There has been some debate over the years about the exact nature of Jack Kirby's so-called "anti-life equation" that he introduced in his Fourth World comics. I think most people got the gist of where Kirby was intending with his message, but I think subsequent comic creators have missed the beautiful simplicity of the equation's origins.Here's a passage that was written in 1957, some years before Jack introduced his anti-life equation...
It was man's mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.
Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival -- so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'
...
A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.
Any of that sound familiar? Although the phrase "A is A" (or "A = A") is attributed first to Gottfried Leibniz, who was essentially summarizing the Law of Identity, it has been immortalized in comics through the character of Mr. A, Steve Ditko's famously objectivist character who debuted in 1967 still several years before Kirby's Fourth World. Indeed the character's name is derived from that very equation.But, in reading that passage above, it's clear that "A = A" is not the anti-life equation. Quite the opposite, in fact. "A = A" is the affirmation of existence, the affirmation of life. Anti-life, as described above, is not having the ability to think for oneself and make choices for oneself. Anti-life is thoughtless existence, where one is not permitted to question others, where one accepts the reality one is told without giving any thought to whether that is right or wrong. Where rationality and common sense are irrelevant. Where up is down, good is bad, and lies are truth.
That aspect of anti-life is expanded upon in George Orwell's 1984. Although more famous for introducing "Big Brother" into the common vernacular, it also presented a government that was entitled to claim whatever they wanted, and the population at large was to accept it without question. The Ministry of Peace conducts perpetual war on whomever it choses, and the Ministry of Truth tells people that the country they're at war at now is the country they've always been at war with, regardless of who they actually used to be fighting. He introduced the term doublethink which is where people are able to hold two mutually exclusive and even contradictory ideas as being equally and simultaneously valid, such as black being the same as white.
Or where A is not the same as A.
A ≠ A
There is no mystical equation that, when recited, will cause people to become living zombies. There is no physical manifestation of anti-life. All the subsequent creators who've tackled Kirby's anti-life equation don't know what the hell they're talking about, and are throwing out overly complex metaphors to make them look more clever than they are. (Morrison especially.)
The equation is simple: A ≠ A.
But just telling someone that is nothing. The equation itself is meaningless. It's the thought behind the equation that's the key. Being able to get someone to actually believe that A does not equal A... THAT is the real anti-life equation. It's not telling someone A ≠ A, it's being able to prove it. You can't just say A ≠ A, you need to convince someone of it's truth. And when you do that, you've eliminated their own thoughts, and their own ability to reason, and supplanted them with your will. THAT is the anti-life equation.
Oh, and that passage I quoted above? That's from Ayn Rand, the very same philosopher who had such an influence on Steve Ditko; she had a pretty big impact on Jack Kirby, too.
18 comments:
In the current political conventional wisdom of reasonably inferring Alan Greenspan's contrition as a retreat from Rand's politics by a proofreader of Atlas Shrugged, how practical is it to maintain A!=A as the anti-life equation, and keeping Kirby's canon relevant to a general readership?
The banking deregulation of the last 10 years has been the spear-head of the movement of deregulation itself, and now those who benefited most from that deregulation are holding their hands out for a bailout. How is that not definitive evidence Rand's philosophy was too naive to hold water? There are reports of renewed interest in Rand, but I'm willing to bet this trend is the last throes of political die-hards who have no where to go except obsolescence.
The argument that Rand's ideas didn't work as evidenced by the problems in the banking industry aren't valid. Rand espoused removing government from everything but police and courts, and what we actually saw was just fewer (but still numerous) regulations in one portion of one industry. Personally, I also hold that Rand's political views were too extreme to be practical, but there's never been (and likely never will be) a test to see if those theories really work. The "deregulation" of banks we witnessed wasn't remotely similar to what Rand had suggested.
As for increased interest in Rand, my understanding is that it's mainly in Atlas Shrugged where she depicts the dangers of over-regulation. The extremes to which she takes the fictional story are almost comical, but it should be remembered that, while Rand is known as philosopher, Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction written before she really solidified her thoughts of objectivism. The book, while insightful to Rand's ideology, is rife with plot holes and over-simplified characterizations and by no means should be taken as a treatise on political reform.
Sidestepping Ayn Rand for a bit, I would argue the A!=A is the same mentalcleansing that comes from cults.
Your Morrison comment appears to be an off-the-cuff potshot, so I detect bitter grapes on that one.
Saying that you and you alone knows how to correctly interpret the "Anti-life" equation reminds me of how some people know how to interpret the words of Jesus or Mohammad. At the time, Kirby thought the words were cool and gave him the backdrop to write a story.
Nuff said.
"The argument that Rand's ideas didn't work as evidenced by the problems in the banking industry aren't valid. Rand espoused removing government from everything but police and courts, and what we actually saw was just fewer (but still numerous) regulations in one portion of one industry."
The argument that Rand's ideas didn't work as evidenced by the problems in the banking industry *are* perfectly valid because deregulation takes one direction on a single path, however far the path is traveled. That path was still taken in that direction in one portion of one industry you cite, and -- again -- the people who benefited most from that deregulation held their hands out for a bailout. It seems like an addict's solution to presume problems *created* from following that path in that direction will be solved by *increasing* the problem-creating behavior.
Does every objectivist-believer have to be made chairman of the fed and lead the country into economic disaster to get them to admit Ayn Rand was wrong? That seems to imply a privilege in strong contrast to the "thinking" that objectivists like to otherwise take credit for.
I don't think Greenspan *was* an Objectivist. I mean, I know he was at one point, but it's not really Objectivist behaviour to become chairman of the Federal Reserve in the first place.
I agree with Sean. I think that if Objectivism works, a) it won't look like what it looks like in Rand's novels, and b) it'd have to be as a whole society full of people who more or less go along with the idea. Banking deregulation is a vaguely Objectivist kind of move, but when you put it in the context of a mixed economy full of people who are very definitely not Objectivists, whatever you get as a result isn't really proof of anything.
@Bob -- My problems with Morrison are expounded on here.
And, for the record, I didn't say that I and I alone know how to properly define Kirby's anti-life; I only stated that the subsequent comic creators who have tackled it did a poor job of it.
@Mike -- Sorry, but I don't buy the "one direction on a single path" argument for deregulation. It's an experiment not unlike communism -- it has no hope of working at all unless it's universal. If you deregulate only certain entities but not others, than there's clearly an incentive for those deregulated folks to take advantage of a government-sponsored competitive advantage. You're not working with a level playing field. And, also like communism, there's almost no chance of effecting Rand's theories universally (and I do mean universally -- it would have to encompass the entire planet) which means that SOMEONE will always have a government-sponsored competitive advantage. It's like conducting a medical experiment in which you use contaminated materials -- the operation might have worked, but you don't know for sure because the patient developed an infection stemming from the contamination.
The deregulation Rand proposed was an ideal that she (and, I suspect, most people calling themselves objectivists) held, but I think she was rational enough to recognize that there was no practical way to test her idea. That's why it was an ideal for her -- it was something she thought we should aspire to.
And that's why objectivists (a group of which, by the way, I do not count myself a member) won't admit to Rand being wrong on that front because you can't rationally and objectively DISprove her theory. The scientific method has never (and likely will never) be applied to this because there's no way to remove all possible contaminants from the experiment.
Matthew, I don't think I need anything you've said to be false for anything I've said to be true.
"Sorry, but I don't buy the "one direction on a single path" argument for deregulation. It's an experiment not unlike communism -- it has no hope of working at all unless it's universal. If you deregulate only certain entities but not others, than there's clearly an incentive for those deregulated folks to take advantage of a government-sponsored competitive advantage. You're not working with a level playing field. And, also like communism, there's almost no chance of effecting Rand's theories universally (and I do mean universally -- it would have to encompass the entire planet) which means that SOMEONE will always have a government-sponsored competitive advantage. It's like conducting a medical experiment in which you use contaminated materials -- the operation might have worked, but you don't know for sure because the patient developed an infection stemming from the contamination.
"The deregulation Rand proposed was an ideal that she (and, I suspect, most people calling themselves objectivists) held, but I think she was rational enough to recognize that there was no practical way to test her idea. That's why it was an ideal for her -- it was something she thought we should aspire to."
Then what good outcome is there for all this "thinking" Rand devoted her life to encouraging, when, by your account, there's "no practical way to test" it? Why stir up all this hate against our only option? How does that not plainly qualify as sniveling?
Why strive for anything? Ideals are motivators and drivers, not end goals. Why pursue discovering time travel, since it's been shown that it'd require too much energy to be of any practical use, if it's even possible? The destination isn't the reason for the journey; the journey's value is in the journey itself.
The deregulation Rand proposed was an ideal that she (and, I suspect, most people calling themselves objectivists) held, but I think she was rational enough to recognize that there was no practical way to test her idea....
The destination isn't the reason for the journey; the journey's value is in the journey itself.The destination isn't the reason for the journey; the journey's value is in the journey itself.Why are you selling your readers -- by your own account -- the experience of futility? Is there a shortage of failure in the world?
If I claim that there is value in striving toward something regardless of -- not dependent on -- failure or success, how is that selling futility?
Selling futility is a literal reconciliation of "no practical way to test her idea" and "the journey's value is in the journey itself."
Until there is an alternate reconciliation of those 2 observations you give, selling futility is the only interpretation of what you're saying.
Futility is defined as the quality of having no purpose or value. If something is defined as having value, even if the value is not in the end result but in the act of pursuing it, then it cannot be futile, by definition.
Futility is defined as the quality of having no purpose or value.What outcome, other than the absence of any impact whatsoever, is there in investing effort into something unverifiable, by definition of your own account "no practical way to test her idea?"
Am I asking anyone to take my word for anything I'm saying?
The inability to complete an experiment in its entirety is by no means the same as having an "absence of impact."
Any experiment, regardless of the outcome, regardless of whether or not it's completed, regardless of pracitcality, will have an impact. Even thought experiments, which have no reconciliation at all, are of value because it makes people think and explore the possibilities of the world.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
That's the whole point of philosophy! That's the whole point of fiction! That's the whole point of art! It's valid and has value because it shows that there are possibilities beyond the accepted norms, however improbable or impractical. That is why Rand's ideas have value and are worth exploring. The act of your thinking, even if only to refute each and every one of Rand's ideas, has an impact. This very dialogue is having an impact.
I understand that Rand's ideas don't sit well with many people, and I gather that you're one of them. That's fine. I'm not going to be able to convince you that her ideas weren't a pile of rubbish, and you're not going to convince me that they've been unilaterally proven to be a total sham. That's fine, too. By your argument, there's no point in our having this conversation at all because the practical outcome is that our opinions will remain unchanged. Debate of this type only really has an impact on the undecided, which clearly neither of us are. But I still have found value in this dialogue. You've forced me to formalize my thinking on Rand's ideas, and provided good debating experience. And, while that may not be the full extent of value that Rand was hoping for with her life's work, that in itself is of value. That in itself has had an impact. That in itself makes her ideas worth examining, despite there not being a practical way to implement them.
...and as far as Rand's ideas have been tested, they've been a disaster.
By validating partial-experiments, you've made what I said before relevant: The argument that Rand's ideas didn't work as evidenced by the problems in the banking industry *are* perfectly valid because deregulation takes one direction on a single path, however far the path is traveled. That path was still taken in that direction in one portion of one industry you cite, and -- again -- the people who benefited most from that deregulation held their hands out for a bailout. It seems like an addict's solution to presume problems *created* from following that path in that direction will be solved by *increasing* the problem-creating behavior.
There's no defense against you jumping back and forth between saying there can be no practical testing of Rand's ideas and validating partial experiments. If you're going to dress what you say under the pretense of rationality, will you please stop trying to benefit from an apparently self-serving selective-application of principle?
You're perfectly entitled to insist I'm wrong, but say you can't say why. But to do that and continue to present what you say under the pretense of reason only has the virtue of portraying the person you're debating as damaged regardless of their integrity. The only virtue of that seems to be to shelter predatory behavior.
If you still think the so-called bank deregulation was an expression of Rand's political theories, then you haven't really understood a word I've said. If you think that a lack of practical testing is a flip-flop of applying value to a partial experiment, then you really haven't understood a word I've said. If you think I haven't explained why I disagree with you, you really haven't understood a word I've said.
I'll fully concede that may be my fault. Maybe what I wrote here was incoherent. Maybe I didn't explain myself adequately. I think I presented my arguments reasonably and rationally, but I'm obviously biased. I think your arguments were haphazard, made unfounded associations, and generally avoided rebutting whatever point I had just tried to make but, again, I'm obviously biased.
You're free to feel whatever you like about me and my arguments. Although you certainly haven't expressly said, I get the impression that you've got some personal hatred for Rand and her philosophies. And you're free to feel that, too. So why don't we agree to disagree, and I'll get back to blogging about comics instead of other people's philosophies?
I specifically asked if I've been asking anyone to take my word for anything I've said, and I've received no answer. By the standards of debate as its known to western civilization, I'm fully justified in saying you've given me no reason to think anything other than what I've been saying.
If you still think the so-called bank deregulation was an expression of Rand's political theories, then you haven't really understood a word I've said. If you think that a lack of practical testing is a flip-flop of applying value to a partial experiment, then you really haven't understood a word I've said....
You're free to feel whatever you like about me and my arguments....When you ask me to weigh your word for your experience of what's right against my fully linearized argument of what's right (psst, it's that argument you don't like, but can't say why), in which you can't even cite where I'm asking anyone to take my word for anything, feeling has nothing to do with my choice to not indulge someone else's ego.
Post a Comment