💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › laurence-labadie-on-man-s-thinking.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:07:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: On Man’s Thinking Author: Laurance Labadie Date: 1960 Language: en Topics: individualism, thought, psychology Source: Retrieved 10/25/2021 from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/labadie/LabadieEssays.pdf Notes: From the original typed manuscript, signed and dated December 26, 1960. Reprinted in Laurance LaBadie: Selected Essays (Libertarian Broadsides), James J. Martin, ed., Ralph Myles Publisher, Inc., 1978.
There is a great deal of misconception about the way man thinks. Except
in rare instances, men do not think about or have ideas inimical to the
way they live their lives. Every individual necessarily has interests,
and these interests determine not only what they think about, but also
how they think about it, and what their conclusions are. No person can
think objectively about anything in which he is personally involved. All
so-called objective or scientific thinking deals with things and matters
over which man presumably has no control. There is no accident in the
{act that scientists are irresponsible people, because in order to do
scientific or objective thinking it is necessary not to be involved. And
of course my definition of non-involvement almost means
non-responsibility. The scientist is not responsible for his findings,
since they supposedly inhere in the nature of things, and therefore are
beyond his control.
The conclusion stares one in the face that substantially all of what man
considers his thinking is merely rationalizing. He rationalizes his
desires, his actions, his predicament if it happens to be one which he
can cope with or which is advantageous to him even tho it be
disadvantageous to others. Man justifies, validates, and excuses
whatever he wants to do, or what circumstances force him to do, or what
and where in his opinion his interests lie, whether this opinion be
conscious or subconscious.
There is of course nothing new in what I am saying. There are probably
thousands of expressions throughout literature which show that what I am
saying has been known. Isn't there an expression that no man can see the
mote in his own eye? It is the simplest thing in the world to see the
faults of others at the very same time that we cannot see the very worst
deficiencies in ourselves, or in the members of our circle or group.
A practical point to be derived from the above is the need for
considering before listening to or reading what anyone says, to ask:
what is his circumstance in life; what axe is he grinding; what is he
trying to prove; and why. Who is he; what are his interests; what makes
him tick. When we consider these aspects of communication, we are
careful not to take any man too seriously. And incidentally it would be
well to take into consideration one’s own situation in life before
assuming that one is able or competent to learn anything from certain
other individuals. It is often if not usually the case that two persons
are each in such predicaments that they cannot learn anything from each
other, even if both were saying the truth.
“What is Truth?” asked Pilate; but he did not wait for an answer, He
probably knew damn well what “truth” was to the person of whom he asked
the question. There could be ten different “truths” coming from as many
different persons, and none of these alleged truths the real truth. As
yet man has not invented a truth machine, and perhaps never will,
because if the machine has to get its information or data from humans,
it already is obliged to work or think with doctored or biased data. By
the way, is there any significance to the expression that when anything
is messed-up it is said to have been doctored?
Some of the stuff I have written in criticizing the ideas of others was
to the effect that, in view of their positions in life, they were unable
to or would not think effectively.
Now I want to expose a contradiction, which may incidentally contribute
to the gradual understanding of the philosophy of contradiction which
happens to be an important aspect of my schemata of thought,
The contradiction is this: that while man cannot think objectively or
“disinterestedly” about the things which concern him, neither can he
think about the things which do not interest him. He simply is not
curious enough about the things which do not interest him. He simply is
not curious enough about them to give them a moment’s thought, even
supposing he was aware of them; he just does not care about them,
feeling that there are things of more importance to him to think about.
Man is thus on the horns of a dilemma that more or less inheres in the
nature of things. The things he is not interested in and which
presumably he could contemplate objectively he finds unprofitable for
him to deal with, Whereas the things which do concern him, and which it
he is not an escapist he must necessarily face, he is obviously
incompetent to consider objectively, He is thus as a thinking machine
almost condemned to a degree of ignorance and idiocy.
My late writings attempt to show that this is so, not merely from a
philosophical point of view, but in actuality. I have shown in several
places that the immediate interest of most people is such that
substantially everyone has a stake in and is almost inevitably
contributing to the eventual annihilation of mankind. I have shown that
Liberty, under which a tendency toward equilibrium would always be
operative, got sidetracked during the course of man’s evolvement, and
that institutionalized coercion and violence became established as the
modus operandi for the conduct of affairs of humans. And that this
contravention of the natural liberty of man, by its replacement by the
State, has so changed or obliterated this tendency, that the result has
been the arrival at a predicament which is past the point of no return;
and that the terminal of this process is utter and mutual extermination.
This denouement is doubly assured because of the fact that everywhere
Liberty, instead of being advanced, is increasingly becoming
extinguished.
Incidentally, the vision which appears at the end of this longer range
or telescopic view can only be obtained by the very sort of integrated
and operational thinking which I have been insisting upon, as opposed to
the fractionalized, disconnected, compartmentalized and static way of
thinking which is characteristic of Borsodi and so many others. With
organic phenomena the salient question is function; thinking
realistically about it requires an awareness of movement, of tendencies,
and of a dynamic point of view. For obviously it is only when we can
think in terms of tendencies is it possible to predict the future.
One might almost predict his own actions, which are hardly at one’s
command, because it is impossible for anyone to decide upon or determine
what the influences and circumstances are to be, which any one of us
must face. To counter-influence these requires a much more comprehensive
understanding and power than any one possesses. And yet these
circumstances are going to determine our reactions and behavior, simply
because man discounts the future in favor of the present, and perhaps in
most cases rightly. He certainly is not going to act in accordance with
what is called his free will, if such action means his immediate
extinction.
What am I saying, in substance? I am saying that man in the past has
inadvertently established a permanent institution which is static in its
nature, which tends to resist change, which fundamentally is based on
coercion and violence for the specific purpose of slavery and
exploitation, the suppressive nature of which has caused the distortion
and mutilation of the human psyche, and which has got into operation
intangible and inscrutable forces that man is neither aware of nor
understands, but of which he is the inevitable victim.
This establishment was inadvertent, not the product of either his
immaturity or neuroses, nor of any hypothetical “original sin,” but
simply because of ignorance and stupidity. For man is neither good nor
bad, but egoistic and endowed with an inscrutable will-to-live. Nor can
anyone be blamed for ignorance. That criminal institution which we call
the State was fortuitous in its origin and devastating in its effects,
seconded only in its deleterious influence by organized religion.
Do you for one moment claim that a half or a dozen pompous idiots at a
“summit” conference are going to or can reconcile the insane
confrontation of which they are the embodiment? Or that this can be true
because 2 billion imbeciles believe it to be true, and if only I say
that it is not true?
Or that I am mistaken if I say, what I cannot prove, that in this year
of our lord 1960 the relations between humans are such—have gone so far
in the direction of degeneracy—that any hope for the continuance of life
on this planet is quite negligible?
Even it it were granted that the master-slave relationship was
inevitable or even natural, and that such relationship be unified,
universalized, and complete, the fact seems obvious that the various
masters at the present time, on both sides of the cold war and in
between, have not and do not seem to agree to unite upon any given
scheme by which to hoodwink, coerce, and exploit the masses of mankind.
Without mentioning the others, if the Pope and Mr. Khrushchev, for
instance, can come to some agreement upon which they can unite their
operations (with of course including other so-called leaders), then it
is conceivable that the mass of mankind, who actually believe in slavery
of one sort or another, will be spared an atomic holocaust. For the
unavoidable outcome of the tendencies now in operation are either the
slavery of totalitarianism or complete annihilation.