THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVASION OF CONTRADICTION

In most cases intellectual evasion is an admission that one knows their beliefs are indefensible, it's a manifestation that the ego is working to prevent the refutation of cherished delusions. Rare is the seeker who wants to know the truth, most are merely seeking comfort.

I have never quite understood the authenticity of the thinker who establishes a world of theories and then refuses to discuss them with other competent thinkers. In the sphere of academia competence in dialogue is lacking, there it has morphed into a conversation about specialized abstractions that pertain to the emphasis of the academy. The academic ego is always trying to outdo the past and present, to surpass one's colleagues so as to prove one's value. This competition is pathological, and largely played out in terms of the subconscious, nevertheless it detracts from the quality of dialogue. No academic will admit to this defect. In the first instance, an institutional scholar loves the feeling of being able to go over the common man's head; specialized abstraction makes him feel superior, more important, because of this, "his life matters." How could he possibly allow the concepts which provide him with existential security, and a feeling of superiority, to come into collision with hostile polemics? (Never mind the fact that refutation rids us of error and often increases our existential power). But the academic cannot see through the fog of his own psychological neediness. He is altogether lacking integrity and courage as a thinker. This is why he merely stays within the boundaries of those structures that have been culturally fused with value.

On many occasion I have tried to engage academics, and in almost every instance, they have hid behind their credentials, behind superficial summaries. Seldom, if ever, have I met a man or woman of the institution that was actually capable of thought. They are capable of giving summaries, this is the extent of their power, but ask them to engage in thoughtful dialogue and they fall apart, they quickly seek to evade. (In the most disappointing cases they contrive an ad hominem against the challenger, telling themselves that he or she has nothing relevant to say because he or she is not established by, and in, the institution). Of course, they are never conscious that this maneuver is a fallacy, they are not conscious that it functions to shield them from truths that might shatter their delusions. Like all primitive psychology, it's a defense mechanism employed to avoid the pain of reality.

When a man or woman makes a valid point, there is no way a thinker concerned with quality, will be able to suppress it. An honest thinker is always looking for greater clarification, for a deeper understanding of reality. A thinker concerned with quality is not merely after social validation, he's after existential quality. This distinction matters. Existential progress is important because the conditions of life are inherently oppressive, they are literally hostile to the quality of life itself.

The act of evading the probability of a refutation is a form of psychological defense. If one desires to be a thinker of quality, evasion itself must be overcome and refuted. How can we not be suspicious of the man or woman who desires to suppress the opposition, insisting that their one-sided-picture tells the whole story? The fact that we fear the legitimate contrary is merely proof that we are insecure about our own position, but more than this, it means we adopt it and assert it for reasons of power, the psychological need to feel important, a craving for authority. ...and what lies behind this fragile psychology, which gives itself away through its insecurity toward dialogue? indeed, it must demonize dialogue precisely because it fears its fragility will be discovered in the contradiction. All in all the thinker fears the death of his beloved thought, but if he desires truth above power, then he must let it die. 

However, there is also a context in which evasion, so far from being anti-intellectual, is in fact, an affirmation of intelligence. We do not have the time to heed every objection, and we must face reality, some objections are ignorant and foolish. Those objections which are not competent enough to understand themselves are very likely to amount to a waste of time for the honest thinker. They are striving to validate some craving in their psychology, as opposed to a more comprehensive understanding of reality. In the case where the thinker is rejecting stupidity, here he cannot rightly be charged with evasion. Questions that cannot legitimate their existential value, pedantic exercises in formality, do not warrant serious consideration. To engage some objections is to manifest that one is lacking intelligence. This is precisely because value is not equal. There are indeed degrees of value. This is the unspoken existential commitment of every human that has ever lived. To deny it is merely to be ignorant.

As a thinker I reserve the right to ignore and reject the presumption of value where value is lacking. And to those who want to play a game of semantics, let them try to forgo the charge of stupidity, for this is something none can do. He that denies the existence of stupidity has forfeited his right to protest or complain, he has forfeited the discernment whereby he might demarcate value. If nothing is stupid then all things must be equal. However, this is an impossible premise by which to live, and those who claim it for themselves are nothing more than ignorant hypocrites. Some things are stupid! Some things are foolish! Try to deny it and the thinker merely destroys himself. 

-
-
-