Chauncey C. Riddle
One of the most profound generalizations ever uttered was father Lehi’s dictum that there must be opposition in all things. If it were not so, he points out, all things would be a compound in one and there would be no existence. To say that something exists is the same things as saying, “it differs.” Etymologically, the word existence may be traced to the Latin roots “ex + stare,” to stand out. Taking the visual field as the paradigm, that which “stands out” is that which contrasts with or differs from the remainder of the visual area. This contrast enables us to distinguish figure from ground, thus allowing the figure to “exist.” If we could not distinguish figure from ground, we would not only not see figure, but we would also not see the ground. In other words, we would not see. This general principle of opposition applies not only to vision but to all sensation, to considerations of value, to the possibility of the existence of classes in the mind (i.e., in the universe of discourse, one class cannot be created without the simultaneous creation of its negative class), and to the physical world (e.g. Newton’s “law” that to every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction). It would be difficult to find an idea of more universal application and importance than this principle of opposition.
One important social application of the principle of opposition relates to the possibilities of unity and disunity in social groups. Applying this principle we might observe that every attempt to unify a group of people faces a fundamental dilemma.
The unity of the group can be achieved on the one hand by destroying the personal differences that cause people to be individuals. The push for egalitarianism has as its goal the creation of a Parmenidean order of timeless, motionless, featureless unity, where each person contributes to the group as does each individual radius to a sphere. The individual is not a person, but a “slot;” he fills a potential in the whole which is individuated only mathematically; i.e., by his orientation in space. He is a good radius only as he is completely indistinguishable from his fellows. Any aberration on his part destroys the aesthetic symmetry of the whole and therefore cannot be tolerated. This Parmenidean sphere is the social model of the socialist movement. To be sure, it differentiates people as to their assigned task in society; one man will lay brick, another farm, another teach. But each in this scheme is a person of identical political persuasion, of the same metaphysical outlook, of the same valuational pattern. Each is the product of social planning, of careful education, of deliberate indoctrination. His mind and his heart are attuned to the glory of society, and as a well-formed radius he contributes to the beauty and perfection of the absolute sphere.
The principle difficulty with the Parmenidean social model is that its proponents cannot escape hypocrisy. They teach that all men must come under a planned social order which will direct their minds and hearts through education, their physical inheritance through eugenics, and their physical welfare through manipulation of economic levers. But it is obvious that the creator of radii of the sphere cannot be himself a radius of the sphere. Someone outside the sphere must say how and what education must be, must say which persons will be out breeding stock, must say we should pull this economic lever. It is just that obvious then that the sphere with all its faceless radii must always remain the dictatorship of few men over the many. The few can never take the medicine they prescribe without relinquishing their power. History records that those in power who prescribe this ideal are singularly unwilling to give their power to others and become radii. Perhaps this is one reason they seek to control the writing of history as well as the society of men.
But someone will say, “The leaders are radii. They simply are part of the great overriding rule of science which works out its inexorable destiny in perfecting mankind.” This is the familiar plea of both the communists, promoting the Marxist thesis of economic determination, and the socialist liberals who want world society run by “enlightened intellectuals.” History has shown that economic factors are powerful in shaping the course of human events. But history also reveals that economic determinism does not always hold. People don’t always rebel because of the nature of the factors of economic production in their society, and Marxists find it necessary to force artificially the so-called “inexorable destiny.” In other words, these Marxists are not part of the sphere. They must deliberately be non-radii themselves in order to force other men to assume the posture of radii. History has also shown that scientists and social planners can improve upon social orders run by ruthless despots for their own pleasure and amusement. But an examination of the nature of science quickly reveals that any scientist who starts prescribing for society has thereby departed from science. Science itself has and prescribes no values; it is inherently incapable of doing so. The scientist who pretends to be prescribing in accordance with the dictates of nature, or reason, or science, is plainly either an outright prevaricator or so unaware of the limitations of science as to be unworthy of the name “scientist.”
The sum of the matter is then that the egalitarian ideal of socialism is always a process of the few in power creating a unity and equality among their subjects but never including themselves. While they destroy the individuality of their captive fellow men in creating the sphere of equal radii, they rule triumphant over the creature they prescribe but will not and cannot be part of it. All their subjects have become a compound in one and for them there is no “existence.” They may be bodies, but as persons they do not exist. That state of affairs is, or course, consonant with the philosophy of materialism. But where do the non-conforming, non-deterministic, non-equal leaders fit into the philosophy of materialism? They don’t; materialism is simply the opium with which they quiet the masses to create conforming radii.
What are the social consequences of this Parmenidean social order? Two examples will suffice, one from the realm of mind, the other from the realm of matter.
In a social order where men are forced to think alike, where there is unity through sameness, without freedom, two consequences will follow of necessity. First, no one who is a good “radius” will ever do any real “thinking.” He will react, respond, and repeat; but since he lives in a world where all of his peers think as he does, he is never challenged and never makes any decisions of importance on his own. He either reacts as he has been trained in meeting familiar problems, or he will seek further training (sometimes called “education”) to meet new problems. In any event, his mind is the child of the planners. The second consequence is the product of the first: there will be no progress generated by a good radii. He is simply a machine which has been programmed by the planners to do a particular job in a particular way. Because he has been made incapable of thinking (and therefore of rebelling), he can never see how to improve in the task he performs. As a teacher he repeats old saws; as a scientist he applies old principles; as an administrator he perpetuates old dicta. The stability and order of such a society would be admirable; these values overwhelm some who think that the Middle Ages (which closely approximated this Parmenidean ideal) were the golden age of Europe, and who long to reinstitute such an order. But thank goodness that the progress of suffering humanity was not stopped at the Middle Ages! Of course, it is the responsibility of the leaders and planners to institute necessary reforms in every aspect of the social order. But it is notorious that planners are usually far removed from problems; waste and chaos have been the ordinary consequence of absentee planning as anyone who has been a member of a large socialistic organization such as an army can testify.
Let us turn now to a consequence of Parmenidean planning in the realm of the material world. One of the great so-called “curses” from which the purveyors of Parmenidean unity wish to free men is the “jungle warfare” of the free competition. Through enlargement of the size and influence of the “public sector” of the economy they intend to relieve society of the “waste” engendered by ruthless competition. But they miss the main point of free competition; that it is a competition to see who can serve the common man best. In free trade each unit vies with each other to see which can deliver the most goods to men at the lowest price. Ingenuity, thought, struggle and life-blood all go to increase the efficiency of the delivery of goods. Conversely, in a planned society there is no competition and the units of production tend to try to absorb more and more of the goods of society (this is known as “justifying and enlarging your budget” in a socialist scheme.) Efficiency is anathema because it would mean reduction of budget. The natural consequence is that waste is promoted and the common man receives the minimal shoddy product of the society’s self-improved “enlightened planners.” No, it isn’t always shoddy. Sometimes it is very beautiful and functional. But how much would the new congressional office building in Washington have cost under free enterprise?
Enough for the Parmenidean ideal of unity. That ideal could not be fully meaningful unless under the principle of opposition a contrasting ideal of unity is presented.