I was a Coronavirus skeptic at first.  I complained – a lot.  I called into a favorite radio show to talk about loss of work from it.  Like almost everyone else, I was in shock this was happening.  I just couldn’t believe it, and didn’t want to.  And, my initial reaction was – this is just another Groupthink, social-media age panic.  Governmental overreach par excellence.

Boy was I wrong.

The moment I realized it was a profoundly serious matter – and not something that we, as Americans, would skirt past in the usual ways while the rest of the world dealt with it – was when the NBA announced the season was being cancelled.  This was just before the state of California, where I live, issued its stay-at-home order, with other states to quickly follow.

I was outraged.  And, I was being selfish.  And naive.  I’m used to bucking trends and enjoying some sense of going-my-own-way in life, but it was immediately apparent there would be no real option in this case.  We were – and still are – being ravaged by something we are not really in control of.  And we’re doing the best we can with it.  We can debate aspects of the Government’s response, sure.  But there’s a more important lesson – we are all in this ‘life’ thing together; as it occurs macroscopically, and microscopically, too.

I went through the stages of death with my relationship to the unfolding situation.  At first disbelief.  I really did think it was just the Flu, maybe not even as bad.  Then I was angry.  I’m a musician for a living, and we lost all of our work, with no real clarity yet in sight.  Then bargaining – I thought, well, surely since we took this severe response, it will just be a few weeks, then we’ll all get back to work and it will be fine.  As it became apparent it would be not only longer – but less certain in terms of the aftermath and what our lives will look like – depression. And finally – after I realized there was really nothing I could do about this – acceptance.

And then a funny thing has happened.

After the acceptance, I realized two things keenly, and many others a bit more hazily.  The first was – I am amazed at my own natural selfishness.  I want to see it clearly so I can have a better grasp on it and how to live differently.  And the 2nd?  Wow, do I ever have free time now to work on things that matter more to me.

So this post is written with some hesitation, because I am only in the middle (at best) of some projects that were in my head, but difficult to pull off while working a lot, and dealing with some minor/chronic health concerns that don’t always leave me feeling well enough to get “non-essential” (pun intended) stuff done.

But, I have had these days and weeks to positively assess my life, what matters to me as an artist, and feel like it’s on sure footing again, somehow.  I am putting the finishing touches on a solo album; working on video content, this blog and others, and concepts of what value I feel I can offer as an artist.

I re-prioritized.  Maybe in the vacuum, that’s all that was left.  The working world (even with an unusual job) consumed me, even as I put forth my best attempts at a creative life.  Over the years I floated between priorities, some failed relationships, and the consolation prize that at least I was making money, and some financial goals would be achievable soon.

The virus brought it front and center to me how wrong this path was, finally.  I think I knew it.  But the time off has been an ocean of clarity, an inescapable sense of what was wrong.  I’m a creative person.  I’ve had one of the craziest lives ever.  That’s where my heart is; the financial goals can wait.  They’re really not that important compared to finding my joy in artistic expression, and relationship to others.

None of these realizations, or the projects I’m now finally seeing through to fruition, seemed imminently possible prior to the time off I suddenly have had thanks to the pandemic.

Thanks to the pandemic.  There’s the irony I am always going to have to live with, and somewhat poignantly as I keep in the rearview mirror my own selfish resistance to the measures that were put in place.  People are dying.  The existentialist in me replies, well, sure – people are always dying.  And one day, my time will come too.

But it misses the point- people are quite randomly suffering and dying in this case, losing to this goddamned virus – one that as a society, we either didn’t fully see coming or we chose to not take seriously enough to prepare for.

The time off to get clarity on my life, self, and direction has been indispensable; I just hate that it came at this cost.

But maybe there’s a lesson here too – with the things you can’t control in life, you can at least look for what opportunities there might be, hidden at first though they are.

It’s funny to be an ex-cult member.  The world you find yourself in just does not quite make sense.

Like a sugar head rush from a breakfast cereal.  Or a permanent case of jet lag.  You’re missing several pieces to a puzzle that seems like it should fit together….but it doesn’t.

Maybe it’s not supposed to.  Maybe religions, worldviews, belief systems and even philosophical perspectives are just ways of filtering the vast, nearly infinite amount of data that we encounter from birth.  Without one, you don’t really know who you are, what you’re supposed to do; you don’t really know how to interpret your experiences or make sense of them.

If this seems too meta, try an example on for size.  Imagine you’re living in a virtual reality human, who at its core, is actually just a biologically functioning system.  You go on dates, you eat ice cream, you work at a day job, you vote, you nod your head when people are explaining their feelings to you or interpretations of live events.  You smile politely when it seems like you should.

The problem is, you are missing the “filter” through which any one thing means any one thing.

Let’s take your date.  You feel the physical, sexual attraction, but you have no cultural information (or expectation) of what to do.  To go back to his or her place?  Call the next day?  Desire children?  Imagine the two of you turning into space dragons and conquering other planets?

At the LITERAL level of “belief” – not even, necessarily, the religious or cosmic level – you are just a zero.  Do you ‘believe’ you OUGHT to do X, Y, or Z next ?  That it’s right?  Not right?  There is no right?

This is what it feels like to get out of a cult, and experience what Hassan (1986 et al) and others in the field have termed “floating”.  You are the ghost in the machine.

Sartre would say – You are free – so invent !  And this is an interesting answer.  Maybe all “free will” is invention, or the ownership we feel when a decision finally gets made, who knows how.  The default becomes utilitarian – if no one gets hurt, it’s probably fine.  The default, for me, also had (now comical) enormously cosmic points of view – my action is pitifully insignificant in view of the infinite vastness of the Universe.  Whatever happens, or doesn’t happen, is really over in the blink of a cosmic eye and has no bearing on anything whatsoever.

This, of course, is a silly way to view life – it also begs an important question – since everything therefore pales in comparison to some non-human, non-observer ‘cosmic eye’ of the Universe, what could possibly be a criteria for something to matter?  We enter into David Hume’s territory.

But to make a long draft short…nothing lasts forever.  Floating doesn’t either.  But an interesting question remains, are all filters mendacious, relative, and ultimately just a useful evolutionary adaptation?  Is there more truth, in other words, in being ‘filter’ free, and therefore completely open, at all times, to all horizons and all information?

This is a rant.  So sue me.

We have gained so much in modern liberalism.  And, we have lost our balls.

We have indeed.  We’ve lost our guts, we’ve lost our ability to hit back.  We’re suddenly an anonymous cloud of Mac-using, latte sipping intellectuals with no basis for our “arguments”, if you can call them that.  Undeniable and intangible all at once.  Don’t like mildly controversial writers?  Move on to another blog.  Still with me?  Then indulge me for a moment.

Have you ever tried to have an argument with an individual who was educated, modern, intelligent – and had just not a shred of philosophical backing to their beliefs?  Because that is actually the age we’re living in.

I am biased because I was raised in a religious cult, one where learning to argue and convince another was of superlative importance.  In a cult, when you’re trying to convert someone, it is not enough to just assume your opponent’s background.  You have to comprehend the entire foundation your theories rest on.  You need details.  You need an ontology.  Ayn Rand said this well, to the effect that philosophies and practices are hierarchical; the foundation is critical.

But in most modern liberal conversations today (and I can only speak as a Western, English speaking person I suppose – but bear with me), this is an important missing element.  I have had classes where a Professor assumed the “rightness” of their postmodern anti-imperialist ethics, without even A) acknowledging the other side’s arguments, even in a tacit way, and B) without explicating the ethics behind said opinions.

A good example of this was the Israeli response to Hamas aggression in 2009-10.   In all conversations I can recall about this, not *one* ever got down to the real nitty gritty:  what is the rational foundation behind defense?  Should we take Nietzsche seriously?  Is peaceful protection of power ethically immoral?  How about violent protection when warranted?

And how about the 64K question – if we are liberal Atheists, and we (more or less) believe life and perhaps even consciousness are a kind of cosmic accident – then what is the real significance of human suffering and experiences?

Now, to be sure, there are a slew of answers to these questions.  I have my own opinions.  It’s not that I think we should only argue and not act, either.  My point is, these baseline-level questions just never get asked, outside of a Philosophy class, or a few weirdos (like myself) smoking up and asking them.

But modern liberalism faces a dilemma it practically created, and I suppose refuses to acknowledge – God is dead.  Relativism IS reality, perception IS reality; what then, of public discourse around what should or should not be Done?  Whether at the Micro (personal) or Macro (national) level?

In modern discussions of Race and Gender, of equal treatment, of “Rights” that are based on Government handing them to us – or conveniently taking them away – where are the discussions on the legitimacy of what one believes?  How about a discussion on Fairness in terms of Evolutionary theory? Are genes “fair”?  Do most Atheist liberals accept that life is a kind of accident?  Or do they feel that problems like that are a free lunch, let science figure it out, and we move on to our identity kin-groups and our utopianistic fantasies of being “right” about ‘stuff’…where does this go?

If we were really religious about being liberal – and smarter about it – maybe we would get this, deep down.  Argument is a cold dead fish without the water of Philosophical/Ethical concepts, perhaps even a worldview, in which for it to swim.  But an explicit one.  Not merely a wishy-washy, neo-liberal, Western- forgetful fantasy of life and history.

What is the role of capitalism in University research?  Is it justified?  How about the new and under-discussed issue of the military and University research, the funding that is directed there?

God is dead – we were dropped here on our heads – so goes the story, if you believe many scientists and physicists, sort of our new Secular priesthood.  Are casual liberal intellectuals not aware of these guys?  Or is it they are too bored by these problems to take notice?  Because from a Nietzschean point of view, it is a combination of bizarre and hilarious that liberals can argue without referring back to this state of affairs; that these important decisions we’re making about technology, capitalism, democracy, warfare, are ultimately based on an accident.

I’m not even saying that I personally believe that, per se.  But it’s in the ether; it has been for a long time, underlying the academy and the sciences, which are hierarchically regimented in distinction to, say, economics.  In other words, push comes to shove – it’d be difficult for an intellectual to disagree that Gravity is not infinitely more fundamental, and important – than say, Paul Krugman’s latest interpretation of the Stock Market.  One is just better proved than the other, period.

I can’t help but feel there is a comfort zone in which Western liberal intellectuals all too easily get caught – blame it on A) lack of a hardcore religious upbringing, and B) the comfortable life that money and Western privilege can provide.  Nice parents, nice houses, enough money, good choice of colleges – these things are great, but they signal Death for the mind.

So let’s be clear, good friends, my brothers and sisters – after the Death of God, and after Nietzsche, after Sartre and Camus – there are no more objective ethics.  We who are proudly Godless – let us not argue with others as though our beliefs are not subject to debate and refinement.

It actually staggers me to hear liberals debating amongst themselves on stations like NPR or PBS, without once commenting on relativism.  Not that there aren’t important nuances to understanding it – and also not to say that ethics are defunct because of it – but nevertheless, it is almost a silent ghost.

Relativism in modern liberal conversation is the smoking gun.

It is the elephant in the room.

And as a passionate lover of Philosophy and Knowledge, this enrages me; because I feel in my bones our discussions could be that much broader.  That much more salient.

That much more ACCURATE, in terms of reflecting where we really are in the Post-modern digital age.

I would call myself a liberal-leaning libertarian; but make no mistake, I feel that conservatives, with a generally more religious component, comprehend this far better.  They might even be better debaters, debaters with a purpose, then most liberal intellectuals.  I feel more commonality with conservatives often than liberals for this reason, even if I disagree with the content oftentimes of what they believe in.

How important this really is in the grand scheme of things, I suppose I don’t know.  So much in our world has evolved, technology, science, positive ways of dealing with one another in a pluralistic environment.  I’d like to see our public discourse evolve and not leave behind this important element that religion brought to the table.

It’s not enough to just state something, just because other people and you have a consensus at your local Cafe or a million Cafe’s, via the internet, whatever.  You need to ground yourself if you want your beliefs to be something that other people ought to take seriously, whether or not they choose to being ultimately up to them.