Self-Regard: The Sacred & Profane

2 November 2024

Hello and welcome back.

In the discussion of faith, ritual, and reverence, an analytical reader—and I hope you are many—might have expected to see Seligman’s statement that “Serving something larger than self fosters purpose and perspective” (Seligman in Boardman, S. 2016).  I think the heart of the difficulties we have been facing, since the beginning of the demise of organized religion, is contained in that seemingly anodyne statement. 

So much of religion, per my understanding, seeks to restrain the self in favour of the collective (or the leader(s) of the collective).  This applies to couples, families, teams, congregations, neighbourhoods, counties, provinces, and countries.  In Europe, between c.1800 and 1907, my ancestors pulled up stakes from the Balkans to Scotland, and many places between, in search of a life with more opportunity—for themselves, not for the benefit of a country, county, or congregation.  Was this ignoble?  Is placing self-regard at the forefront of one’s pursuits a mean-spirited or well-spirited endeavour?  We are into the realm of defining the sacred and the profane.  Let’s start with the roots.

profane, adj. 1. Showing contempt or irreverence toward G-d or sacred things; blasphemous.  2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form or use; secular: sacred and profane music.  3. Not initiated into the mysteries of ritual.  4. Vulgar; coarse. [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Medieval Latin prophānus, variant of Latin profānus, before (i.e., outside) the temple,” hence not sacred, secular, impious…] (Morris, 1975, p. 1044). 

sacred, adj. 1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.  2. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.  3. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person.  4. Worthy of reverence or respect; venerable: the sacred teachings of Buddha.  5. Of or pertaining to religious objects, rites, or practices; not secular or profane.  [Middle English, from the past participle of sacren, to consecrate, from Old French, sacrer, from Latin sacrāre, from sacer (stem sacr-), dedicated, holy sacred.]  (Morris, 1975, p. 1141). 

As is usually the case, the etymologies tell the tale.  To be one of the profane is to be outside the circle inhabited by the majority who, in this case, are inside the temple.  If you accept the arguments above (or from last week, if you’re viewing rather than reading), concerning classical liberalism, Hawking’s argument against the possibility of G-d, and the very human need of reverence, you might see where this is going.  If you are a person of reason—a principled thinker—you will have tremendous difficulty accepting the truth of scripture.  That places you outside of the circle.  And, please, do notice how many of the meanings concern place e.g., into the mysteries, set apart, outside.  Unsurprisingly, in some ways, this is the schoolyard stuff of childhood, you’re a jock, a cool kid, a nerd, or a freak.  Per the first two groups, if you’re not in, you’re out and you’re not hip.  I suspect there isn’t a person reading this who hasn’t felt that shame-inducing, soul-crushing exclusive social force.  Those definitions speak to that mentality.

However, as one of the godfathers said in the eponymous movie, “We are not communists.”  As such I do not shun elitism, the right of free association, etc.  I do shun intentional cruelty.  I see intentional cruelty as a misdirected intention to bolster the self-regard of that person practicing the cruelty.  Which, if accurate, means cruelty is often born of low self-regard.  I am far from the first to say this.  Those I think of as founders of this view include Ayn Rand, Eric Hoffer, and Gad Saad.

Rand was the first person I knew to state that a certain collectivist psychology is stimulated by, and reinforced by, a hatred of the good for being the good.  By my standards, such a hatred is real profanity because, if brought to fruition, it damns the best and the rest. 

Here’s the reasoning: A person fortunate enough to be born into a well-spirited, educated, and prosperous family has a lot going for her.  It’s an interesting expression, going for her.  In plainer terms, the odds of that young woman succeeding appear higher than that of another young woman, of the same age, born into a dysfunctional, ill-educated, and impecunious family.  As a therapist, I can say that it is entirely possible both will succeed, both will fail, or that either will be either.  But, were I a betting man, if the first family’s well-spiritedness included healthy boundaries, and an emphasis on self-responsibility, my money would be placed as follows: I would not discount the success of the girl from the apparently less fortunate family, but I would bet that the first girl will have a longer and earlier acquaintance with success than the second girl. 

You probably know why.  The second girl first needs to overcome the dysfunctional habits and acculturation with which she was raised.  To do this, typically means social, academic, athletic, and avocational errors that set people back long before they have any awareness of the implications of those errors.  However, once those errors, and the seminal acculturation, become clear to that woman, she will gain a new lease on self and life and possibly practice more gratitude for her good fortune than the first woman. 

If the prior paragraph unfolded as written, the society of those two women would be the beneficiary of their good and highly competent works.  They would both have a better chance of raising well-spirited, well educated, and employable children than many other women, and they would be net contributors to society. 

Now, let’s give them each an enjoyable career, loving marriage, and kids, good looks, prosperity, big houses, second properties, and upscale cars and wardrobes.  Some of you are already saying, I hate them both!  But, wait, there’s more!  What is it about our culture that makes such appearances easy to dislike?  We dislike those people we believe do not deserve their success.  How do we know that?  That apparent ease of access, to such a lifestyle, is almost always an illusion. 

That illusion ignores (i.e., is ignorant of) the hard work, the rejection, the scrupulous learning, the ridiculous hours it takes to reach such pinnacles.  But, much more importantly, what of the societies in which each of these women, lives, works, and plays?  Those societies benefit from the learned skills, philanthropy, good-will, high taxes, and voluntarism that frequently accompany the kind of success described above.  Yet, despite all of that, or more probably, in ignorance of all that, these women are resented for the viewer’s perception of easy, glamorous living. 

This resentment-based argument can be taken much further or deeper.  I have read political philosophy that insists that the root of collectivist ideology is resentment of either aristocracy or those succeeding in capitalism.  And those resenters, rather than learning the skills, starting their own businesses, and creating their own flourishing lives...resent, foment resentment and hatred, and try to enslave those able to generate genuine ideas (free minds), or create wealth (free markets).  Right now, the resenters are the wokusts and the fundamentalists; earlier in the last century, they were Marxists and communists.  The flags and outfits change, the message is the same: we want what you earned without having to pay the price.

I know this is a lot to absorb and I know I have not provided concrete examples because I am mindful of your time and mine.  If you want real-life examples read Meg Jay’s Supernormal for examples of those born with serious disadvantages who go on to create great success.  Read about the Rothschild dynasty and how one man, given one opportunity, had the vision and tenacity to foster more than two centuries of serious wealth, first across Europe, and now wherever business investment exists. 

As with the sacred and the profane, this is probably the most fundamental choice a human being makes: act, with good faith, in our own interests or resent, and attempt to enslave those who do act.  One is sacred, the other profane.  One leads to well-spiritedness, the other to misery.

Thank you for thinking and acting.  More next week.  Be well.

Summary

• An historical force that seems as old as humans is that between those who seek freedom to be, and those who seek to restrict the freedom of others
• Set apart, devoted, and dedicated describe the word sacred; outside of, excluded from the inner temple describe the profane—remember, concepts are human artefacts and human artefacts are often used to secure power & privilege
• Profanity, on a metaphysical level, is Rand’s envy or hating the good for being the good (Binswanger, 1986, p. 147).
• Effortless luxury and glamour are illusions often used to sell products promising a lifestyle and delivering a scarf.  Behind real luxury is hard work—always.  Whether inherited or earned, another human being did something to produce the wealth responsible for those goods and services. 
• Envy and resentment are toxic to the human soul and thus to our polities.  And they’re both thriving. 

Sources Referenced:

Binswanger, H. (Editor) (1986).  The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z.  New American Library.

Jay, M. (2017). Supernormal: The secret world of the family hero. Twelve, Hachette Book Group.

Morris, W. (Ed.) (1975). The Heritage illustrated dictionary of the English language.  American Heritage Publishing Co, Inc. Seligman, M. E. P. (2018). The Hope Circuit: A Psychologist’s Journey from Helplessness to Optimism. Public Affairs, Hachette Book Group.