Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Disneology #11: Man’s Morality=God’s Image?

ASSIGNMENT 12: VISIT VIRTUALLY ANY DISNEY ATTRACTION (“THE HAUNTED MANSION” AT THE MAGIC KINGDOM, FOR EXAMPLE). LIST THE “THOU SHALT NOT’S” YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH: THOU SHALT NOT TAKE FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY, EAT, DRINK, SMOKE, RIDE IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST THIS HEIGHT OR UNDER THIS AGE, USE CELL PHONES, PLACE YOUR HANDS OUTSIDE YOUR VEHICLE, STAND UP, SIT DOWN, PUT ON YOUR 3-D GLASSES UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO, ETC. DISNEY HAS ITS OWN VERSION OF THE TEN COMMANMENTS PERTAINING TO EACH RIDE. HAVE A SNACK AT (OR JUST A VISIT TO) PINOCCHIO’S VILLAGE HAUS RESTAURANT IN THE MAGIC KINGDOM. SURROUNDED BY A SCENE RESEMBLING THAT OF DISNEY’S MOVIE, THINK OF THE IMPLICIT “THOU SHALT NOT’S” IN THE MOVIE, PINOCCHIO: THOU SHALT NOT BE TRUANT, DRINK, SMOKE, OR PLAY POOL.

In my last commentary, I considered the first phrase of Kenneth Burke’s definition of human: “symbol-using, symbol-making.” I suggested that symbolicity was one way in which humans are the image of God. Today, I consider the second phrase, which depends on the first phrase for its existence. The entire definition, again, is:

“Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) . . . animal, inventor of (and moralized by) the negative . . . separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by a sense of order) . . . and rotten with perfection.” (LSA 16)

PHRASE 2: INVENTOR OF (AND MORALIZED BY) THE NEGATIVE. This phrase, like the first phrase applies to both humans and God. Even though God, like humans, uses symbols or words, he uses two types of words. Burke calls the type of words he uses in creating the world (capitalized) “Word.” If God speaks a “Word,” that Word has “omnipotence” (the total power necessary to complete its task). In Genesis 1:3, God speaks a Word (“And God said, Let there be light”). The very Word he speaks has the “omnipotence” to produce light. Psalms 33:9 confirms the power of this (capitalized) Word: “He spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and [the universe] stood fast” (RR 11). The Word of God has tremendous power. Isaiah 55:11 goes so far as to suggest that God’s Word is infallible--it cannot fail: “So is my word that goes out from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

How, then, can God give a command (word) to Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and have that word FAIL to achieve its purpose? How is it possible that after the command from God was issued, Adam and Eve ate anyway? The second type of word God uses is (lower-case) “word.” Burke offers theological distinctions between “word” and “Word.” This (lower-case) “word” has much less power to affect humans. Burke identifies the basis upon which he distinguishes between the two types of words--the negative.


The negative is an interesting concept. The symbol “tree” is a symbol for something that positively exists, but what is “not a tree”? Animals may, through classical conditioning, even understand our “positive” symbols. But, the negative is a “symbol” for the absence of something. Animals may conceive of “food,” but they cannot conceive of “not food.” My dog, Nicolete (pictured to the left), grew up with my daughter’s dog, Pigeon (pictured on the cover of my Concise Kenneth Burke Concordance, in the previous commentary). If I say the word “Pigeon,” Nicolete perks up and looks around to find her. If I say, “No, Nicolete, Pigeon is not here,” Nicolete becomes even more intent on finding her. She does not understand the negative. Similarly, she likes to take a “walk.” She runs to the door and waits. If I say, “Sorry, I don’t have time for a walk,” she happily jumps around at the door. She knows only what the positive word “walk” means; she does not understand what the negative “no walk” means. Burke, however, is most interested in what he calls the hortatory negative, the negative of command, as with the "Thou shalt not's" of the Ten Commandments. (RR 20)

Clearly implied in any "Thou shalt not" is the element of free will or choice. We do not tell anyone “Thou shalt not” do something it is impossible to not do. It does no good to tell a baby not to cry. We don’t tell people not to digest the food in their intestines. We don’t tell someone not to let his or her heart beat, hair or fingernails grow, or kidneys work. We don’t use such hortatory negatives because people have no choice in such matters. On the other hand, if we tell people, “Thou shalt not kill, lie, steal, rape, commit adultery, or slander,” it is clear that humans have free will or choice in such matters. They may choose either to kill or to not kill. They may choose to lie or to tell the truth. They may choose to steal or to refrain from stealing, to rape or refrain from raping, to commit adultery or to refrain from committing adultery, to slander or not to slander.” Having this distinction in mind, I should point out that, although God's utterance is presented as "Word" in the case of the creative fiat (“Let there be light!”), God's utterance might be understood as "word" in the case of the Ten Commandments. In the first instance, there is no implicit free will attributed to that which is created. In the second instance, humans to whom the Ten Commandments are directed are implicitly credited with free will. If God extends free will and choice to humans by issuing hortatory negatives, or (lower case) word, God has just made humans into “free moral agents.” Another way of putting this is to say that God has made “man into his image.” Just as God is free to do whatever he wants to do, by issuing hortatory negatives, God has made man free. He is an “agent,” just as God is an agent.

Burke defines man as “moralized by the negative.” Animals, since they are not “symbol-users,” and therefore cannot understand the hortatory negative, do not have morality. Whatever they do is prescribed by instinct and classical conditioning. “Thou shalt not” is the basis of all morality. While I may tell my dog, “No,” she does not interpret the negative as a negative. She interprets the word as a positive command to stop in her tracks. She learns that, if she does not stop, she will experience pain; if she does stop, she may experience pleasure (a treat). This is classical conditioning. Jewish theology, on the other hand, suggests that humans have both a good inclination and an evil inclination; humans are capable of choosing either to do good or to do evil. When humans have the option to do either good or evil and yet CHOOSE to do good, they are the very image of a God who chooses good over evil 100% of the time.

4 comments:

  1. You made the point quite well and succinctly.

    If God extends free will and choice to humans by issuing hortatory negatives, or (lower case) word, God has just made humans into “free moral agents.” Another way of putting this is to say that God has made “man into his image.” Just as God is free to do whatever he wants to do, by issuing hortatory negatives, God has made man free. He is an “agent,” just as God is an agent.

    Rod

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your agreement and support. It all seems quite logical to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lesser primates may, like man, use symbolic language by using American Sign language and pictogram flash cards. But I don't know if they demonstrate understanding of communicated propositional negatives, such as 'hunger does not exist,' or 'food is not present,' or 'an animal trainer is absent.' I certainly agree that no animal but man, which was made to be like its Creator, understands the hortatory negative, 'shoulds,' or 'oughts.' Apes, orangutans, chimpanzees, dolphins, and dogs may refrain from behaviors which their 'peers' or animal trainers do not desire, but they do so as a result of behavioral conditioning. Only man has the capacity to understand that he ought to do something or ought to refrain from a behavior; thus only man, after God, is a moral agent. Thanks for the lessons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very good comments. I'm wondering how scientists could test other primates to see if they comprehend propositional negatives. One could use a symbol for the negative and combine it with those symbols the primates comprehend positively, and see if eventually the primates comprehend. I suspect that this might do more to undermine their positive classical condition than to demonstrate their comprehension of a propositional negative.

    ReplyDelete