Valued And Non-Valued Dualities

Many thought systems are dualistic; however dualities are construed differently. I would like here to make a distinction between valued and non-valued dualities.

With non-valued, such as man and woman, business and labor, and nature and civilization, neither side is good and neither side is bad. Both have the capacity for both. With valued dualities, such as good and evil, health and disease, or knowledge and ignorance, one side is good and the other side is bad.

This means that there needs to be a different approach for the two kinds of dualities. With non-valued dualities, the solution is to maximize each side's potential to do good and minimize each other side's potential to do wrong. With valued dualities, the solution is to maximize the good side and minimize the bad side.

The correct way to deal with non-valued dualities is through synthesis within the framework of check-and-balance. At the bottom level, the two sides stand to check each other's destructive potentials by affirming their rightful prerogatives. At the top leve, the two sides stand to work together to achieve what neither can accomplish in itself.

Woman has right to protect herself from man's violence, and man has right to protect himself from woman's viciousness. And at the top level the two stand to work together to produce and sustain new life.

Business has right to protect itself from those who want to slaughter the propertied class, and labor has right to protect itself from corrupt and rapacious business practices. And at the top level the two stand to work together to produce goods.

Civilization has right to protect itself from harmful viruses and bacteria, and people concerned for the well-being of the environment have right to protect rich and beautiful environments from destruction. And at the top level the two stand to work together to allow people the benefits of technological lifestyles as well as being able to enjoy vibrant nature.

Whereas with good and evil, or health and disease, or knowledge and ignorance, no such synthesis is desirable. The solution is to maximize the good side and minimize the bad side.

I do not believe that this argument has been made before; and it should be. We are dealing here with completely different things. We are dealing on one side with dualities that are value-neutral, and we are dealing on the other side with dualities that are valued.

And it is for everyone's benefit to understand this distinction in order to know how to deal with either set of dualities rightfully.

Glamour Of Evil And Banality Of Evil

There is a long-running Catholic doctrine about the “glamor of evil.” In studying a Nazi bureacrat Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt initiated the doctrine of “the banality of evil.”

I do not see why either of the parties is right. Hitler was evil and glamorous; Eichmann was evil and banal. The two appeared to work together very well.

There is now a frequent claim that positive thinking is good and that negative thinking is bad. I do not see the reason to side with one or the other. However positive you are, if rainforest has been cut down then it has been cut down. A positive thinker will deny that there is a problem. A negative thinker will decide that the problem is too much for us to solve. Both would be dead wrong.

The real solution is real thinking. It is facing reality and doing what we can to correct it. It is realizing that we have a problem, and it is doing what we can to solve the problem. Neither positive nor negative thinking will achieve that outcome. Real thinking will.

Some evil people will be glamorous; some evil people will be banal. Same is the case with positive and negative thinking. The solution is not encouraging either positive or negative thinking. The solution is encouraging real thinking. The result will be humanity solving its problems and doing what they can to making reality worthy of positive outlook.

Will To Survive Vs. Will To Matter

In their 1980s hit “The Eye Of The Tiger,” Survivor celebrated “man and his will to survive.”

I see no reason to celebrate the will to survive. A cockroach has the will to survive. I have much more respect for the will to achieve, the will to contribute or the will to matter. These are things that are uniquely human, and people who pursue such things often do meaningful things.

Ayn Rand said that the best thing you can do for your fellow man is give a sight of achievement. I will qualify that. It is one of the best things that you can do. You can also do good for your fellow man by curing diseases, or by working for philanthropic organizations, or by solving people's problems. Achievement is one of the good things that are there. It is not the only good thing that is there; but it is better than an inhuman existence in order to survive. Because – let's face it – what isn't.

It occurs to me that Survivor, in writing “The Eye Of The Tiger,” did not do it in order to survive. He was driven by desire to achieve, or by desire to be wealthy or famous. All of these are legitimate considerations, and they propelled him to stardom. Such a pity is it that he glorified the thing that we have in common with cockroaches and not things that actually improve the world.

I have been told that my “survival” chakra is closed. That is because I object to the state of affairs that glorifies things we have in common with low-order life forms and not the things that stand in glory of man. I refuse to live in order to survive. That does not mean that I refuse to work – I work well enough. I seek a better meaning than survival, and I have found better meaning in many places.

So I think it is time that things be put into perspective. Glorifying survival – and forcing people to live in order to survive – debases humanity. There are much more valid goals to strive for, and I have listed some of them. I hope that more people see through the survival propaganda and find workable ways to achieve, workable ways to matter, and workable ways to make the most of their lives.