So, if we are to avoid the mistake of allowing the discourse of IT to generate its own terms of reference, how are we to proceed? By linking it to those fields which have traditionally been seen as indicators of value: epistemology; rationality; logic. However, as I remarked earlier, these fields act as ‘guardians’ for the conceptual scheme of Western thought. They also guarantee a (the?) fundamental element of Western engagement: judgement. In Western society, comparison, therefore, judgement is woven into the fabric of society. Comparison generates competition, a .propensity towards binary opposition: X compared to Y = X is better than Y. From this basic formula, we can extrapolate to the capitalist model: If X is better than Y, then I need X. However, after a period of time, X needs to be replaced by A, because X has been surpassed by A (whether it really has or not – the basis of consumerism). Repeat ad infinitum. Initially applying to objects, this formula has gradually been applied to society in general – to personal relationships, whereby people become simple objects, who we utilise to achieve specific aims. Put another way, we now treat relationships as ‘things’ that we can profit from – the central concern becomes “How does this relationship benefit me?”
If we were to integrate IT into this system, as outlined above, then it would become part of the system it purports to reject. Therefore, IT rejects two fundamentals: (i) Profit as motivation and, (ii), comparison/judgement as basic component.
Of course, floating around underneath all this is yet another fundamental: consistency. How many times do we hear this cited? “You need to be consistent…”, “But, to be consistent, you must do…”. Western thought has been terrorised by the demand for consistency. It is responsible for the notion that human persons crave ‘safety’ and ‘security’. Yet which comes first? The demand for consistency acts as a mechanism of conformity. If an argument is inconsistent, it can be dismissed – seen as illogical and irrational. However, the question here becomes “What is mean by ‘irrational’?” In other words, whose rationality are you saying must be prioritised , in comparison to which, this is irrational?
If I say that IT manifests its ideas differently in different people in different ways, then I am automatically seen as presenting a system that cannot be systematised, that is not systematic in its approach, that one cannot define by referring to a set of rules that operate systematically, leading people to draw consistent conclusions from similar ‘cases’. There is, however, one ‘requirement’ for IT: the pursuit of the good for others. This ‘requirement’, as it remains undefined, leads to the expansion of the human person’s capacity for empathy. Nor does it become predictable, given that there is no demand for consistency., therefore, one can behave in completely different ways presented with an identical set of circumstances. Following from this, there is no, one that can be defined by making X number of way of defining “the good”. The good, therefore, is not a fixed, stable category that can be refined by making X number of comparisons. Thus, because the good is only attribute of IT, those who engage in IT expand and explore the concept of good, and the ways in which it permeates all facets of life, both personal and professional.
There is a problem here…because people of my generation are so conditioned to thinking in binary oppositions, breaking out of this habit can be (is) very difficult. I can already hear the questions piling up in my own mind: If you’re going to talk about good and what it is, then you have to talk about bad and what that is (generated by the binary mind) – much the same kind of question posed when discussing the influence of Art, in that insistence on logic and consistency, “Well, if you’re going to argue that Art can have a benevolent influence, then you must consider Art as a malevolent influence.” You have to be consistent, logical. We see the same kind of argument in regard to opinions, say, on Art. If all opinions are valuable, then all opinions can equally considered to be valueless…but this is logical if and only if all those expressing an opinion have the same knowledge of a particular area. Consistency requires that we must first judge the abilities of those expressing an opinion. But then, who judges the judgers, and who judges the judges who judge the judgers? Ad infinitum.
I suppose I’m getting at two things here. Firstly, in the “chain of consistency” we eventually halt because it would take too long and, secondly, following on from this, we can see the demand for consistency for what it is: an act of power…”I am in a position to demand consistency from you, in that I expect you to follow my rules. My demand that you follow these rules, and my definition of consistency, is so that you must obey me. I dictate the rules of the game, so the game is mine; when you play it, I already know the outcome(s).”
We brings us full circle, right back to how A&H are being excluded from TUs. The rule of the game is profit.
Murmurs from the Forest 