The Paradoxical Decline of Egocentrism

A number of modern philosophers including Howard Gardner and Ken Wilber believe that development rests in the decline of egocentrism. These philosophers’ beliefs closely resemble Zen Buddhist philosophy as well where enlightenment is described as elimination of the self. The belief goes something like this-

Fulcrum I: When a baby is born, it is completely self-centered. The baby only cares for its own needs. In fact, the baby is so egocentric that it cannot even contemplate the self and the non-self. It cannot separate the physical world from the physical self. Peek-a-boo is played and the baby has no concept that when it covers its eyes, others can still see it.

Fulcrum II: Eventually an infant gains the ability to understand that the world exists outside of the self in the physical sense. The infant still lacks the ability to separate the world in an emotional sense. The baby is no longer physio-centric, but is still bio-centric and emotionally narcissistic. What the infant feels, the world feels.

Fulcrum III: The concept of the self is eventually completely grasped by the child. This ego, though, can only be thought of in the traditional sense. The child lacks the ability to transfer its ego to other things.

Fulcrum IV: Eventually, the young adolescent begins to become socio-centric. The ego has a role as the self and as the tribe. Family, culture, religion and nationality become extensions of the self. The self has a role within the tribe and understanding that role and relations with others becomes very important.

Fulcrum V: Some human become global-centric and begin seeing the entire world as an extension of the self. The role of the tribe diminishes as the human begins to understand world systems and other cultural perspectives.

Fulcrum VI: Transcendence. Some humans can reach a stage of complete understanding and analysis of the self. The human rises above the social roles of previous levels, is freed of social and religious thought and must come to terms with the mortal finite self. It is aware of the mind, the self, stimuli, emotions and experiences. This dizzying stage is beyond egocentrism, beyond socio-centrism and is without perspective.


Where most people seem to fail in life is dealing with Fulcrum V. The problem is dealing with many perspectives. The typical multi-culturalist attempts a logical fallacy. The multi-culturalist will understand that there are other perspectives, but will conclude that they are all equal in the name of tolerance. Well, this instantly creates a contradiction as they claim all perspectives are equal yet they promote tolerance as better. Additionally, they try to be tolerant of all cultures, but have trouble tolerating intolerant cultures. This paradox either sends them back down to Fulcrum IV believing one social “truth” or sends them down to Fulcrum III where they stop caring and only focus on themselves again.

One important thing to remember when living at Fulcrum V is that just because perspectives are different does not make them equal. I understand that there’s evolution and there’s intelligent design and one side is a load of shit. “Equality” seems to be a leftover political remnant from Fulcrum IV being transposed onto Fulcrum V.

This Fulcrum VI seems a little tricky. Somehow, one must understand the world and the self completely without having any perspective on it. I can only imagine a powerful computer achieving this. How can one truly free themselves of egocentricity and still care for one’s own existence? Why think and a self-improve if one is beyond the concept of the self? What’s to stop one from walking in front of a car? For the good of the universe?

What I can never understand about these philosophies and religion that seek enlightenment, is that they always call for the end of the self, but then also demand that the individual spend hours thinking, contemplating and understanding. Thinking, contemplating and understanding have done nothing for me except enhance my self. I have become less selfish and egocentric in the traditional sense, but am certainly selfish and egocentric on a different level. As I read these books by supposed selfless beings like Ken Wilber and the Dalai Lama, I think, why is their name and picture on the front?

Optimization and Non-Optimization of Socialization

Occasionally, perhaps even most of the time, individual action leads to the most optimal and efficient outcome. At other times, the free market fails and socialization must repair the failure. For instance, the natural course of business leads to monopoly, a market failure. Government repairs the failure by breaking up firms that have grown too large.

Now, I could go on to talk about medical insurance, state-owned firms, drug policy and other situations where government’s role is in dispute, but I will save that for another day. I would like to focus on non-governmental forms of socialization and on topics that actually seriously affect people I know- namely getting married and getting drunk.

The neo-classical economist would say that individual choice is most likely to bring the most utility to an individual. For instance, you and I could go to Chili’s and I could order for you. What I pick may make you pretty happy (say the Chicken Caesar Pita), but there is a better chance that you would pick something you would like more. (If the Chicken Caesar Pita was your choice, you can ask me to pick out other things for you later. I’m open to the idea that my choices for you are perfect.)

Now, let us extend this drinking. When one goes to a bar, people often buy drinks in rounds. This is done for a number of reasons. Beer is cheaper in pitchers and money can be saved on the tip by buying things at once. Most people, though, do it for the comradery; “I’ll get this round, you get the next!” Ahh, such love. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to drink the same amount. We should all know better than anyone else how much alcohol makes us happy (save maybe alcoholics). Socialization, though, forces us to drink the same amount and at the same speed as our friends. The lagging individual is chastised for drinking too slow and the leader is left holding an empty glass. The round system also tends to make the number of rounds equal to the number of attendees. Four people often means four rounds. Drinking games are an even more extreme version of making people drink an amount they do not want to.

So, if this socialized drinking situation is not optimal, why do we do it? Well, besides the joy of watching friends make fools of themselves and date rape, the answer is the same as why we wear sport coats and pants in the summer time. Social pressure. We want to fit in. We do not want to be the one person not in the round or the drinking game.

If you happen to be in your late twenties or early thirties, you may have observed another trend that may cause just as many headaches and vomiting as binge drinking- the marrying of one’s peers. Seemingly all at once, everyone I know is getting married. The reason? Again, clearly, social pressure. After X number of years together in a relationship and once one reaches a certain age, society expects marriage. A couple should know when marriage is best for them, but instead parents and the tacit social pressure of everyone’s friends force them into the act earlier than they probably want.

And for what end is marriage? Basically, marriage is an exercise in self-command. Like putting cookies in a tin on the top shelf, one attempts to make changing one’s mind more difficult. You spend the money, you invite your friends, you merge your finances and some even have kids so it will be too much of a hassle and too embarrassing to break up. Fearing that one might change one’s mind in the future, one attempts to eliminate their choices now.

Now, eliminating one’s own choices may be fine and good. After all, they are one’s own choices to eliminate (go ahead and crush that pack of cigarettes!). Sadly, marriage is an elimination of choices that people are pressured into by parents, society, one’s mate and the inability to come up with anything else to do with one’s life. And unlike the social pressures of alcohol where a night being ruined, the effects of marriage can affect a lifetime (or a few years depending on the length of it).

Falsifiability, Discordianism and the Truth

A man names Karl Popper came up with a principle to differentiate science from everything else called “falsifiability”. It states that, almost paradoxically, in order for something to be true, it has to have the potential to be false. Said, differently, it must be testable. Verification is not enough as many junk-sciences like astrology find verification everywhere. Falsifiability, on the other hand, is a tougher criterion. For instance, take evolution. Fossil evidence is ubiquitous that verifies evolution, but say scientists started finding human bones that were the same age as diplodocuses. This would, perhaps, show that evolution is suspect. “Intelligent Design”, on the other hand, in not falsifiable. No matter what is found in the ground, one cannot refute the idea that God planned it all. Thus, intelligent design is not science. It should be noted that falsifiability is not a science, as it does not have the potential to be proven false either.

On the other end of the philosophical spectrum comes the religion or psuedo-religion of Discordianism. Discordianism rejects falsifiability by stating that everything is true, even false things, thus nothing is falsifiable. Order and disorder are only a matter of perspective. While most religions speak of order and harmony, Discordianism states that disorder and disharmony are equally valid. For instance, the number 100 seems orderly to us- it is after all 10 times 10. In truth, it is no more orderly than any other number. If one had a base 17 number system, 289 would seem orderly.

Discordianism additionally believes that everything relates to the number 5. Of course, if you look hard enough, everything does relate to the number 5 (verifiable, but not falsifiable). The religion also possesses an absurd creation myth and an absurd founding story. It demands that hot dog buns are not to be eaten to honor the original snub of Eris by the rest of the gods. It then demands that hot dogs will be eaten on Friday just to piss off the five religions of Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Discordianism. To top things off, Discordianism rejects all things that are written including the tenets of Discordianism itself.

Of course, Discordianism is nothing more than an elaborate joke with serious undertones. Its rejection and criticism of falsifiability is in many ways a support of the theory. Its absurdity, circular elements and contradictory elements illuminate the same in standard religions. One looks for connections to the number 5 as astrologists look for matching events and as Christians look for God all around us. The tenets of Discordianism are as impossible to follow as any other religion and its “order” is as chaotic and arbitrary as any other order mankind seems to create. In fact, Discordianism, while having no real followers, actually implies that the whole world is already following it.

But if you woke up this morning and recognized you exist, you know are accepting an idea that is not scientific. Your existence and your self, while perhaps verifiable, are not falsifiable. Thus, science doesn’t cover it. Spirituality, religion and philosophy, as Discordianism displays, are completely circular, contradictory and absurd. So, where does this leave us?

Well, if there is any part of Discordianism that should be remembered, it is to not take things too seriously. Seriousness, after all, is an arbitrary and imagined order to life. We should all sit back, enjoy a hot dog and enjoy ourselves (and our selves).

Snowball

There are things in life that one can learn to love. Cigarettes and coffee, for instance, begin tasting horrible, but after repeated exposure become tolerable, then pleasurable and finally addictive. We also know this is true of many foods, hobbies and past times. Unlike the immediate and universal joy of things like chicken or ice cream, foods like horseradish and sauerkraut are famously “acquired tastes”. Dramas and sports begin confusing and boring, but soon become fascinating and fun. Even golf for many becomes something to love after repeated, repeated exposure.

Most importantly, we know this is true of people. The time we spend with someone gives rise to familiarity, friendship and loyalty. Families force themselves to sit down for dinners, holidays and church. To what end? To build a stronger family. Girlfriends and wives insist boyfriends and husbands spend more and more time with them. To what end? To build a stronger relationship.

This process of building a relationship is in many ways a competition for dependency. Say an individual begins with friends. These friends become good friends because the individual spends most of his or her free time with them and they naturally become the emotional outlet for the individual. Because of these friends are an emotional outlet and because so much time is spent with them, the individual feels loyalty towards them and an obligation to spend even more time with them. Left to its own device, this feedback loop would continue and good friends would become better and better friends.

Human beings, though, have gonads, thus enter the phenomenon of the significant other. In pursuit of sex and romantic companionship, less time is spent with the good friends. Soon they fall from being good friends to being just friends. With less time together, the individual feels more awkward spilling his or her heart out to them so the individual switches to using the significant other. Less time with friends yields less emotional use and less emotional use yields less obligation to spend time. The significant other, on the other hand, gains time, gains emotional use, gains loyalty and gains more obligation for time to be spent with. This feedback loop continuous until the friends become acquaintances and the significant other becomes a spouse.

In many ways this snowball is like another snowball. One’s desires bring one into pursuing sexual acts. After the orgasm, though, there is something left over. What has been sowed must be reaped. And so the feedback comes back to individual, for better or for worse, in a hybrid form of sex and companionship. And all of this for a mysterious and unknown purpose.

Jerry Seinfield said this about exercise:

“Going to the health club, you see all these people and they're working out, and they're training and they're getting in shape but the strange thing is nobody is really getting in shape for anything. The only reason that you're getting in shape is that so you can get through the workout. So we're working out, so that we'll be in shape, for when we have to do our exercise. This is the whole thing.”

The relationship, in all of its forms, is much the same way. We spend time together to build a strong relationship so we are able to spend time together. This is the whole thing.