The Self and Narcissism
or
How To Become What You Are
May 17, 2018
Apprentice Colton
1
On Wednesday, Apprentice Jonathan and I were presented two “real life” or probable scenarios by Master and he asked us if each one was “reasonable”. For the second scenario, I said that being reasonable, is “relative”, which, if I remember correctly, Master gave me partial credit. It seems to me that the point of the lesson was that reason alone does guide actions, a value system is needed. I suppose the hierarchy of values is tripartite, like Nature, and consists of the exceptional, the mediocre, and the decadent. Of course, the highest virtues are found in the exceptional category.
The second point of the lesson was, I assume, to prepare us for the time when people start appealing to “reason” as an unstated and unassailable authority. We concluded that if nothing other than an appeal to reason is forthcoming, then we should remain skeptical of our opponents’ claims and rhetoric.
While Master seems to hold reason in high esteem, he explicitly told us that it cannot guide our actions. Yet, we cannot have a hierarchy of values with reasoning. So, while reason cannot guide our actions, reason must be used to create our hierarchy of values. However, our actions are based on the hierarchy of values. I think Master does this on purpose.
If reason is our standard for the creation of values, or the appreciation of values, how are we to know if our values are reasonable? Are we to use our reasoning alone, or can this be a group project (I nominate Apprentice Denver as group leader)? What if our reasoning is faulty? If so, how can we know what is and is not “faulty reasoning”? Can a sincere and reasonable effort create a hierarchy of values that is unreasonable in its application? Do all Occultists, and Apprentices for that matter, have different values? Or do all Occultists have certain core beliefs in common? Or, is it that once we Apprentices agree on certain values, that we, too, become Occultists and can stop attending these weekly meetings?
Since Master never tires talking about Nature, we will attempt a hierarchy of values based on what Nature can teach us.
Firstly, since species can become extinct, our first proposition is that Nature is indifferent to whether individuals or species continue or not. Therefore, indifference will be an aspect of our values.
Secondly, although a female mammal will release a limited number of eggs, the male produces hundreds of millions of sperm that will never fertilize an egg. Lower animals produce hundreds, sometimes thousands, of offspring, and only a few survive. Plants, also, send forth thousands of seeds that will never reproduce. Therefore, we can say that being wasteful is natural and must become part of our values.
Finally, not all animals in Nature are the same, there is no equality, otherwise said, All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Therefore, Nature teaches a hierarchy: some animals are omnivores; some, carnivores; others, herbivores.
While a system of indifference, waste and hierarchy is “good” for Nature [or at least what we find in Nature], indifference cannot be a value for our system. For to have a system of values presupposes that there are differences, and to be indifferent to the differences, well, that’s just silly.
If I were to live alone in the woods as a true philosopher, devoid of social contact, these values would be sufficient for survival. However, I would rather live in a city either as a practical philosopher or as a man of virtue, so these values are not enough to live with others.
In conclusion, we used reason to determine that the teachings of Nature is not suitable for man in the city.
The second point of the lesson was, I assume, to prepare us for the time when people start appealing to “reason” as an unstated and unassailable authority. We concluded that if nothing other than an appeal to reason is forthcoming, then we should remain skeptical of our opponents’ claims and rhetoric.
While Master seems to hold reason in high esteem, he explicitly told us that it cannot guide our actions. Yet, we cannot have a hierarchy of values with reasoning. So, while reason cannot guide our actions, reason must be used to create our hierarchy of values. However, our actions are based on the hierarchy of values. I think Master does this on purpose.
If reason is our standard for the creation of values, or the appreciation of values, how are we to know if our values are reasonable? Are we to use our reasoning alone, or can this be a group project (I nominate Apprentice Denver as group leader)? What if our reasoning is faulty? If so, how can we know what is and is not “faulty reasoning”? Can a sincere and reasonable effort create a hierarchy of values that is unreasonable in its application? Do all Occultists, and Apprentices for that matter, have different values? Or do all Occultists have certain core beliefs in common? Or, is it that once we Apprentices agree on certain values, that we, too, become Occultists and can stop attending these weekly meetings?
Since Master never tires talking about Nature, we will attempt a hierarchy of values based on what Nature can teach us.
Firstly, since species can become extinct, our first proposition is that Nature is indifferent to whether individuals or species continue or not. Therefore, indifference will be an aspect of our values.
Secondly, although a female mammal will release a limited number of eggs, the male produces hundreds of millions of sperm that will never fertilize an egg. Lower animals produce hundreds, sometimes thousands, of offspring, and only a few survive. Plants, also, send forth thousands of seeds that will never reproduce. Therefore, we can say that being wasteful is natural and must become part of our values.
Finally, not all animals in Nature are the same, there is no equality, otherwise said, All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Therefore, Nature teaches a hierarchy: some animals are omnivores; some, carnivores; others, herbivores.
While a system of indifference, waste and hierarchy is “good” for Nature [or at least what we find in Nature], indifference cannot be a value for our system. For to have a system of values presupposes that there are differences, and to be indifferent to the differences, well, that’s just silly.
If I were to live alone in the woods as a true philosopher, devoid of social contact, these values would be sufficient for survival. However, I would rather live in a city either as a practical philosopher or as a man of virtue, so these values are not enough to live with others.
In conclusion, we used reason to determine that the teachings of Nature is not suitable for man in the city.
Just what the truth is, I can't say anymore.
Just what I'm going through they can't understand.
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend.
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end.
The Moody Blues, Nights in White Satin