(Presented on the 9. April, 1997 Meeting of the LU Students of Objectivism.)
DISCLAIMER: LU Students of Objectivism is not an official spokesman of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. While this essay is an attempt to apply Objectivist principles authentically and sincerely, any mistakes or misrepresentations are those of the writer alone.
In case Lawrence's philosophy curriculum isn't enough to persuade you that ideas matter--that philosophical theories have consequences in the real world--then the recent incident at Rancho Santa Fe, California certainly ought to be enough to convince you. Tonight I am going to contend that the fundamental cause of the tragedy was philosophical, rather than psychological--because they were nuts--or sociological--because they were social deviants--or technological--because the were world wide web programmers. I shall entertain the idea that the philosophical cause consisted of three main parts, the first being more fundamental than the second and the third. Each of these parts corresponds to a major branch of philosophy. In metaphysics: primacy of consciousness. In epistemology: irrationalism. In ethics: selflessness.
Before I delve into a defense of the idea that philosophy caused this tragedy, I first need to refute the other major causal theories.
Was the cause a psychological one? While one's acceptance of certain philosophies does have psychological ramifications, the likelihood that each and every one of these 39 members of the cult caught some mental illness at the same time, or that 39 equally loony people mysteriously gravitated toward each other is slim at best. What's more, (to my knowledge) there is no evidence to suggest that these folks were crazy. Sure, it may SEEM crazy to us (indeed, isn't the knee jerk reaction of the media to call such tragedies "senseless" and such cult-members "loony"?), but any number of things seem crazy to us when they are practiced by clinically sane individuals (take the actions of any dictator, for example). No, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult were quite sane. They knew full well what they were doing, as evidenced by explicit statements on their websites.
Was the cause sociological? Well, these individuals were most certainly social deviants (they lived in a compound separated from the rest of the world in an almost monastic existence). But this point begs the question: what caused them to deviate from the rest of society? Certain instances of social deviance can have psychological causes, that is for sure. However, we have already refuted this contention. Social deviance is rooted in acceptance of certain forms of behavior or practices which are askew from the social norm. And it seems that the Heaven's Gate did this, but because they wanted to. Why?
Well, the cause wasn't technological, either (and I wont do this claim the honor of spending much time on it.) Sure, they were web-programming computer nerds, but so am I, and I havent joined a cult yet (unless you consider Objectivism to be one. I will argue with you). Also, it is a truth universally acknowledged that the world wide web is an active medium, which is to say that you can't just sit back and let all of the nasty things on it come to you. You cant get to playboy.com unless you actually type it in or find a link to it. The same is true with heavensgate.com, and I dont really think that it was a heavily linked-to site. (Incidentally, an acquaintance of mine with better programming skills noted that their website is actually rather lousy. Judge for yourself.) So much for the computer-geek theory.
So let's get down to business. What was the real cause? Well, we know so far that these individuals acted voluntarily and that they accepted certain behaviors and practices which they didnt have to accept. What might cause someone to do this? The only answer is if someone has certain ideas which justify their acting as such. This is why the root cause was philosophical. It only remains to determine what their ideas were.
What is philosophy? In Ayn Rand's definition, philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of man, the universe, and man's relationship to the universe. One important point to note about such a discipline is that you cannot ignore it, much as you might be able to live a decent life without concerning yourself with the intricacies of nuclear physics or cosmology. Rather, the fundamental ideas espoused by various thinkers (old or new) are bound to influence the way you live, precisely because these ideas are designed to do just that. Let's find out how.
The first branch of philosophy is metaphysics. Metaphysics, or ontology, is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence as such. It answer questions like "is there a reality?"; "what is reality really like?"; "how many realities are there?"; "what is the fundamental stuff of existence?", etc.
As it happens, the Heaven's Gate cult had a very distinctive metaphysical world view. It is clear that the Heaven's Gate accepted the existence of some kind of God-like figure, who was responsible for the present state of the universe. He was the one who put them on Earth, and He was the one who would take them away.
This idea is a manifestation of a primacy of consciousness metaphysics. To explain, let me offer to you the opposite, Objectivist view--the primacy of existence. Objectivism begins with the axiom that existence exists. What does this mean? It simply means that there is a reality. There are facts. The second axiom of Objectivism is that consciousness also exists as the process of perceiving existence. The important thing to note here is the relationship between the two: existence comes first. Consciousness is consciousness of existence. Without a reality, there would be nothing to be conscious of. A consciousness conscious of nothing but it itself is a contradiction in terms. While you can't have consciousness without existence, you can have existence without consciousness. This is the primacy of existence. Facts exist independently of any particular consciousness. They are what they are, which is to say, they are objective.
The primacy of consciousness denies this view. It states that consciousness creates reality. Reality is merely a by-product of a certain mental process. Sound strange? Perhaps, but philosophers from Plato to Augustine to Berkeley to Kant have accepted this view--or a variant of it--for centuries. In their view, reality is not objective. Rather, it is dependent upon the whims of the perceiver.
The religious world view is just the same. While a religion, such as that practiced by the Heaven's Gate, may not say that you have the power to alter reality by the magic of your wish, it certainly says that someone can. Who is that someone? Why, God, of course. Recall that on the religious world view, all of reality was thought to be created ex nihilo by a super-consciousness that existed before anything else--a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself but which had the power to create a reality. Sound familiar? If so, its because this represents the most ordinary version of the primacy of consciousness that there is.
What are the consequences of accepting such an idea? If one thinks that there is some supernatural force who is responsible for ones existence, then one believes that if that force likes you, it will do special favors for you, like take you away on a spaceship to the Kingdom of Heaven to escape the evils of this world. This metaphysics was part and parcel to the mass suicide at Rancho Santa Fe.
One other metaphysical viewpoint is a consequence of the primacy of consciousness. If one believes that consciousness has efficacy with respect to reality as such, then one might even believe that one's own consciousness could, or at least should , be able to be God-like. But when one discovers that such is not the case, then a problem arises. As a fellow Objectivist, James Sedgwick explains:
You start by assuming that what you intend will happen. Then you admit that while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. Then you love the spirit, but hate the flesh. In the end, you cannot bear the flesh, because it will not obey your orders. What you evade is that there are no causes without effects.
What is the result? The mind/body split. The mind/body split is a philosophical doctrine as old as Plato which states that there are two fundamentally different kinds of substances--minds and bodies--and that they are forever separated from each other. The consequence is just the sort of thing that happened in California, as Mr. Sedgwick continues:
That is the answer to the hysterics who warn us of the danger of cults brainwashing our children. Those cult members decided for themselves. They directly perceived the mind-body split. They experienced their bodies as alien things in which they were imprisoned. They wanted to free themselves, so they did. The cult leader was not a controller of them but a convenience to them.
This contention is backed up by evidence taken directly from the cult's website:
The Kingdom of God, the Level Above Human, is a physical world, where they inhabit physical bodies. However, those bodies are merely containers, suits of clothes--the true identity (of the individual) is the soul or mind/spirit residing in that vehicle. The body is merely a tool for that individuals use -- when it wears out, he is issued a new one.
Nothing could be closer to what we are talking about.
The scary thing is that this is not far from what most Americans accept. The morning the suicide happened, I was awoken by a television report in which the announced said, "the 39 members of the cult, who believed that the soul was immortal and that their stay on Earth was merely temporary....",etc. My God, I thought, how can Americans hear that and not start to think, "Well, don't I think that too? What's the big problem?" The big problem was that 39 people were dead, and because of a very commonly held idea: the belief in immortality of the soul and the afterlife, both of which are consequences of the mind/body dichotomy.
The fun doesn't stop with metaphysics, though. Now I move to the second branch of philosophy, epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge. Epistemology answers the question, "How do I know what I know?" However, the branches of philosophy are just this--branches--they are interconnected and interrelated. As such, you cant begin to talk about epistemology until you talk about metaphysics, which we have already done. Every theory of metaphysics implies a certain theory of epistemology. The same is true with the metaphysics of the primacy of consciousness--it implies irrationalism.
Before I can explain how this is true and how a certain view of epistemology caused the tragedy, I need to briefly present to you the Objectivist theory of epistemology. First let's recall our metaphysics--the primacy of existence. Facts are what they are, independent of consciousness. One additional axiom of metaphysics is the Law of Identity--the facts are what they are part, or in the traditional formula, A is A. A consequence of the Law of Identity is the Law of Noncontradiction--things cannot be A and non-A at the same time in the same respect. Contradictions do not and cannot exist.
One final observation is necessary: humans have free will. (That they do is a controversial topic, one which I could get into later). Because humans have free will--which is the choice to think or not to think--they are not infallible. They can make errors of knowledge. The combination of this fact with the Law of Identity yields the need for a certain method to acquire knowledge of reality. That method is logic, or the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic is the method of reason, which is the faculty that integrates and identifies the materials provided by man's senses. The material with which logic works is concepts--mental integrations which categorize reality. In the end, the Objectivist epistemology demands that knowledge be acquired through mental effort--it takes work and it is not automatic.
However, if one accepts the primacy of consciousness, an entirely different epistemology (if you want to call it this) follows. If, instead of facts being what they are regardless of what you think, facts are created by consciousness, then no method of knowledge is needed. Logic is not necessary to comprehend a world that might contain contradictions because you consciously hold them. The consequence of this view is mysticism, the idea that knowledge is a passive rather than an active thing. The mystic holds that he need either passively create his own reality to know, or wait until a higher consciousness reveals its version of reality to him through mystical intuition or faith. In short, he is an irrationalist.
Heaven's Gate's acceptance of the primacy of consciousness resulted in just such a belief. How did they know, for instance, that there was a Kingdom of Heaven? How did they know that there was a UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp? How did they know any of the items which they claimed to know? The answer is written for the world to see on their website:
We know what were saying --we know it requires a leap of faith. But its deliberate--designed for those who would rather take that leap than stay in this world.
We suggest that anyone serious about considering this go into their most quiet place and ask, scream, with all of their being, directing their asking to the Highest Source they can imagine (beyond Earths atmosphere), to give them guidance. Only those chosen by that Next Kingdom will know that this is right for them, and will be given the courage required to act.
If that isnt exactly what I was talking about, well, then nothing is.
The final consideration of the evening is the third branch of philosophy, ethics. Ethics is concerned with discovering a code of values by which one can guide ones actions. And, just as a certain metaphysics implies a certain epistemology, so too does a certain epistemology imply a certain school of ethics. Irrationalism implies the ethics of altruism.
Quickly, then, I will show how a belief in reason suggests otherwise. Reason is not only man's only means of knowledge, but also his only means of survival. Because of this fact, and because he must choose to think, he must formulate a code of ethics holding his life as his ultimate value, and mans life as the standard of value, which tells him that if he wants to live, then he ought to be rational. Being rational requires selfishness, as it is only through one's own independent thinking that one can know reality. Selfishness, then, truly means neither sacrificing one's self to others nor sacrificing others to one's self, but living for ones self and only for ones self. This is the exalted code of ethics which Ayn Rand discovered and presented to the world in her book Atlas Shrugged.
However, such a theory of ethics presupposes that reason can know reality and that there is a reality to know. It presupposes that certain facts about the nature of human life are objective and undeniable. If, however, one is an irrationalist, none of these apply. If one's epistemology dictates that knowledge is created out of consciousness, then one's knowledge of ethics is just as arbitrary. Thus, any meaningful ethical dictates will come from either your whims or the group's whims or God's whims. And, because irrationalism doesn't recognize the fact that human existence doesn't require sacrifice, it usually generates a pro-sacrifice theory of ethics: usually the sacrifice of the self to others, altruism.
The strangest thing of all is that the Heaven's Gate cult has been accused of selfishness. Take the following report from fellow Objectivist Thomas Miovas:
When asked about this similarity [between the cult and ordinary religion], "The God Squad" (a priest and a rabbi team offering moral advise on "Good Morning America") said that the similarities were superficial. "The primary difference between the two events [the suicide and Easter] is that Jesus died on the cross for all of us, whereas the cultists didn't do anything for anyone." In other words, the cultists were not altruists. They even went so far as to denounce the claims that Heaven's Gate was a religion on the basis that they left no guidance for anyone to follow. Being a priest and a rabbi, they refrained from calling the cultists "selfish"--presumably because they are not in the business of condemnation.
Tony Snow guest hosting the Rush Limbaugh Show was not so polite, stating that the cultists were "selfish". "The Heaven's Gate cult cant be a religion, because its just too selfish. Religion wants to help others and is concerned with the here-after. The cult members were not concerned with anyone but themselves."
Were the cultists really selfish? What is the self? The self is, fundamentally, the mind. Were the cultists using their minds? No. While they may not have been altruists in the sense that they were sacrificing themselves for us, they certainly were sacrificing themselves for some higher power, and mindlessly so. Consider the following entry from their web page:
You must leave everything of your humanness behind. This includes the ultimate sacrifice and demonstration of faith--that is, the shedding of your human body.
And the cultists did just this. Not only did they commit suicide in the end, but their notion of the mind/body split required a life of sacrifice for them up until the bitter end. As Im sure you all know, they had to give up all earthly possessions before they moved into Rancho Santa Fe. They shaved their heads and wore drab, black uniforms. They were forbidden from alcohol and sex--many were castrated. In short, they were living the monastic, ascetic ideal, forgoing any earthly pleasures on the view that the earth and the body were inferior and separate from the spirit. This was selflessness, par excellence. And then they died.
I mentioned in the mailings and in the posters that I would speak to whether or not this event was indicative of the state of American culture. I will close with it. What is especially disturbing about this event is not so much the fact that it occurred--because events like it have been happening for some time now, as at Jonestown or in Waco--but that the public reaction to it has been large scale evasion. While the similarities between this cult and Judeo-Christianity are striking, most of the media and the public have rationalized such similarities away, afraid to admit that they believe the same things, but are unwilling to practice them consistently. If such a social trend continues, there will be nothing to stop the social deviants like the Heaven's Gate from continuing to kill themselves off--leaving open the possibility of their taking us with them.
The cause of this problem is fundamentally philosophical. Only a philosophy can solve it. That philosophy is Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
![[Personal Page Disclaimer]](/www/disclaim.gif)