The Elephant in the Room

The Elephant in the Room

By

Martin L. Cowen III

In this essay, we will explore one use of Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012). Professor Haidt tells us that there are six evolutionarily derived moral modules: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, sanctity/degradation, authority/subversion, and liberty/oppression. Perhaps, if we locate these moral modules in ourselves, we can enact the Oracle at Delphi’s injunction to “Know Thyself.”

Know thyself

ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΕΑΥΤΟΝ

γνῶθι σεαυτόν

gamma nu omega theta iota / sigma epsilon alpha upsilon tau omicron nu

Transliterated: gnothi seafton 

In Latin: Nosce te ipsum

Or, in Latin (from the 1999 film The Matrix): Temet nosce

If we “know ourselves,” we can reason better with friends.

Professor Haidt uses the metaphor of an elephant and its rider to explain how people “reason.” The elephant represents our automatic, instantaneous emotional reactions to a situation. We see, for example, a baby seal being clubbed to death as a part of a hunt. Our care/harm moral module is immediately activated. Our reaction is emotional/visceral. We are horrified. Our rider immediately begins making up “reasons” why the clubbing of the baby seal is immoral and imagining laws to ban the practice.

Sanctity/degradation

In this essay, let us only consider the sanctity/degradation moral module. If we can identify that which we ourselves count as sacred (of highest importance to us) then we will “know ourselves.”

Before talking about our sacred beings (people or gods), entities (sacred books or objects), or ideas, let us admit that if “our” sacred being is identified, then we might be offended, from the start. A sacred object is not to be touched. A sacred object is not to be discussed. A sacred object occupies a sacred space within us. Our sacred object is nobody else’s business. When another person names or identifies our “sacred object” as a sacred object, the object is, by the act of identification, degraded. We dare to talk about an individual’s Sacred Center from a “higher” perspective. However, for that individual, there is no “higher” perspective than his Sacred Center. For the individual nothing is more important for him than his Sacred Center, nothing is higher, for him.

For example, Fellowship of Reason® member, Ms. X, holds Science as her sacred object. For a person whose sacred object is Science (notice the capital “S”), Science is the highest and greatest idea. To “classify” Sacred Science from a “higher” perspective is sacrilege. Now, the person for whom Science is sacred may only feel a twinge of resentment upon the naming of her Sacred Science. Even though just a twinge of resentment is experienced, that resentment is there.

Notice that “Sacred Science” is an elephant (an emotional center). The rider (reason which is the servant of the emotional elephant) immediately starts defending her elephant. “Science is beyond the domain of emotion.” “Science is more exacting the philosophy.” A clever rider might spend his career in defense of this elephant, Sacred Science. For those readers for whom Science is Sacred, a little present introspection will hopefully reveal the truth of the hypothesis just given (you feel a twinge of resentment at the identification and are preparing defenses).

This phenomenon is familiar in the religious realm. The Jewish people take the name of God very seriously. The name must only be written and spoken with the utmost respect. (Orthodox Jews write God as "G_d.") The religion of Islam takes the Prophet Mohammad so seriously that images of the Prophet are forbidden. The publication of images of the Prophet can evoke horrendous consequences as recent history amply demonstrates. Christians take the name of God very seriously. See the Ten Commandments as the most obvious example. Also see, Exodus 3:14: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” God’s name is “I AM,” He who is not to be named?

The naming of our Sacred Centers, beings, objects or ideas, is a sensitive matter. We intend no disrespect to anyone’s Sacred Centers, beings, objects, or ideas, by naming them here.

Our point is simply to suggest that each of us ought to identify our Sacred Centers, beings, objects or ideas, in order to better understand ourselves. Know thyself.

ΓΝΩΘΙ  ΣΕΑΥΤΟΝ

For one or more of our members Science is sacred. For those of us who are parents, our Children are sacred. One’s Parent or Parents can be sacred. For some, Libertarians particularly, Freedom is sacred. For some, Freedom of Speech (yours truly) is sacred. For some, Secularism is sacred. This last, Sacred Secularism, is interesting. The New Atheists (e.g. Sam Harris) are people for whom their lack of or freedom from the religious impulse is extremely important. The Sacred is closely associated with the religious. When a New Atheist is asked, “What is sacred to you?” he might well say, “Nothing is sacred to me.” Or “I am very suspicious of the sacred.” Even for a New Atheist we can be certain that something is extremely important to them, even though they may prefer to avoid the word “sacred.” So be it.

For almost everyone we imagine, his/her honor and reputation are Sacred Centers.

For some Objectivists Ayn Rand is a Sacred Being. No criticism is permitted of Ms. Rand. For some Liberals, Obama is Sacred. Former mayor of New York City, Ruddy Giuliani, is currently under extreme criticism for heresy, having said: "I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America." (We hesitate even to write the foregoing because Mayor Giuliani’s words are truly heretical in today’s America.) For Muslims, The Prophet Muhammad is Sacred. (We hesitate to say these words for fear of a fatwa being declared on us. Truly: no disrespect intended.) For some, Jesus is Sacred. (We do not have to worry about the Christians. Christians do not do terror or Jihad.) For some, the Unborn Child (possible victim of abortion) is Sacred. (Note that the drafting of the foregoing sentence is problematical. Consider the connotation of the sentence in this form: “For some the unborn fetus (possible subject of a pregnancy termination procedure) is Sacred.” Words are loaded!)

Consider the phrase “mock up.” When one creates a “mock up,” one creates an image or model of the thing. The verb “to mock” can mean simply to imitate or to mimic: “You are mocking (imitating) me.” The verb “to mock” has a negative connotation, meaning to “make fun of” or “to degrade.” Therefore, the “conceptualization” Sacred Being is the creation of an image or a “mock up” of the particular Sacred Being. The imaging or modeling of the particular Sacred Being by categorizing it with a concept like “Sacred Being” can be easily associated with “making fun of” or “degrading” the Sacred Center. Repeating: That is not our intention.

We are on delicate ground, talking about the Sacred. Nevertheless, we are wise to identify in ourselves our Sacred Centers (beings, objects or ideas). We can use this knowledge to moderate our behavior, if our “reason” thinks moderation might be appropriate. We started the list with Science as Sacred Center, because those individuals who hold Science Sacred are most likely to withhold (or moderate) their fire upon experiencing the twinge of resentment at the apparent, though not intended, “degradation” of their Sacred Center by naming.

What are your Sacred Centers? Your own Honor and Reputation, Ayn Rand, Obama, Mohammad, Jesus, Science, your Children, Freedom, Free Speech, the Unborn Child, Philosophy (previously unnamed). There have to be dozens of possibilities.

The violation of a person’s Sacred Center is serious business. Such a violation can be the source of group schisms (or individual schisms). For many members of the Fellowship of Reason® our deceased member Vera Norman (born January 14, 1940—died April 18, 2011) was a Sacred being. Not everyone who loved Vera would use the word “Sacred,” but many of our members loved Vera. She came to our group by invitation to speak of her escape as a Jewish toddler from the Nazis. Vera’s story is amazing, but one detail sticks out. Vera, as a very young child, was fleeing the Nazis with her brother. As they approached a crowded border, Vera remembers hearing shouting and experiencing general turmoil. Vera was separated from her brother and lost from him forever. The brother’s fate is unknown in the specifics, but the assumption is that he was killed by the Nazis. Vera escaped, somehow, to Belgium where she lived as a “Catholic” orphan in a convent. Both of Vera’s parents died in Nazis concentration camps. Vera remembered running to the fields adjacent to the Convent during bombing raids in order not to be in the buildings when they collapsed from the bombing. Ultimately, Vera came to the United States, learned she was Jewish, and became the extraordinarily kind, generous, and wise person that she was. Vera’s story activates the Care/Harm moral module described by Jonathan Haidt in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012). Vera will always be, for some, that little child, lost in the crowd, hunted by Nazis. A Sacred Child to be protected with one’s very life!

On the other hand, Vera had some sharp edges and a sharp tongue. She was not an Objectivist. In our group, two factions developed: the pro-Vera group and the anti-Vera group. It is an exaggeration and an oversimplification, but we had Vera Norman versus Ayn Rand as competing Sacred Centers. The two factions split. Vera died.

Sacred Centers are important.

In future essays, we will explore the other moral modules. Remember the six are: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, sanctity/degradation, authority/subversion, and liberty/oppression. Knowing which of these modules are particularly active in us and the details of the activating circumstances is useful information for relating with others.

In the meantime:

ΓΝΩΘΙ  ΣΕΑΥΤΟΝ