lunes, 16 de junio de 2008

Herodoto y la bomba de tiempo del Multiculturalismo

Un artículo cojon*do acerca del multiculturalismo como algo inevitable En Occidente una vez se han eliminado los filtros logicos, de supervivencia, de moralidad, y de religion.

Es genial la idea de que la comparación de alternativas, base del método racional, lleva, en el terreno social, al multiculturalismo una vez que desaparecen la finalidad que las anima. Cuando se renuncia a esa comparación, uno se queda con la exposición de alternativas sin sentido crítico alguno. Esa lógica comparativa se paraliza porque no hay urgencias de supervivencia para extraer conclusiones(ya que vivimos bien y algunos, mejor), y, por otro lado, no hay filtros de moralidad ni de religión establecida que establezcan el marco contra el cual compararse.

El juicio se queda suspendido en el vacío, en una sociedad donde las mismas élites son las que se permiten el lujo de no tener que discernir, habida cuenta de que somos los demás los que les pagamos su buena vida y somos también los que pagamos las desastrosas consecuencias de su deserción.

Along the underbelly of the Multiculturalist monster is one particularly slimy patch that is a bit embarrassing to the advocates of civilization. I am speaking of the fact that Multiculturalism is the progeny of Western culture. The belief that all art, music, literature, and philosophy have equal value is impossible—nay, unthinkable—outside the context of Western society.
We must understand this complex parent-child relationship, painful as it is, in order to banish the illegitimate offspring from our midst.
At the root of the dilemma is the spirit of free inquiry. When the Western mind searches for a solution to a problem, every possibility must be investigated. The tendency is to open one’s self to all the options, all the time.
The point was driven home to me while reading The History by the Greek writer Herodotus (484-425 BC), one of the world’s first true historians. The spirit of inquiry, that unquenchable thirst for knowledge, runs across the pages of this remarkable tome like a bubbling brook, seeping into every crevice.
Herodotus, who traveled widely, seeks to understand other cultures on their own terms. Consider the following passage:
For if one were to offer men to choose out of all the customs of the world such as seemed to them the best, they would examine the whole number, and end by preferring their own; so convinced are they that their own usages far surpass those of all others…That people have this feeling about their laws may be seen by very many proofs: among others, by the following. [The Persian King] Darius, after he had got the kingdom, called into his presence certain Greeks who were at hand, and asked—“What he should pay them to eat the bodies of their fathers when they died?” To which they answered, that there was no sum that would tempt them to do such a thing. He then sent for certain Indians, of the race called Callatians, men who eat their fathers, and asked them…“What he should give them to burn the bodies of their fathers at their decease [in the manner of the Greeks]?” The Indians exclaimed aloud, and bade him forbear such language.

In showing how each culture is attached to its own customs, Herodotus raises himself to the level of super-analyzer. He picks a vantage point from which he can compare and dissect cultures, as if they were any other object of study.
Thus we have an early example of the open inquiry that will set the tone for Western thought for thousands of years to come. Unfortunately, the stage is also set for Multiculturalism. This is not to disparage Herodotus, but only to say that one of the West’s greatest strengths has a built-in weakness, an intellectual time-bomb embedded within it.
Let us examine the differences between the classic intellectual tradition of the West and today’s apostles of Diversity. Traditionally, analysis was conducted with the goal of seeking the truth. Many options were weighed, and then accepted or rejected based on rigorous criteria. Analysis was derived from logic, experimentation, and the discovery of hard evidence, the mix of which depended on the orientation of the thinker. What the empiricist and the Cartesian rationalist had in common was the open-minded search for objective truth.
Inquiry was never a free-for-all. Aside from logic and the burden of proof, there were at least two other important filters through which ideas had to pass before gaining acceptance. One of them was survival. It may have occurred to someone in Plato’s academy to shut down the military for a year and divert all available resources to the study and practice of sculpture, but such a move would have spelled the instant death of the society.
In the modern West, this filter has frequently been inoperative. Long intervals of security and prosperity have produced, particularly for the intellectual class, the illusion that such conditions can last forever, and that the strength and survival of the West no longer depend on the practice of its core values—for example, free trade.
Another filter was the moral code. This varies greatly across time and between locales, but it always functioned to eliminate certain ideas that were beyond the pale. A subfilter of the moral code is religious belief, which sets boundaries to the human ego. It helped people, even the greatest scientists, accept the reality that there is always a frontier to our knowledge.
In a recent conversation I had with a PhD student in physics, it was clear that this particular filter was malfunctioning. This can affect the integrity of scientific conclusions. According to the student, the Big Bang theory “proves the age of the universe.” I asked for clarification. He explained how all matter that we can detect with our instruments can be traced back to the primeval explosion. Fine, I said, sounds plausible, but you originally said “universe” and not “matter we can detect.” What about matter we can’t detect, for example that which is simply outside the range of our perception? Isn’t that part of the universe, which after all encompasses everything? As he expounded further, it was apparent that he had trouble acknowledging the existence of a “beyond” that was outside the reach of his instruments.
When these various filters—logic, survival, morality, and religion—are removed, the field is clear for philosophical relativism, which produces such aberrations of Western thought as Marxism, deconstructionism, and Multiculturalism. Stripped of his shield of comparative analysis, the observer has nothing to protect him against the nonstop bombardment of images and ideas.
Everything arrives, and everything is absorbed. The only element that is rejected is a method for making sense of it all. The spirit of inquiry is perverted, and we witness one of its most destructive post-modern mutations: Multiculturalism.
[Quote taken from The History of Herodotus, trans. G. Rawlinson, ed. M. Komroff, New York, Tudor, 1956, pp 160-161.]

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario