(Invitatie la) Test

Every veil secretly desires to be lifted, except the veil of hypocrisy (Richard Garnett)

Dumnezeule , Îţi mulţumesc că nu sunt ca ceilalţi oameni, hrăpăreţi, nedrepţi, preacurvari, sau chiar ca vameşul acesta.” (Luca 18:11)

Va rog sa imi testati intuitia si observati daca si cum in dialogurile, articolele, cartile pe care le cititi despre noul model de umanitate si moralitate “progresista”, patologiile lor puritane pot fi explicate prin (cel putin) doua cauze:

1. paricidul oedipian motivat prin apelul exclusiv la copilaria/tineretea traumatizanta si abuziva – de aici si reductionismul nervozitatii fata de abuzurile puritane ale unui crestinism de gen calvinist, umilitor, reprimant si ingust, compensat acum de o veritabila lista non-negociabila de noi virtuti si noi vicii. Alice Miller (mai ales in The Body Never Lies. The Lingering Effects of Cruel Parenting, 2005) face portretul unei astfel de culturi a abuzului copiilor care isi rostogolesc sechelele emotionale in viata adulta, perpetuand ciclul violentei si al abuzului. Problema e ca devenim din victime noi calai pentru ca nu auzim povestea pana la capat, pe care o povesteste un Pascal Bruckner, partea cu abuzul de abuz, a “Tentatiei Inocentei” („Numesc inocenţă această boală a individualismului care constă în a vrea să scapi de consecinţele actelor tale, această tentativă de a te bucura de beneficiile libertăţii fără a suporta nici unul din inconveniențele sale.“)

“What we call victimhood culture combines some aspects of honor and dignity. People in a victimhood culture are like the honorable in having a high sensitivity to slight. They’re quite touchy, and always vigilant for offenses. Insults are serious business, and even unintentional slights might provoke a severe conflict. But, as in a dignity culture, people generally eschew violent vengeance in favor of relying on some authority figure or other third party. They complain to the law, to the human resources department at their corporation, to the administration at their university, or — possibly as a strategy of getting attention from one of the former — to the public at large. 

The combination of high sensitivity with dependence on others encourages people to emphasize or exaggerate the severity of offenses. There’s a corresponding tendency to emphasize one’s degree of victimization, one’s vulnerability to harm, and one’s need for assistance and protection. People who air grievances are likely to appeal to such concepts as disadvantage, marginality, or trauma, while casting the conflict as a matter of oppression.” (Bradley Campbell, Jason Manning, The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)

Despre o astfel de “sfanta” ipocrizie vorbea Max Scheler acum 100 de ani:

“Thus the ‘altruistic’ urge is really a form of hatred, of self-hatred, posing as its opposite (‘Love’) in the false perspective of consciousness. In the same way, in ressentiment morality, love for the ‘small,’ the ‘poor,’ the ‘weak,’ and the ‘oppressed’ is really disguised hatred, repressed envy, and impulse to detract . . . directed against the opposite phenomena: ‘wealth,’ ‘strength,’ ‘power,’ ‘largess.’ When hatred does not dare to come out into the open it can be easily expressed in the form of ostensible love—love for something which has features that are the opposite of those of the hated object. This can happen in such a way that the hatred remains secret.” (Max Scheler, Ressentiment, Marquette University Press, 1994, p. 38)

  • blamarea excesiva, necontextualizata, vituperanta, fara rest, merge mana in mana cu
  • lipsa unei umilinte reale, nu de hartie/ecran/formalist-lingvistica, vizibile printr-o (cel putin o incercare de) imbratisare si oferirea iertarii fara a astepta raspunsul imediat.

2. neprihanirea fariseica prin excelarea puritanica a superioritatii morale – “virtue signalling” – articolul clasic deja al James Bartholomew  (The awful rise of ‘virtue signalling’ Want to be virtuous? Saying the right things violently on Twitter is much easier than real kindness) e un punct de plecare in analiza acestei patologii hipermoderne.

  • cocotarea pe mormanul viciilor altora se face de cele mai multe ori pentru
  • justificarea sau trecerea cu vederea a propriilor vicii, eventual legiferate ca virtuti. Singura modalitate de a rupe ciclul acestei ipocrizii puritan este lasarea sabiei judecatii/justitiei din maini prin venirea la cruce si ruga avertizatoare ca sa se faca voia acelui Unul care va face judecata tuturor.

Animal Rights and Human Wrongs by Jo Frederiks

Isus a explicat “virtue signalling” prin pilda fariseului mandru ca e superior fata de pacatosii aia incorecti politici. Evident ca e considerat inactual si nedemn de justitia sociala modelul indicat ca solutie la o astfel de inflatie artificiala de moralitate fariseica – “Ai mila de mine, pacatosul!”

Din pacate epoca “virtue signalling” (a doua cauza) e o epoca a resentimentului (prima cauza):

“We believe that the Christian values can very easily be perverted into ressentiment values and have often been thus conceived. But the core of Christian ethics has not grown on the soil of ressentiment. On the other hand, we believe that the core of bourgeois morality, which gradually replaced Christian morality ever since the 13th century and culminated in the French Revolution, is rooted in ressentiment. In the modern social movement, ressentiment has become an important, determinant and has increasingly modified established morality.” (Max Scheler, Ressentiment, Marquette Univ. Press, 1994, p. 29)

Oamenii obișnuiau să meargă la biserica creștină ca să se autoverifice în lumina adevărurilor lui Dumnezeu – un exercițiu de testare a realității, de ieșire din bula sinelui! Acum mulți merg la biserica hipermoderna (conferințe de “personal branding” și “coaching”, “pride parade”, manifestații patologice gen “Occupy” si “#resist” , etc), pentru a exersa critica “inapoiatilor” și a glorifica propriul “progres”. Nevoia de confirmare/afirmare e cu adevărat forta motrice a noii religii a celor fără de religie!

Marx are dreptate în sfarsit: “religia e opiul maselor!” Iar hipermodernii sunt religiosi fanatici!

In numele iubirii ne uram si tare credem ca am facut un pas inainte cu aceasta prefacatorie care sa camufleze fuga de orice vinovatie. Ori principiul fundamental pe care hipermodernii il ignora e ca dragostea e impletita cu iertare si asumarea vinei. Prea mult pentru o constiinta obsedata de “pride” si “be yourself”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.