in abstracts, talk in abstracts, and act in the name of abstracts. Real individual is not to be found in their thinking and consequent philosophy. They deal not with reality in their thinking and when reality deals with them in their actions, they are at a loss to understand why peace eludes them. Centuries of perpetual war is a natural judgment upon their beliefs, yet they refuse to re-examine. Lessons hard earned are hardly learned and they remain virtual prisoner and victims of their own imagination and mental inventions. As Pogo so aptly put it for them: "We have met the enemy and they is us".
The earth is mentally chopped up into abstract segments called nations or countries. Nation and "national identity" has been a constant part of the scene for so long that it appears to most as a natural condition not subject to change. This is, of course, a manifestation of the god concept and carries with it all the elements that the god concept expresses and implies. The concept, nation, can be created and sustained only by treating it as a being of superior status. Anything less will not suffice. An expressed or implied allegiance to any specific nation is an implicit declaration of preference over all others. It is, in effect, a declaration of war. The preference itself indicates that it is held as a higher value. Higher value implies better and superior. Better and superior places it as "proper means" to achieve the "universal purpose", though such "universal purpose" may remain undefined. Thus is every "nation" inherently antagonistic to every other "nation" in that "superior objective values" and will to rule imposing these "superior values" is the "duty" of each "nation". "Summit conferences" and "peace treaties" are a waste of time and paper. The subliminal directives of the god concept takes heed of neither.
Although believers often talk about "nations" going to war and fighting for freedom, no war between "nations" has ever been fought for this purpose. The purpose has always been and still is to decide which "nation" shall rule. Within the confines of "national identity", individual and individual sense of responsibility is obliterated. Exemplified and amplified by and in the military structure, there remains only bipedal robot-like causal units programmed to do the bidding of the god, nation. They await only for the right emotional buttons to be pushed before springing into action to abolish the "ultimate evil" that opposes the "ultimate good" personified in the revered "national identity".
Men, women, children, and babies of other nations are regarded as enemies by virtue of the "evil national identity". They are ruthlessly slaughtered without mercy and without a twinge of conscience, for conscience is the property of the god, nation, and pride is found in the humility of subservient obedience that shrinks from no act of barbarous cruelty for the "good of the country". This may be a most unflattering conclusion, but it is confirmed a million times over by all of history and contemporary beliefs and current action throughout the world.
The same backwards epistemology, same philosophy, and same psychology that creates "nations" and determines "international relationships" is equally evident in "intranational relationships". "Enemies" are decided and regarded in the same manner and with the same attitude. Instead of wars between "nations", it is hostility between factions, between "group identities" such as regions, districts, states, counties, cities, religious sects, race, gender, and other illusions of "divine abstracts" and "categorical identities."
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
