Essay—Bad Faith (39)

Summary—This essay defines bad faith and argues that six government agents (five doctors and a chief justice) are operating in bad faith. I further argue that we must turn Canada into a country of truth, good faith and self-awareness.

I went to the Foothills Hospital emergency room in Calgary, Canada on 1 February 2001 and told Dr Ryan that I was outside the cave of behaviorism.  Afterwards I went home and then returned to give her five essays pertaining to my theory of one (1 January 2001).  The theory of one solves the greatest scientific problem of all time by uniting relativity theory with quantum theory.  The following is an exchange of emails between Dr Ryan and myself.  From—Ryan, To—Bek, Subject—Essays.  “The material was most enjoyable.  In any event, it was probably fun writing.  You did make your point, though.  As for reaching clients, good luck.”  From—Bek, To—Ryan, Subject—Essays.  “I appreciate your acknowledgement, but I fear that my point has not been made.  The message I am trying to convey is that my theory of one is most assuredly on the verge of bringing the world to its knees.  And my intention here is to simply give you a heads-up before the airplanes start falling out of the sky.  For the record, writing it was painful beyond anything you can possibly imagine.  It was an exercise in taking all of my genius to its absolute limit.  As for clients, it just so happens that it is your lost soul which I am most interested in reaching.”

Bad Faith.  To quote Jean Wahl from the foreword to Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1965 essay also entitled Bad Faith “Bad faith is the term coined by Søren Kierkegaard’s wayward twentieth-century disciple Jean-Paul Sartre which is a state of human inauthenticity where one attempts to flee from freedom and responsibility.  It is a paradoxical and therefore ultimately schizophrenic attempt at self-deception.  To live in good faith means to always strive for authenticity and to continually be aware of the tendency to slip into bad faith.”  Bad faith is a state of mind that lacks integrity where one takes flight from anguish and dread.  The Canadian Marshall McLuhan said that Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity.  The Canadian Margaret Atwood said that if the mental illness of the United States is megalomania—the mental illness of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia.  By exposing the public to my and my theory of one, I intend to transform Canada into a nation with an identity of self-awareness and good faith where everyone is a philosopher who knows how to construct arguments.

Bad Behaviorism vs Existentialism.  The Freudian cognitive model makes the ego or consciousness the decisionmaker who must choose between the internal values of the inward id, self or soul and the external authority of the superego or government.  Behaviorism chooses the superego while existentialism chooses the id.  Behaviorism is the psychological theory employed by the government throughout Canada contending that all human activity can be known through visible behavior and appearance—thereby denying the existence of consciousness and the possibility for self-awareness.  Whereas the id exists in the eternal-now, the superego merely exists in the now and persists by mimicking the id thereby fooling the ego.  Behaviorism demands the ego submit to the baseless authority of the superego.  Existentialism uses the id as a sounding board to provide a moral basis for decisionmaking.  Behaviorism treats oneself and others as objects while existentialism treats oneself and others as subjects.  Behaviorism is in bad faith while existentialism is in good faith.  By not specifically arguing for existentialism, the government effectively makes behaviorism the default.  A lie of omission is still a lie.

Jefferson and Locke.  Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence.  He has had a lasting influence on our culture.  Jefferson’s belief in the social contract came from the British political philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) who argued that government existed by consent of the people and that individuals should rebel if their natural rights are violated.  To follow the argument wherever it leads (ie. the method of argument) is to be in good faith.  Locke said that the natural liberty of man is to be free from any greater power—and not to be under the legislative authority of any man but to have only the laws of nature for his rule.  Locke also said that if the government violates the rights of individuals, then the people have the right to get rid of the government.  The Czech Václav Havel claimed that the people can bring down a government acting in bad faith by simply living in truth.

Compelled by Reason.  Locke stated that we are compelled by reason to acknowledge the existence of natural, inalienable rights and duties independent of convention, agreement or contract.  This means, for example, that even if the method of argument is not specifically identified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government is still morally obligated to answer all arguments.  To do otherwise is an act of bad faith.  Inalienable rights and duties are inherent to every Canadian citizen.  They cannot be sold or given away.  The Everyman flees from freedom and responsibility by hiding behind his assumed roles.  In order to become a Superman, the Everyman must exercise his rights and fulfill his duties above and beyond his roles.  Jean Wahl defined this quantum leap as follows “In order that we may truly exist, rather than remain in the sphere of the things-seen and things-used, we must quit the inauthentic sphere of existence.  Ordinarily, due to our own laziness and the pressure of society, we remain in an everyday world, where we are not really in contact with ourselves.  This everyday world is what Heidegger called the domain of the Everyman.  In this domain of the Everyman, we are not conscious of our existence.  And an awareness of ourselves is only attainable by traversing certain experiences like that of anguish and dread, which puts us in the presence of the background of nothingness—from which Being erupts.”

Bad Faith Doctors.  Dr Ryan, Dr Buckley, Dr Surani, Dr Darlington and Dr Gibbs are some of the health care professionals that I saw over the past thirteen years.  Dr Ryan is discussed in the opening paragraph.  She did not respond to my email.  Dr Buckley was one of my roommates in university.  I asked him if we could meet for twenty minutes once a month to talk about and my theory of one.  He declined.  A nurse once told me Dr Buckley is a good doctor.  But as Nicholas Beryaev said—Average goodness is no longer enough.  Doctors and everyone else must step outside the comfort of their assumed roles and take full responsibility for the weight of the world.  This is the essence of existentialism.  Dr Surani was my family doctor for the thirteen years that I owned my house.  Like the other doctors he was less than enthused about and my theory of one.  Dr Darlington is a doctor who does not believe in souls.  We had very little to talk about.  Dr Gibbs is currently my physiatrist.  He does a good job with my medication but has no interest in fulfilling any role other than prescribing medication.  In fact, none of these five doctors were willing to go beyond their roles and are thus acting in bad faith.  In response, doctors say their hands are tied—which is a determinism.  Sartre said any man who sets up a determinism is a dishonest man.

Bad Judgment.  In June 2002, I sent a letter to the Canadian Prime Minster Jean Chrétien and the Alberta Premier Ralph Klein requesting recognition for the achievement of scientific greatness.  I copied twenty-three other people including ten physicists across North America.  (See the Government Correspondence section on my website.)  The government has continually failed to recognize my theory of one.  In 2003, just before I lost my house, I sent two letters to the Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin which claimed that the government had no legal right to take my house.  My arguments are that the government must respond to all arguments and that the Godmade laws of nature trump the manmade laws of government.  In support of the first argument, Socrates said we must follow the argument wherever it leads.  In support of the second argument, Einstein said God is the sum total of the laws of nature.  Relativity theory (1905), quantum theory (1925) and my theory of one (2001) are all laws of nature.  In essence, I have sacrificed my house in order to make my point.  Unless the government is prepared to formally state that it is not responsible for answering arguments—and that it holds the manmade laws of government above the Godmade laws of nature—I want my house back.

Conclusion.  Bad faith is a state of inauthenticity where one attempts to flee from freedom and responsibility.  According to the Freudian cognitive model, if the ego chooses the super-ego, then it is behaviorism acting in bad faith—while if the ego chooses the id, then it is existentialism acting in good faith.  I would argue that we should switch on the method of argument.  Locke tells us that man must only have the natural laws for his rule.  Locke also tells us that we are compelled by reason to acknowledge the existence of natural rights and freedoms (eg. the method of argument).  In order to escape the domain of the Everyman, doctors and others must embrace total freedom and total responsibility.  In accordance with the laws of nature—the government owes me a house.