the fallacy of "one"...

The Western tradition has a long and complicated history with the number "one". Western, post-Latin/post-Roman cultures in Europe and the Mediterranean were so dependent on the primacy of the number "one" that "zero" (or "zed" if you're un-American... I jest) wasn't even fully incorporated as a number until after the twelfth century! As Americans, we are philosophically indebted to this Western dependence on both the number and the concept of "one", but what you may never have thought of was how much this conceptual dependency has shaped our culture, our values, and our way of life. I hope to explore this concept a little. Some will surely read this and accuse me of far too much leisure time. Others may peer deeper and, in seeing a legitimate critique of Western values, accuse me of sinister machinations. (I should be so lucky as to become a banned writer that some might take me so seriously!) Yet others still may see what I've written and understand that my attack on "one" is a valid attack on a cancerous falsehood, eating away at our cultural integrity. Allow me to be more direct.

- One has become a symbol of rootedness. For so many of us, we have one home town. One home. Sometimes this is a matter of fact. Some people will die within a hundred yards of where they were born (figuratively and, in some rare cases still, literally). Their narrow geographical experience is not to be judged, perhaps admired in some respects or pitied in another. But, indeed, many of us have lived in more than one home in our lives. Even more than one city. Some in more than one country. Yet we still limit ourselves to a belief that we have but one home! This can cause us to remain loyal to provincial particularisms that limit who we are able to be. By abandoning the "one" of "home", we abandon our "rootedness" to a single place... we can allow ourselves to be more open to the rest of the world (anywhere from new and unknown neighbors, to distant and foreign cultures).

- One has also limited our sense of family. True, a human being can only have one pair of biological parents - but they are still a pair. No human has been spontaneously or - as the phrase goes - "immaculately" conceived. Even in biology, nature shows us the fallacy of "one". But we think of ourselves as having one family, usually that of blood-relation. But how deceptively conventional this kind of thinking is! How often have we said, "He is like a father to me" or, more colloquially, "My brother from another mother"? We have families of our own choosing, all as important as the families not of our choosing, and even here this is no one family. The limitation of family that "one" creates is similar to that of the home: it lends our frame of mind to artificially constructed loyalties: a father abuses his children and, as the saying goes, "But what are you going to do? We're a family." We might be better served to think of our family as much larger than our kinship, but to see a mother and a sister in every woman, a father and a brother in every man. We must be broader than our narrow loyalties!

- One has affected our sense of self, especially in relation to the "other". We say, "I am an individual" or, more appropriately, "I am just one man." But this, too, is an artificial convention. Do we know - truly know - that we are simply one? Might we be closer to being "zero" or anything other than "one"? And in such a non-"one"-ness, might we be more than ourselves? Perhaps closer to something more infinite? Of course we are! But we must abandon, first, the fallacy of "one"! Easier said than done.

- We cannot lie to ourselves and say that this concept of the "one" has not destroyed other relationships as well. Let us not forget what it has done to marriages in the modern (or "first") world! What am I talking about? Divorce! Our growing innate skepticism with "one" has destroyed conventional marriage! But it is good that it be destroyed. Conventional marriage is predicated on "one"! One husband, for one wife. Indeed, "two shall become one flesh" - if ever there was a wrong-headed denial of reality! It is a shame that Paul never learned proper arithmetic, that he should not have been so deluded as to repeat the falsehood that two are made one - or worse yet, that three may be one! No, the weight of responsibility that is placed on the spouse - to be the primary (if not the sole!) provider or satisfaction, comfort, fulfillment for the other - is a crushing weight, one deserving of the discard is has so richly earned, as evidenced by the present divorce rates... and even more by the drop in registered marriages! There is no healthy relationship which is predicated on "one". This is true for non-married couples and, yes, homosexual couples as well. The "one" is a relationship cancer, even among our "best" friends - as though any of us had but one of those.

- But what of the so-called "Ideal Marriage", this laughably ill-conceived marriage to an eternal God? Can this relationship be the refutation of my criticism? Is this where the "one" retreats to, but not one step further? Hardly! One god can no more satisfy the insatiable human being than can one parent raise her, one lover fulfill her, or one home hold her. Let there be many gods, or none at all! But what of this "One God"? No, he does not exist - even to his followers. The reverent Jewish adherent holds fast to a "burning bush", but does she not also deify her Torah? Is not the Pentateuch an immanent extension of her unnamed and unthinkably transcendent YHVH? And in between, was there not a Temple of stone and cedar, and also a Talmud to mediate? But the Christian is no better. What Christian is a monotheist? He is a tri-theist as he has not one god, but three (and a poorly understood third god at that!). The Catholic is the only half-honest Christian, since she admits - even if not admitting - that she is still a polytheist! The dutifully literal Muslim, he may come closest of all to the non-existent monotheist, but his Prophet smells too much like a Christ for me.

- But we should not give our philosophers a pass either. The "first principle"? The "unmoved first mover"? An "absolute" or an "essence"? "The meaning of life? "The truth?" What are these claims, questions and systems if not products of the great artificial convention called "one"? We cannot fix a single moment in time or a single point in space. There are many meanings and no truths. "Facts" are constructed, agreed upon. We have moved, thankfully, beyond the narrow dogmatism of "foundationalism". What more might we be able to achieve once we have moved beyond the "one"!

a dogmatist's rules of engagement

A Dogmatist's Guide for Engaging a Critical Thinker:

A. The first rule for any dogmatic believer, whether your belief(s) be religious, political, economic, social, racial or cultural is this: you are right! But because you are right, you - and people like you - are a target for evil people in the world that are jealous of your clarity and wisdom. These jealous people, we'll call them "critics", want nothing more than to steal your peace and joy from life. But they can only do that if you allow them to make you doubt that you are right... so never doubt it. 

B. You have every right to whatever beliefs, opinions, or values that seem best to you. But because your beliefs are the right ones to have, you have a special right to tell everyone you come into contact about these beliefs - in fact, it is your duty to spread the truth to them! In the course of sharing your beliefs, you will run into a lot of people that already believe like you do. Make sure that you surround yourself with those people - they're the key to your strength and convictions. 

C. Sometimes, however, you'll run into people that have different beliefs. They believe just as much in what they think is true, but - of course - it isn't true because it isn't what you believe. If you're feeling generous, you can tell them how much you respect their beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, and they will probably tell you the same thing. But never forget, you are right - not them.

D. Every once in a while, though, you will run into someone that asks a lot of questions. People like this are very dangerous. When you try to tell them about your beliefs and how they are the right thing to believe, they will ask you all kinds of questions that you don't necessarily have the answers to. Don't panic! You're dealing with a "critical thinker", or a "critic" for short. Here's how you deal with a critic. 

1. A critic will ask you, "How do you know what you believe is the absolute truth?" Remind them that you know it because you believe it (duh!). Remember, if it wasn't true you wouldn't believe it because you only believe things that are true. 

2. The critic might then ask you, "But what if you're wrong?" You see what (s)he's doing? (S)he's trying to steal your soul by suggesting that you could be wrong! Refer to point "A": you are right. Simply remind the critic that a lot of people believe what you believe. You couldn't all be wrong! It is more likely that these critics, as an extreme minority, are the ones that have something wrong with them that, they can't simply accept the truth that is so obvious to most people. 

3. The critic may then ask you, "Ok. Well, where did you personally get these beliefs from?" Here are the acceptable answers to this question: your parents or family members, your place of worship or religious leader, your local congressman, one of your favorite television talk-show hosts or news pundits, one of your favorite musicians, an author or a radio show host. 

4. (S)he will ask you, "Where did that person get their information from?" This answer is much easier: a really old book, collection of writings, or a single document. This can be anything from Paul's Epistle to the Church at Rome, to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence", to Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. The best answers are always the oldest writings, though, so use those first to discourage any further questions by the critic. 


5. The pestering critic, not knowing that it is rude to continue asking questions and disturbing you, might point out information in other books - sometimes even older than the one(s) you cited - that seems to make your belief seem unoriginal or even wrong. They might use statistical data, facts, or research. This can be very intimidating since you don't have anything like this to support your beliefs - not that you need them, because you don't! (S)he might then ask you what you think about that information and if that makes you wonder if you're as convinced as you were when you first started talking, pointing out contradictions or things that don't seem like they can be real. Remember, you cannot be wrong: you are right! But, you cannot win this fight. The sinister critic has baited you and is about to spring the trap! Whatever you do, do not try to answer his/her questions anymore but simply try to end the conversation. Here are the best ways to get rid of the critic. 


6. Appeal to his/her sense of reason and propriety: tell the critic that "this isn't the right time or place to have this conversation." If you can use the word "venue", do so - it will make you sound really smart to anyone else that may be listening. Also, it doesn't matter if your excuse is true or not - you're not trying to engage the critic anymore, you're simply trying to evade and get away. You now know that you're in a fight you can't win, which means that there are no rules for how you behave anymore. 


7. If that doesn't work, accuse the critic of being a bad person. Tell the critic that (s)he is "being a douchebag" or "a bitch". Oh, sure, they'll respond by saying that they're only trying to have a civil conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but don't let their hurt feelings stop you. Keep going on the offensive!


8. Tell the critic that you never wanted to have a conversation anyway. All you wanted to do was tell them what the true beliefs were. What the critic doesn't understand is that it is stupid for this process to be a two-way road. There is only one way: the truth! And you, not (s)he, that knows what the truth is so you should only be the one that can talk and make claims. But they went and ruined that chance! Not to mention that you don't care what they think anyway, because if it isn't what you think then it isn't true!


9. The critic will be offended or bewildered by your responses. Now's your chance to turn up the heat! Tell the critic that (s)he is a "traitor", a "heretic", and/or a "Communist". Remind them that they are what is wrong with your life and the country you live in. Tell them that they are probably going to "Hell", especially if they don't believe in it. That will teach them to question your beliefs! 


10. If it doesn't, threaten physical violence. Tell him/her that you are going to "kick their ass!" Most critics are physically puny people that can't defend themselves anyway, so this is the best way to shut them down completely. Even if they're not, most critics don't believe in "fighting" or "physical confrontation" which makes them losers. This is how you know they don't live in the "real world" like you do. Almost every critic will leave the conversation at this point. You've done your job - what needed to be done to defend your beliefs. 


11. If you feel that you have to get one last word in, make sure you tell the critic that you will pray for him/her so that they'll find the truth that you have. 


With these steps, you will finish every fight over opinions, beliefs and values that a critic starts - even if you don't "win" it. There is, however, one very serious danger in arguing with a critic: critical thinking is like a disease. When you come into contact with a critical thinker, there is a chance that they may get some of their disease in you without you noticing at first. We know this because almost every single critical thinker was - in the beginning - a very dedicated dogmatist that was infected with critical thinking while arguing with a critic. This is why, if you feel like you may be getting affected by a critic, you should just jump to step 10 and threaten violence. This limits your exposure and the chances that you'll ever become one of them. 


I hope you use this information wisely and always remember: you are right, they are wrong.