If Tolerance is the Main Virtue, then...

...there are no virtues.

The Boy Scouts is lost as a character-development process for young males.

Honesty

Honesty is a Precious Thing.

Not only do I value honesty, I presuppose it in people. While I know that is an error, I still commit it. Honesty is a subset of truth, and truth is a subset of the absolutes. For Atheism there are no absolutes, so by the time we get back down the chain from absolutes to honesty, there is none in the MaterialWorld of Atheism.

Now honesty might necessarily be feigned as a pragmatic effort to convince others of trustworthiness. So it not only is not a characteristic that is valued under Atheism, it is a tool to be exploited, used as far as it will go to the Atheist’s advantage.

Atheism is largely pragmatic. The main Atheist claim regarding morality is just that: behaving in a certain way is pragmatic and that is morality for the Atheist. The term for this is Consequentialism, where any goal which one desires should be pursued with whatever tactics are required to achieve it. Atheists might protest that this is a distortion, yet that in itself is a tactic being used.

The issue of honesty vs. Consequentialist pragmatism is why Atheists are not seen as trustworthy. There is no such thing as honesty which is attached to the concept of Atheism. That includes intellectual honesty.

Intellectual honesty requires humbling oneself before logic first, and material factoids last. But there is a strain of Atheism that refuses humility as an abrogation of “free thought”, which is just thoughts without anchors in anything meaningful. Free Thought, Atheism, and Philosophical Materialism are the keys to total freedom, unencumbered by the need for humility in the face of anything which is undeniable, such as incorrigible truth.

Thus logic becomes not a disciplined refection of a path to rationality, it becomes a malleable weapon which is to be tuned to the needs of the wielder. The Atheist assertion of “logic” is thus tautological, not actual: they define whatever they say to be “logical”. There is no urge to study logic as a discipline, nor to follow actual logical procedures. Whenever a fallacy in their “logic” is pointed to, they pull out as many Red Herrings as necessary to divert the conversation. I say this as a general principle because inductively, that is the case; there might be exceptions, and I hope to come across them in order to find out how they justify the logical chasms in their worldviews. But so far, not much luck.

There is no feasible Atheist defense against this observation. “Good without God” is transparently a relativist matching of a temporary “ethics” statement to whatever behavior the Atheist is currently fond of. Any possible Atheist protest of “personal integrity” is transparently just another tactic in the pragmatist’s toolbox. In fact, no matter what an Atheist says, it can be seen as a “tactic”, toward some objective, some agenda, which only s/he sees and knows. There is no possible way to encounter Atheists without suspicion, unless one is naïve to this characteristic.

So I should not be caught off guard while in discussions with Atheists. There is no reason to suppose that their arguments are sincere, that their facts match any actuality, or that their approach to their fallacies will help them learn anything. Atheists in general do not intend to learn anything, especially logic, which they have already redefined to be whatever they say. On the contrary, Atheists seem to have another objective, which is to preserve their total freedom so as not to have to be humble in the face of truths which they are powerless to change. In other words, "free" thoughts without grounding in anything but agenda.

So, there are no truths in AtheistWorld, and there is no truthfulness. So there cannot be any honesty, or for that matter, dishonesty. And that characteristic makes every Atheist suspect.

I, personally, value honesty. But it cannot be presupposed in people.

I need to take more care.


ADDENDUM:
This issue extends to the concept of “absurdity” also. Logical absurdity is a specific thing; it refers to a proposition which is logically non-coherent, or cannot be shown to be coherent, and this is found using Reductio Ad Absurdum, which takes the converse and hopes to show that it is contradictory (absurd). If the converse of a proposition is absurd, then the proposition itself is not. Clearly, logically inconsistent premises or logically unsubstantiable claims fit this category of determination of logical validity, including those propositions or premises which fail Boolean categorization.

The convenient but ungrounded and transient nature of the logic of Atheism is subject to producing statements which are logically absurd, but which seem perfectly logical under the transient processes of non-absolutist Atheism. In fact, linear logical discipline fails the transient processes of non-absolutist Atheism, and appears – I am instructed – absurd to the Atheist.

This is a serious fork in the ability to communicate, a dichotomy between those who choose logical dictates to rule their processes, vs. those who eschew any absolutist control over their free thought. For this reason, I have in the past taken the conversation to a point where an obvious fallacy is in play, and then stopped the conversation from progressing beyond that fallacy, and insisting on its recognition. This has produced considerable tension and sometimes behavior which resulted in banishment. But it is the right thing to do. No conversation should proceed when it is based on a fallacy or is logically absurd. Kindly remind me of that next time.

Advertising Atheism

The New York Times lists some advertisements that are being run by Atheist organizations around the nation. Aiming for the unaffiliated non-believers as well as for non-devoted churchgoers, the ads are placed by organizations such as the American Humanist, Freedom From Religion Foundation, The Coalition of Reason, and American Atheists which was Madelyn Murray O’Hair’s group.

”You Know it’s a Myth. This Season Celebrate Reason.”
American Atheists

O’Hair and the American Atheists convinced the 1970’s courts that Reason dictates that women must be allowed to kill their preborn children, to the tune of over 50,000,000 such children having been killed to date. Read O'Hair's bio to understand how much reason comes into play.

“It’s not what you believe, but how you behave.”
Freedom From Religion Foundation

A reasoning person might ask about the principles which guide behavior: what are the Atheist principles, and what gives those principles moral authority? There will be no answer, of course, because there is no consistent Atheist moral code for guidance for one’s behavior. Most Atheists behave just like Christians behave, having co-opted the Judeo-Christian ethic even though rejecting its source of moral authority. They do not behave as if there is no moral code. So perhaps the slogan above should be interpreted to mean that you needn’t be a Christian to act like one? If it doesn’t mean that, then it appears to be without meaning at all.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the Cherry Creek School District (Denver) to force them to remove all character development from the curriculum. The reason? Every good character trait could be found in the bible. FFRF concluded that good character is religion. Good character and good behavior are not on FFRF’s agenda; destruction of religion via secularization of school children, though, is.

“Another running throughout the South shows Butterfly McQueen, the late actress who played Scarlett O’Hara’s maid in “Gone With the Wind.” The billboard says, ‘As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion’. ”
Freedom From Religion Foundation

The denial that one of the primary purposes of Atheism is rebellion against morality and humility in the face of truth falls flat after declarations like this one. Freedom in this sense means eliminating moral constraints; if one behaves as if one believes there were no moral constraints, then it does, indeed, matter what one believes, as well as how one behaves. That is a rational conclusion, one which seems to continually escape those who advertise their own “rationality”. However, as much as they might believe it, few actually act according to their beliefs; They are living contradictions, who want us to believe that they are the ones who are rational.

Justice and Victimhood

Traditionally justice meant responsibility for your own actions. A person justly received the benefit of his legitimate works, and conversely, a person justly received punishment for his misdeeds. Laws were intended to define and protect justice, and a justice system grew out of that.

Of course there are always ways to tread along the edges of the law, to abuse the intent of justice while remaining barely legal. But the original spirit of justice remains in the hearts of most citizens. The spirit intended to reward integrity, self-discipline, and personal responsibility, while punishing only the proven transgressors.

There is now a new “justice”, a political justice that is contrary to the spirit of the original meaning of justice. When we hear of justice these days, as often as not we hear that we are responsible for denying justice to the oppressed. We receive a sense that the great masses of impoverished and politically endangered peoples that exist in the world today are situated that way because of our actions or our inactions, our intentions or our inattentions, as a favored and dominant group.

The new call for justice is not for a personal justice, it is not the traditional justice, it is a political justice for an identity group, one that has been identified as being oppressed. The history of the world is awash with such groups, and oppressed groups like this have created other oppressed groups in great domino effects.

One example is the USA itself. Oppressed by the church in Britain, colonists came to America. Oppressed further by King George, America created a nation in a land inhabited previously by native Americans. The native Americans were oppressed by the Americans. And going the other direction in time, native American groups oppressed each other.

In our own culture, workers were oppressed so they formed unions. Now unions are powerful oppressors in their own right. It is difficult to be born into an identity group that has not, somehow and in someway, oppressed another identity group at some point in their history.

Class is the oppressed identity focus of communism. Race and wealth are the focus of our modern western rulers. In much of the world it is religion which is the focus, only much of the time without the justice part.

This new call for justice - political justice - morally convicts entire groups without trials. It is now easy to condemn an entire race, based on perceptions alone, especially when facts are difficult to come by and even more difficult to verify. An entire generation can be condemned for actions (not proven) attributed to their demographic group that existed generations ago; the sins of the forefathers visited upon the descendents.

But more egregious than having a political justice that condemns entire groups without trials as designated oppressors, is the effect that this new justice has on the victims.

Because the new justice demands material reparations on the one hand and an overweening pity on the other hand, the usual balance expected of traditional justice is overturned. The group designated as “victims” is given the expectation that because of this designation of victimhood status it will receive, without the duress of earning it, material goods and an increased wealth. It is owed to them they are told.

In addition, the pity they receive along with the expectation of increased wealth leads them to believe that this status, victimhood, is valuable and even profitable. The incentive toward personal responsibility is broken.

There is another, more sinister aspect to the new justice. There are those who invest themselves into this process for their own benefit. These are the crusaders for political justice, those who derive a sense of self-righteousness, an inflation of self-importance and ego, by identifying groups that qualify for victimhood (there are plenty from which to choose), and then campaigning loudly and brashly on their behalf.

Now, who can criticize someone who selflessly fights for justice? But that is not what is going on here. The ultimate product of political justice is not integrity, self-discipline and personal responsibility, nor is it independent, self-sustaining, mature members of society.

What actually happens with the crusade for political justice is the dark inverse of traditional justice. The crusader needs victims in order to sate his ego, his need for self-righteousness, even the public intellectual’s need for recognition as an anti-cultural rebel.

The designated victims need the crusader to keep the largesse flowing their direction. It becomes self-sustaining, a system of co-dependent oscillation.

The situation with American black ghettos is an example of this sort of self-sustaining, mutual benefit. Those residents that escape the parasitic political justice system into the traditional, integrity / self-discipline / personal responsibility system, do well there at the expense of being called uncle toms, oreos, and other derogations by those who prefer to remain in the victimhood system. The “victims” come to resent those who they see as traitors to the system of victimhood. There is social pressure to remain, not to upset the system.

The parasitic systems engendered by political justice are not isolated to the USA. But they are encouraged by western crusaders for political justice, those intellectuals and activists wearing mantles of moral superiority on their heads like halos.

Is it transparent to these crusaders that the people they champion with their inverted justice are in fact entrapped by it? Or are perpetual victims an actual known objective of these folks and their negative justice? It’s hard to discern the difference, since the crusaders never, ever admit to failure in their wars, instead finding scapegoats for the failure of political justice ever to produce anything other than the stasis of victimhood. Well, it does produce one other thing; it produces the loud and self-righteous condemnation of western society by western activists living in western comfort.

The new victimhood justice is finding its way into the legal system, usurping the domain of traditional justice. When “society” is declared at fault, or a “group” is declared oppressed, there is a good chance that self-righteous crusaders for political justice are embedded within those declarations. Political justice is a hazard to civilization.

Thirteen Virtues of Benjamin Franklin

[From pg 38, Franklin’s “Autobiography”; http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page38.htm]

“It was about this time I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wished to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into. As I knew, or thought I knew, what was right and wrong, I did not see why I might not always do the one and avoid the other. But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined. While my care was employed in guarding against one fault, I was often surprised by another; habit took the advantage of inattention; inclination was sometimes too strong for reason. I concluded, at length, that the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was not sufficient to prevent our slipping, and that the contrary habits must be broken, and good ones acquired and established, before we can have any dependence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct. For this purpose I therefore contrived the following method.

”In the various enumerations of the moral virtues I met in my reading, I found the catalogue more or less numerous, as different writers included more or fewer ideas under the same name. Temperance, for example, was by some confined to eating and drinking, while by others it was extended to mean the moderating every other pleasure, appetite, inclination, or passion, bodily or mental, even to our avarice and ambition. I proposed to myself, for the sake of clearness, to use rather more names, with fewer ideas annexed to each, than a few names with more ideas; and I included under thirteen names of virtues all that at that time occurred to me as necessary or desirable, and annexed to each a short precept, which fully expressed the extent I gave to its meaning.

”These names of virtues, with their precepts were:

1. Temperance
Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.

2. Silence
Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.

3. Order
Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.

4. Resolution
Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.

5. Frugality
Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, i.e., waste nothing.

6. Industry
Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.

7. Sincerity.
Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

8. Justice
Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

9. Moderation
Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

10. Cleanliness
Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.

11. Tranquillity
Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

12. Chastity
Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.

13. Humility
Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

“My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judged it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time, and, when I should be master of that, then to proceed to another, and so on, till I should have gone thro' the thirteen; and, as the previous acquisition of some might facilitate the acquisition of certain others, I arranged them with that view, as they stand above. Temperance first, as it tends to procure that coolness and clearness of head which is so necessary where constant vigilance was to be kept up, and guard maintained against the unremitting attraction of ancient habits and the force of perpetual temptations. This being acquired and established, Silence would be more easy; and my desire being to gain knowledge at the same time that I improved in virtue, and considering that in conversation it was obtained rather by the use of the ears than of the tongue, and therefore wishing to break a habit I was getting into prattling, punning, and joking, which only made me acceptable to trifling company, I gave Silence the second place. This and the next, Order, I expected would allow me more time for attending to my project and my studies. Resolution, once because habitual, would keep me firm in my endeavors to obtain all the subsequent virtues; Frugality and Industry, freeing me from my remaining debt, and producing affluence and independence, would make more easy the practice of Sincerity and Justice, etc., Conceiving, then, that, agreeably to the advice of Pythagoras in his Garden Verses, daily examination would be necessary, I contrived the following method for conducting that examination.

”I made a little book, in which I allotted a page for each of the virtues. I ruled each page with red ink, so as to have seven columns, one for each day of the week, marking each column with a letter for the day. I crossed these columns with thirteen red lines, marking the beginning of each line with the first letter of one of the virtues, on which line, and in its proper column, I might mark, by a little black spot, every fault I found upon examination to have been committed respecting that virtue upon that day.”

It seems odd that Franklin did not include honesty, either intellectual or moral, in his summary. Possibly sincerity substituted for honesty in his mind. Regardless of his omissions and inclusions, the rigorous daily attention to his performance to his standards is a measure of his belief in the necessity of positive character traits, and not sliding scales of relativist ethical plasticity.

The Source of Humility

David Brooks, in his column for the NYT called “High-Five Nation”, waxes on about the loss of humility in today’s generation, without ever reaching into the actual nature of humility or its source and roots. Brooks had been listening to NPR and had heard a replay of a program that aired at the end of WWII, called “Command Performance”. He was impressed with the tenor of the program, which was far from self-congratulatory, and was summed up by the program host, Bing Crosby:

“All anybody can do is thank God it’s over. Today our deep down feeling is one of humility.”

As the column's title suggests, Brooks thinks that today an accomplishment as mammoth as winning such a global war would result in high-fives and self-aggrandizing arrogant smugness. Humility, he says, was part of the culture then. But cultural change since then eliminated humility in favor of self-worship:

“But that humility came under attack in the ensuing decades. Self-effacement became identified with conformity and self-repression. A different ethos came to the fore, which the sociologists call “expressive individualism.” Instead of being humble before God and history, moral salvation could be found through intimate contact with oneself and by exposing the beauty, the power and the divinity within.”

Here Brooks comes so close, but after contacting the surface of the subject, he caroms away, merely giving examples of current “immodesty” and then gratitude for the NPR peephole into the lost and nearly forgotten past.

There are some things that Brooks seems not to know or at least recall. There were, in fact, exuberant crowds jamming the streets in New York, and presumably other American cities. These demonstrations came close to the high-fives of today.

And the Greatest Generation which won the two wars, Pacific and European, was largely to blame for the loss of humility in the next (Baby Boomer) generation. When the war ended, procreation surged. And the offspring were reared in an opposite mindset from the way those in the Greatest Generation were reared.

Humility is rooted in the personal acknowledgement that the individual has a place in the hierarchy, and that place is not at the top. In the family hierarchy, children were taught “their place”, that respect is earned and that character is developed, a practice that would bring charges of child abuse today. In the cosmic hierarchy there was at the top a supreme creating being, to which even global leaders were subject.

But many of the children of the Greatest Generation were to become undisciplined under the new scientific rules of child rearing. They became the focus of the family’s goals, giving children everything that the parents never had. And worse, denying them nothing. It was only natural that those children should become convinced of an inflated value of their own self-worth; after all they were at the top of the hierarchy, showered with material things and effectively answerable to no-one. For many in this generation, the ”terrible two’s” lasted a lifetime. They were naturally “entitled”; they were “victims” of society; they were “morally authorized”. As young adults, they recognized no authority, except themselves. Their cultural values were sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll and Woodstock, coupled with "make me happy, it's my right".

Humility is the antithesis of hubris, of arrogance. Humility died off as a cultural value and as a desirable character trait in one, single generation. And along with cultural humility, the publicly acknowledged hierarchy containing a supreme creating being at the top died off as well, replaced by the scientific belief system promoted by Evolution and taught in schools. The Atheist cosmic hierarchy with ME, MYSELF at the pinnacle was firmly established and entrenched.

This is not to say that religion is dead; it is to say that the American culture, education and the government became controlled by the segment of arrogant, morally poisoned offspring of the generation that Brooks venerates. Brooks is not wrong; it’s just that he merely skipped a stone across the surface of an important subject, leaving the depths untouched.

Those deeper parts include the observation that humility is the precursor to honesty. One cannot be open to truth if one is closed to options that might produce it. Arrogance closes in on itself. It sees just what it wants to believe in order to be self-satisfied. So along with humility, honesty (especially intellectual honesty) died also, and at the hands of the morally undisciplined offspring of the Greatest Generation.

What remains is the effluent of a culture empty of truth, honesty, and humility. Where respect is demanded, and character development is passé. Where journalists are empty-eyed propagandists and politicians are uncaught felons. Where entertainment is – for the most part – moral sewage.

The last thing that Brooks ignores is the unseen majority for whom these things are anathema. The ideas that honesty requires humility; that honesty is a valued trait; that positive character must be developed (and one valued character trait is humility); and that respect must be earned; these still exist in the MSM-silenced, politically powerless population. This population demographic is huge, yet it must demonstrate en masse to be heard, and even then it is smeared as a group with unfounded and irrational charges.

These people exist, David; I am one.

Positive Character Traits

The ongoing degradation of American culture is frequently characterized as a beneficial assault on Christian dogma and its perceived chokehold on both government and culture. Those who struggle against that consistently champion opposite characteristics, pursuits and dogmas in a seemingly knee-jerk negative reaction, as if they are magnetically polarized so as to be vigorously repelled.

But if one examines the character traits that are undeniably positive without any reference to any religion however remote, one finds that the culturally radicalized consistently champion negative traits in pursuit of goals which they imbue with relativist moral overtones.

There has been actual psychological study of those characteristics that are positive, without regard to religious or relativist dogmas or stigmas. The study cited here was done as a counterbalance to the usual studies of “what’s wrong” types of characteristics, i.e. mental disturbances or aberrations.

The list of positive traits, preceded by the list of criteria, in full:

The Criteria What qualifies as a personal character strength, and how do you know if one is really yours? The researchers discuss many aspects of their methods and those of scientific psychology in the past. In A Primer in Positive Psychology (2007), Peterson explains:

I believe that people possess signature strengths akin to what Allport (1961) identified decades ago as personal traits. These are strengths of character that a person owns, celebrates, and frequently exercises. In our interviews with adults, we find that almost everyone can readily identify a handful of strengths as very much their own, typically between two and five.

Peterson goes on to present a list they used in 2004 summarizing their "possible criteria for signature strengths":

*a sense of ownership and authenticity ("this is the real me") vis-a-vis the strength

*a feeling of excitement while displaying it, particularly at first

*a rapid learning curve as themes are attached to the strength and practiced continuous learning of new ways to enact the strength

*a sense of yearning to act in accordance with the strength

*a feeling of inevitability in using the strength, as if one cannot be stopped or dissuaded from its display

*the discovery of the strength as owned in an epiphany

*invigoration rather than exhaustion when using the strength

*the creation and pursuit of fundamental projects that revolve around the strength intrinsic motivation to use the strength

The list of personal character strengths is not set in stone. Like other scientific theories it is subject to change as evidence is evaluated over time. Here are the 24 strengths of character at present, grouped in 6 categories of virtues:


The List

Strengths of Wisdom and Knowledge: Cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge

1. Creativity [originality, ingenuity]: Thinking of novel and productive ways to conceptualize and do things.

2. Curiosity [interest, novelty-seeking, openness to experience]: Taking an interest in ongoing experience for its own sake; exploring and discovering.

3. Open-mindedness [judgment, critical thinking]: Thinking things through and examining them from all sides; weighing all evidence fairly.
[ed. note: I think this should have been labelled "rationality"].

4. Love of learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge, whether on one's own or formally.

5. Perspective [wisdom]: Being able to provide wise counsel to others; having ways of looking at the world that make sense to oneself and to other people.

Strengths of Courage: Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external and internal

6. Bravery [valor]: Not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain; acting on convictions even if unpopular
.
7. Persistence [perseverance, industriousness]: Finishing what one starts; persisting in a course of action in spite of obstacles
.
8. Integrity [authenticity, honesty]: Presenting oneself in a genuine way; taking responsibility for one's feeling and actions.

9. Vitality [zest, enthusiasm, vigor, energy]: Approaching life with excitement and energy; feeling alive and activated.

Strengths of Humanity: interpersonal strengths that involve tending and befriending others

10. Love: Valuing close relations with others, in particular those in which sharing and caring are reciprocated.

11. Kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love, "niceness"]: Doing favors and good deeds for others.

12. Social intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]: Being aware of the motives and feelings of other people and oneself.

Strengths of Justice: civic strengths that underlie healthy community life

13. Citizenship [social responsibility, loyalty, teamwork]: Working well as a member of a group or team; being loyal to the group.

14. Fairness: Treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice; not letting personal feelings bias decisions about others.

15. Leadership: Encouraging a group of which one is a member to get things done and at the same maintain time good relations within the group.

Strengths of Temperance: strengths that protect against excess

16. Forgiveness and mercy: Forgiving those who have done wrong; accepting the shortcomings of others; giving people a second chance; not being vengeful.

17. Humility / Modesty: Letting one's accomplishments speak for themselves; not regarding oneself as more special than one is.

18. Prudence: Being careful about one's choices; not taking undue risks; not saying or doing things that might later be regretted.

19. Self-regulation [self-control]: Regulating what one feels and does; being disciplined; controlling one's appetites and emotions.

Strengths of Transcendence: strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning

20. Appreciation of beauty and excellence [awe, wonder, elevation]: Appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in various domains of life.

21. Gratitude: Being aware of and thankful of the good things that happen; taking time to express thanks.

22. Hope [optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation]: Expecting the best in the future and working to achieve it.

23. Humor [playfulness]: Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people; seeing the light side.

24. Spirituality [religiousness, faith, purpose]: Having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose, the meaning of life, and the meaning of the universe.

Many of the above characteristics are also accepted as positive by the polarized Left; those uncontroversial characteristics are not considered threats. Certain categories would have to be eliminated if one considers Alinski's ethics to supersede all others. And Philosophical Materialists would not accept a "transcendence" category.

And some of the characteristics above are acceptable to the polarized Left for their own use, but not for use by others. An example of this is “humor”, if one considers ridicule to be humor. Ridicule is a staple of the Left. However, the Left considers the counter-ridicule of an Ann Coulter to be an outrage and immoral, worthy of being silenced. In fact, moral outrage is a Leftist character trait.

Another example of polarized viewpoints on the characteristics is that of “hope”. For the Left, hope means the desire for a socialist, egalitarian future where they are the elite and are not subject to socialism or egalitarianism. For others, hope might mean the liberty to pursue whatever they wish, without the moral and political intercession of the Left.

So it is necessary to take care in the application of the principles.

Some of these are difficult, no matter the viewpoint. Case in point, number 12, “Social Intelligence”. In order to be aware of another’s motivations, it is necessary to compare his words to his actions and then to attempt to divine his motivations based on the congruence or lack of congruence of actions to words. This requires the use of other characteristics, such as integrity and open-mindedness (rationality). Further, it requires the prior education in the roots and characteristics of rationality and how congruence works to prevent false conclusions.

This list is, by the authors claim, not the last word. But it is a very good start.

However I must question, is it not possible to declare certain of these to be absolute? Is not integrity absolutely a positive characteristic? And what about the unmentioned characteristics of trustworthiness, reliability, and honesty? It seems that even though the list is fairly robust, it is still relativist in some regards; there are truly some character traits that are incorrigibly positive, regardless of dogma launched against them.

ADDENDUM:
I forgot to mention Intellectual humility. It is the opposite of the onerous intellectual smugness that accompanies dogmatic intellectualism. Perhaps it is a subcategory of "integrity"; I think it deserves its own category.