July 30
Gagdad Bob over at One Cosmos , in a vividly far ranging post Saturday, July 29, 2006 "Couples counseling with Sigmund, Carl and Alfred", quotes a Master asking his disciple what he thought of another Master's writing, “Some of the things he says seem true,” the disciple ventured. The disciple continues: "Krishna Prem’s reply was devastating. ‘One can’t write anything on this subject without saying something that isn’t true. What you must see is whether the truth shines through the words or whether they are platitudes, words repeated by rote. Look behind the words. Feel!'”
To which after the word "Feel" I might add " for the Integrations!"
I suggested in an earlier comment that the unconscious might be represented as conduits which connect and integrate data, but don't themselves contain data. When you're grasping at a thought that you can't quite verbalize but can almost palpably feel in your grasp, you do in fact have your mental "hand" upon one or more of these connective conduits which are ready to carry you to their data; if you'll just stop trying to pull their ends to you and allow yourself be carried along to their destinations, they will take you to what you're seeking.
Those who paint conceptual integrations with their words, the true poets, are those that help us to "see" truths which are connected and integrated in ways we can't always fully grasp at once, but their poetry leads us down paths that manage to enable us to connect one once distant side of our soul, to another.
When you find a Poem that "speaks" to you, what is happening is that the Poet is deftly raising a series of images together with particular concepts, which plucks your mental integrations as if they were plucking a harmonic chord of integrated subconscious strings, and suddenly you're being flooded with multiple images, thoughts and feelings coursing through your mind as those conduits draw their connected data into your conscious gaze.
Like so much else, I'm starting to see Poems as multi-leveled structures, they may follow certain physical blueprints such as line structure and meter (as varied as Sonnets and Haiku), but that is really merely the dressing, the ritual structure of a poem - the poetic equivalent to Religious Ritual such as Robes & Mass for Catholics or Sermons and Choir for Protestants - which perform an important role in providing a setting for Religious feeling to be drawn into and formed within... But the holy ghost of the Poem is sounded by a combination of its lyracality, and then by the "mood" evoked through the interplay of associations flowing from the word usage, by its's conceptual meaning, and by the integrating of Ritual, lyracality, mood evoked, all together they pluck a harmony of conceptual chords that set your soul to thrumming.
Gagdad Bob might say that the narrative of the Poem is its Horizontal platform, and the integrations the Vertical relief of it. Poets convey truth not so much through the narrative, but by that soul stitching of the conduits of the unconscious being woven into new multi-dimensional patterns (perhaps Holographically would be more apt) that causes us to sense new connections and truths which the simple narrative story can't convey. Purely realistic, factual story telling may even be a hindrance to our grasping the vertical meaning of the poem.
Poetry may hold such a strong and enduring position within humanity, because nothing else so conceptually weaves sight, sound, feeling, imagery, concept, and musicality - as a Poem does. The truly successful Poet may be someone who weaves these conduits of the unconscious into patterns that stitch our souls together with new designs embellished upon them. Of those who read the poem, some may get to see the Mona Lisa, some may only be able to feel at it as if it were Braille, but all receive new impressions of sweetness and light, without which we would be much the poorer.
What may make a poem popular is it's effectiveness in selecting that combination of rhythm, mood and structure that conjures up a harmony of conceptual chords in a variety of different people even though the actual integrations made will play at least a little bit differently for all who hear it, as different integrationary threads are struck, plucked, in each.
Art, quality art that resonates with people, I think probably works in a similar way. In Paintings, the composition may be analogous to the Poems structure and meter, and the images, the emphasis, the colors, succeed in the same way by plucking these conceptual chords and sets a reactive mental, perhaps even spiritual, vibration humming within its viewers.
I imagine that there are cases, maybe even they are the norm, where several of these conduit strings are intertwined - I can imagine these strings interweaving to form esthetically pleasing weaves and integrations - patterns having almost a mentally visual structure such as with images woven into tapestry, or audibly, such as with harmonically resonating chords.
Depending on the nature of the Art and the Artist, these vibrations maybe Harmonic or Dissonant, positive or negative, and this is why Art can be so difficult for states to manage - a single piece of Art can instantly transmit volumes of thought (compressed into a few integrated subconscious chords) to it's viewers, and as time passes, the integrations plucked within its viewers find new thoughts suddenly bubbling up in their minds - for good or ill.
original comments:
Blogodidact
"If you keep this up, I am going to have to add you to my very exclusive little blogroll! " - wo, be still my blogging heart! Thanks!July 30 2:57 PM
Blogodidact
"... white light of truth is one, but that, as reality descends from level to level, it becomes refracted and "colored" through different senses and modalities" I think that there's a thread here, even a conduit, that I've been trying to grasp ... for... so long, now and then I'm able to let it slip just enough to pull me a bit further along - a bit of a Spiritual E-Ticket ride!July 30 2:54 PM
Gagdad Bob
Didn't quite come out right: the lower orders are like a multifaceted reflection of the omni-nameable holographic One.July 30 1:32 PM
Gagdad Bob
What you say about poetry reminds me of synesthesia, in which a sense impression from one mode is joined with one from another, like "divine light" or "hot jazz." From the esoteric standpoint, one would say that the the oure white light of truth is one, but that, as reality descends from level to level, it becomes refracted and "colored" through different senses and modalities. As we climb back up the upanishadic tree of life, we are reacquainted with the primordial unity, which is like a multifaceted reflection of the omni-nameable holographic One. If you keep this up, I am going to have to add you to my very exclusive little blogroll! July 30 1:30 PM(http://www.onecosmos.blogspot.com)
Showing posts with label Aha Conceptual Integration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aha Conceptual Integration. Show all posts
Monday, August 07, 2006
Mis-integrated Rule
July 29
Newt Gingrich on a panel with Thomas Foley for a book "Broken Branch", says that we are at a historical brink of change, similar in magnitude to what the nation faced at the outset of the Civil War, and that we are just as unaware of the enormity of upheaval being entered.
He mentions that the current system, faced with the massive international challenges of rogue states and their sponsors and allies, and our own cultural dysfunctions in education, terrorism, PCism, etc, is faced with a complexity far beyond Congress's ability to cope with, that it is out of the depth of it's founding structure.
Although I agree, I would say that far from adjusting the system with further fine tuning, which will NEVER be able to stay on top of the complexity, that what we should do is, as the original discoverers of Capitalism described - let the individual hand of each citizens interests be set free to make their own choices best suited for them and to reap the unvarnished consequences of those actions, be they good or bad. Other than securing the true individual rights fundamental for Americans, as enumerated in the original bill of rights amendments - Government should stay out of the way. Government has done more damage to our culture by trying to protect people from their own decisions, than any other calamity we have faced.
These protections are inevitably seen as not only unfair but as threatening to other parties on the periphery of the cultural focus. Government then proceeds to attempt to fine tune the aids and protections to satisfy the newly vocal group demanding fair reciprocal actions.
It is precisely the various efforts that have been made to fine tune the behavior of both itself and it's constituents, that is the very source of the splintering complexity we now face, and the splintering amongst constituents as they attempt to form alliances against "THEM" whom they see as influencing Big Brothers power against Them. That recognition of being acted against by an untouchable power, and the resulting reactive response to secure influence within that same power against for their favor - which will further alarm not only the original 1st party, but also quite unforeseen by all, onlooking 3rd, 4th and 5th parties will feel threatened, and seek favor from power - itself alarming another 3(cubed) parties more.
The result of this sequence of geometrically expanding push backs is not only the fracturing of society, but the swelling of Governmental power, the distancing of its members from its citizenry, and the further deepening of its own natural fault lines within it's organizational structure.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of Self Government is that of recognizing the need to allow people to rule themselves, and to let them be responsible for their own actions, without succumbing to the temptation to offer a "helping" hand. People naturally want to help those they see as in need. When done privately and through private organizations, this is potentially laudable. But people fail to see that doing so through the arm of Governmental Power is something fundamentally different. It creates eddies in power that will soon combine and swamp the entire structure of Republican Government, Society, and the common beliefs and morals that once held them together.
Again, there is a substituting of the integrated meanings of "Self Government" by the Citizenry while keeping the label, with the actuality of "Governmental Rule" of the Citizenry.
Newt Gingrich on a panel with Thomas Foley for a book "Broken Branch", says that we are at a historical brink of change, similar in magnitude to what the nation faced at the outset of the Civil War, and that we are just as unaware of the enormity of upheaval being entered.
He mentions that the current system, faced with the massive international challenges of rogue states and their sponsors and allies, and our own cultural dysfunctions in education, terrorism, PCism, etc, is faced with a complexity far beyond Congress's ability to cope with, that it is out of the depth of it's founding structure.
Although I agree, I would say that far from adjusting the system with further fine tuning, which will NEVER be able to stay on top of the complexity, that what we should do is, as the original discoverers of Capitalism described - let the individual hand of each citizens interests be set free to make their own choices best suited for them and to reap the unvarnished consequences of those actions, be they good or bad. Other than securing the true individual rights fundamental for Americans, as enumerated in the original bill of rights amendments - Government should stay out of the way. Government has done more damage to our culture by trying to protect people from their own decisions, than any other calamity we have faced.
These protections are inevitably seen as not only unfair but as threatening to other parties on the periphery of the cultural focus. Government then proceeds to attempt to fine tune the aids and protections to satisfy the newly vocal group demanding fair reciprocal actions.
It is precisely the various efforts that have been made to fine tune the behavior of both itself and it's constituents, that is the very source of the splintering complexity we now face, and the splintering amongst constituents as they attempt to form alliances against "THEM" whom they see as influencing Big Brothers power against Them. That recognition of being acted against by an untouchable power, and the resulting reactive response to secure influence within that same power against for their favor - which will further alarm not only the original 1st party, but also quite unforeseen by all, onlooking 3rd, 4th and 5th parties will feel threatened, and seek favor from power - itself alarming another 3(cubed) parties more.
The result of this sequence of geometrically expanding push backs is not only the fracturing of society, but the swelling of Governmental power, the distancing of its members from its citizenry, and the further deepening of its own natural fault lines within it's organizational structure.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of Self Government is that of recognizing the need to allow people to rule themselves, and to let them be responsible for their own actions, without succumbing to the temptation to offer a "helping" hand. People naturally want to help those they see as in need. When done privately and through private organizations, this is potentially laudable. But people fail to see that doing so through the arm of Governmental Power is something fundamentally different. It creates eddies in power that will soon combine and swamp the entire structure of Republican Government, Society, and the common beliefs and morals that once held them together.
Again, there is a substituting of the integrated meanings of "Self Government" by the Citizenry while keeping the label, with the actuality of "Governmental Rule" of the Citizenry.
The Great and Powerful Wizard Tim warns of the Fierce and Deadly… bunny rabbit
July 26
The Rise of the "I'm Bitterer Than Thou" credo - The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 2 –
"When things are once in the mind, the words offer themselves readily." ("When things have taken possession of the mind, the words trip.")-Seneca, Controvers., iii. proem.
"Who do not fit words to the subject, but seek out for things quite from the purpose to fit the words."-Quintilian, viii. 3. - From Montaigne, “On Education”
To try and examine the outward signs of why our world has slid so far below the level of our last worthy benchmark, with the "Greatest Generation" of WWII, I'm going to try and run a skimmer through the surface of our cultural pond scum. This won't bring up the deeper underlying causes, but I think it will show us signs of their motive power which we readily see as the state of our world around us.
I've noted before how some of the lower level beliefs that develop into "liberal" ideology, feed the current anti-american and reactionary views, so prevalent in our Media Culture today. In fact the two, leftist talking points and Anti-American sentiment, go hand and hand together, with the first inevitably leading into the other. Yet I find, as you might too, that when I find myself trying to apply that same analysis to the comments of my friends & relatives who rattle off such talking points in casual conversation, sniggering at my dissagrement, annoying though their comments are - I can't see Them as anti-American - it just doesn't wash.
There is part of me that refuses to believe that there are intelligent people who can really accept this bile as thought, and believe it, and support it. It's confusing, and it is crushing. There must be some key to fitting this puzzle together, one which can somehow fit the two pictures together - one of those I Hate, and the other of those I Love - into one seamless picture, without destroying the later group in my heart and soul.
What I've been looking for is an identifiable, credible reason, which explains why those whom we know don't hold deeply anti-American beliefs, yet give their support and sniggers to those who Do hold anti-American stances.
Note that I'm really not talking about just Democrats or Greens, or what have you - there are plenty of Conservatives, Libertarians and non-aligned people who fire off or side with some of the most outrageous and unsupportable comments imaginable.
What I'm looking for is the source of the "sentiment", that gives safe harbor to a Leftist, or it might even be more appropriate to say a "Media Mentality", approach to the important issues of the day.
I'm also quite certain that this is most definitely NOT an issue of intelligence. One person who I know to fit this bill, I've known for 20 years, he's extremely intelligent. He's able to analyze and often solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to deeper issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - his positions don't go past what can be skimmed off from any common media source.
Well, I think that I've finally found the clue that I've been looking for in the "sniggers" that inevitably accompany these demonstrations of support for the popular MSM views. I see them as being a strong clue as to why these otherwise sensible people make these comments, support these views and cast the votes, which they do.
If we turn the calendar focus of our attention back to the turn of the 20th century, the cradle of the "greatest Generation", we can see the first popular stirrings of these views. Much happened in the first years of the 1900's: Abandoned by the philosophers who raised not a peep against several events assaults against the rights of the Individuals:• "Trust Busting" Teddy Roosevelt's first big assaults on private property, • they were the first generations to have their educations mandated, from outside their local communities, to be given outside the home - preferably in public schools, • the banks were corralled under the authority of the FED Reserve, • and they were of course shaken by the destruction of WWI.
The Philosophers greatest betrayal was to tell them that there weren't really any objective truths in the world - in fact there might not really even be a world at all - could be all in your head. The Good began to doubt the power, and worse, the worth of Virtue. In popular culture the Hero's began to be illustrated as strong silent types, burdened with a touch of grief and bitterness, such as Humphrey Bogart's characterization of Sam Spade, and others like him. This Hero was someone who still believed in, and fought for, the Good, but who no longer had confidence that it would be likely to prevail.
As soon as that character trait sank into the American psyche, assisted by the goings on of the Great Depression, there followed the overwhelming destruction of WWII. Well, the Good Guys won… huh, well… now what? Following on victories heels came the anti-hero, the disillusioned man of action bereft of direction and compass - typified by Marlon Brando & James Dean. Prior to their characterizations, the bad guy was still bad, and no one wanted to be like him, but after them, then people began to romance their plight, to sympathize with secular Christian zeal for the victimized, thinking that here were hero's unfairly separated from the pack and victimized by accidental circumstances.
But I think the worst case of cultural evil sunk into the American psyche, like a debilitating disease, through the onslaught of - (before typing the next word, I can't shake the image of the Wizard "Tim" in Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail' describing the fangs of the most horrible monster … which turns out to be a bunny rabbit...) - Humor (... ofcourse after The Knights scoff and attack the bunny, it then leaps and tears their throats out, killing them all).
It is said that Laughter makes the best medicine, what isn't mentioned is that it also makes the most effective and corrosive poison.
Read P.G. Wodehouse' stories of the ultra effective Butler named Jeeves, and you will see humor as it should be conveyed; some shades of that tone can even still be seen in Bill Cosby, where it is peoples foibles and shortcomings that are lanced with humor, so that with the laughter there comes no urge to emulate their failings. That began to change however with TV shows and Movies such as the campy TV versions of Batman & Get Smart, where the Good were made fun of because they were Good. But it reached its first truly destructive plateau, with the characters of M*A*S*H; particularly that of Hawkeye Pierce.
With Hawkeye, it is people's virtues, shown to be mere fronts to hide sins, which are lacerated by his cynical and sarcastic humor, albeit accompanied with touches of kindness and a "heart of gold". The purpose, the function, the result of art - looked for or not, is that people come away from it with a desire to emulate it's hero's '"virtues", the key actions & traits of the Hero of the story. Hawkeye's key actions and traits outside the operating room were those of Slovenliness, a tormenting sense of humor, "little white lies" to aid in womanizing, and in supplying a never ending supply of test tube Gin. His style was that of all things slacker, drawn to expose the fraudulent good among those in authority. All things High are false, all things low are common and "fun", and no things are worthwhile in the long run. That is true and naked evil, and few there are who see it.
Am I overdoing it? I don't think so. Look back to the movies of the 30's & 40's - the only characters with traits resembling this kind of humor were the out & out villains, or beaten up, partially reformed, world weary sidekicks - not the Hero. And even when the hero might be a beaten up world weary type forced by circumstance to become the Hero of the story, while he might slouch & mock when out of the fray, the moment he had to spring into action, he bolted up to his feet, his back ramrod straight, eyes steady & fierce inside a level head. Look at the Hero’s of today’s movies, the slouch never straightens, the humor always mocks, and no conviction is ever held.
The cutting edge of humor has been turned back towards the speaker (listener), cutting and putting down attacker and victim alike, through cynical, sarcastic, mocking. Gone is Sam Spades uprightness, replaced by Hawkeye's slovenliness, gone is Sam Spade's weary but moral tone, replaced by cheap derisive, mocking sarcasm - all capped off with a drunken haze of glamorizing humor and moral superiority which declares NOT I am holier than thou, but I am bitterer than thou, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou.
Emulating that characterization has brought into us an avoidance towards taking action at all, any desire to stand up for what is believed to be right (“nothing really is, don't you know, they'll show their true stripes soon enough”), and humor magnifies it's ability to spread that weakness by infectious humor and the widespread emulation of its style.
Millions of teenagers in the 70's, like me, drank that up, and emulated some shade of it in our behavior. This new corrosiveness was not spread throughout the culture by any force of Evil, but by an association with what was taken to be the good. The Hawkeye we consciously saw was a doctor, working feverishly, heroically, to save soldiers lives. What our minds saw via the subconscious conceptual integrations being made, the point of the show which was transmitted to the world, was that the true bad guys were discipline and standards, and that the greatest fools were those who let themselves be taken in by morality, and that the inevitable victims of the powerful would be those who attempted to defend the Right.
I know my friends to not be bad people, and certainly not evil, however, Evil does not spread through the power of evil alone, but through the errors and toleration of the Good. Evil is by nature a parasitic virus, it must have some vehicle to ride upon in order to smuggle itself into those who don't suspect its presence - that's the only way it can spread.
Knock on the door and proclaim yourself to be evil ("hello, landshark"), and the door will be slammed in your face, possibly followed by a shotgun blast. But claim to be a fellow member of the good, and with some star appeal, affect a twinkling winking humor with hidden implications of evil, and your message will be received, achieved, transmitted and emulated.
Look how "humor" has spread since M*A*S*H. The precocious-tending-towards-obnoxious kids of comedy shows starting with "Leave it to Beaver" have since progressed to those wisecracking snots of "Full House" (usually accompanied by a particularly "hip" [read childish] elderly character), and on to Beavis & Butthead, Bart Simpson, Stewie of The Family Guy - my god, pure sickness and filth with a smiling face "welcome! Come in! My goodness that was funny, rerun that show so I can try to imitate you!" comes the response of it's multi-million person audience.
The problem with Humor, is that outwardly, on the surface, laughter feels Good, a laugh is a laugh is a laugh - it feels pleasant! "What's the problem? " as my 13 yr old continually asks me as I turn his shows off, "You laughed too!". To a certain extent that is true, humor, if it makes the proper integrations with just the right amount of surprise and conceptual homonyms, you get a belly laughing experience. But what you may not notice, unless looking for it, is that of the degrading affect that laugh can have if directed not in support of your values, of civil behavior, of politeness - the stature, the value and seriousness which you allot to particular concepts & persons in your mind, are reduced by laughter being directed at them. There is also a further association being made, between this once sacrosanct serious item of mental furniture and something that is, well, laughable. It establishes a precedent for no longer automatically taking something seriously. That is a very strong offensive beachhead being made in your mind, for the forces opposed to any strongly integrated relationship between reality, and your assessment of its value.
Without that bulwark in the culture to fall back on, the leftists would be mowed down with righteous wrath, but with that "I'm only Joking!" and "you don't seriously believe…" established as a foundation to be built upon, they have the upper hand. It is now the morally upright who find themselves going it alone on muddy ground, with little or no support capable of being lent it from the popular culture, swamped as they are with the echoes still being amplified about through Hawkeye's children.
Homer may have summed this type of attack up best 3000 years ago with Odysseus's Trojan Horse - the ultimate image of virtue and worth to the Trojans was the strong and upright horse - and as they wheeled in that glorious idol wrought by their enemies, followed in by cheerful throngs of revelers, the evil hid in it's belly, and with the coming of night emerged among them, and slaughtered them, and threw down their protecting walls to destruction. Americans were once known as being the most remarkably sunny, optimistic, good natured people on the face of the planet. Now we are more known for celebrities affecting cynical conspiracy theories, bad manners, and the stupidest students on the face of the planet.
Positions of public cynicism are now the common stance of celebrities of all types. Spawned from the culture that lifted up entertainment such as M*A*S*H, with it's corrosive humor trained on anything resembling upright behavior & idealizing slovenly, hedonistic behavior as "Authentic" and sincere and more humanitarian than others, more Caring than any other.
After the widespread events of disillusionment in the last few decades (Hoover, JFK, Vietnam, always Vietnam, Nixon , Abscam, Jimmy "I have sinned" Swaggart and on and on) People are desirous, even eager, to come off rather as too smart to fall for believing in integrity and honesty from people with any hint of wealth and power or moral standing, than to be fooled yet again.
Taken together, the How’s identified in the previous post (The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 1), and this cynical humor as the standard backdrop to everyone's behavior, what else can we expect from our friends who find that the popularity of a position will have more currency and importance to their social standing and so adopt them as theirs (“after all, it’s not like they’re REALLY important to anything”); they are going to strike the pose of a Hawkeye Pierce, a sneering grin directed at anyone who claims to stand for virtue (“obviously a hypocrite”).
Again, with our Media Cultures’ glamorizing cynical humor over moral clarity, it leaves the casual citizen more likely to adopt as their new credo NOT “I am holier than thou”, but “I am bitterer than thou”, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou (“won’t get fooled again!”). Take a look at any popular TV character, such as that of Chandler from "Friends" - does that not sum him up rather well?
People who have no real interest in economics and politics, nevertheless don't want to appear to be clueless, so they adopt the language that they've heard used by those who are culturally acclaimed as knowing, and who have some tinge of glamour or status associated with them, which they can by association, siphon off of. Couple this with the stance educated into them through their professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and so not only do they not understand it the concepts they are scoffing at, they don't think that there really exists any relevant link, value or importance in it to their lives.
So we've got not only the urge to not be duped, but the desire to look like someone who won't be duped, and to tap into the cultural glow by adopting that (anti) Hero glamour.
Just as we might respond to a flat earther with an "Oh Come On!" were they to say that the earth was flat and there's no such thing as gravity, even though we aren't able to explain the reasoning behind it Newton’s theories, they "Feel" that they have an exceptionally valid and established set of reasons behind the assertions made by the Authorities they respect. They don't have an interest in investigating the point, they don't think it is necessary at all, and they're satisfied with the story they are passing on and upholding.
From this combination of sequences, we get people primed to continue the liberal line, but also to parrot and give a pass to the ones truly in the "know" to work their acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
But I’m not bitter about it.
Yeah right.
The Rise of the "I'm Bitterer Than Thou" credo - The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 2 –
"When things are once in the mind, the words offer themselves readily." ("When things have taken possession of the mind, the words trip.")-Seneca, Controvers., iii. proem.
"Who do not fit words to the subject, but seek out for things quite from the purpose to fit the words."-Quintilian, viii. 3. - From Montaigne, “On Education”
To try and examine the outward signs of why our world has slid so far below the level of our last worthy benchmark, with the "Greatest Generation" of WWII, I'm going to try and run a skimmer through the surface of our cultural pond scum. This won't bring up the deeper underlying causes, but I think it will show us signs of their motive power which we readily see as the state of our world around us.
I've noted before how some of the lower level beliefs that develop into "liberal" ideology, feed the current anti-american and reactionary views, so prevalent in our Media Culture today. In fact the two, leftist talking points and Anti-American sentiment, go hand and hand together, with the first inevitably leading into the other. Yet I find, as you might too, that when I find myself trying to apply that same analysis to the comments of my friends & relatives who rattle off such talking points in casual conversation, sniggering at my dissagrement, annoying though their comments are - I can't see Them as anti-American - it just doesn't wash.
There is part of me that refuses to believe that there are intelligent people who can really accept this bile as thought, and believe it, and support it. It's confusing, and it is crushing. There must be some key to fitting this puzzle together, one which can somehow fit the two pictures together - one of those I Hate, and the other of those I Love - into one seamless picture, without destroying the later group in my heart and soul.
What I've been looking for is an identifiable, credible reason, which explains why those whom we know don't hold deeply anti-American beliefs, yet give their support and sniggers to those who Do hold anti-American stances.
Note that I'm really not talking about just Democrats or Greens, or what have you - there are plenty of Conservatives, Libertarians and non-aligned people who fire off or side with some of the most outrageous and unsupportable comments imaginable.
What I'm looking for is the source of the "sentiment", that gives safe harbor to a Leftist, or it might even be more appropriate to say a "Media Mentality", approach to the important issues of the day.
I'm also quite certain that this is most definitely NOT an issue of intelligence. One person who I know to fit this bill, I've known for 20 years, he's extremely intelligent. He's able to analyze and often solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to deeper issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - his positions don't go past what can be skimmed off from any common media source.
Well, I think that I've finally found the clue that I've been looking for in the "sniggers" that inevitably accompany these demonstrations of support for the popular MSM views. I see them as being a strong clue as to why these otherwise sensible people make these comments, support these views and cast the votes, which they do.
If we turn the calendar focus of our attention back to the turn of the 20th century, the cradle of the "greatest Generation", we can see the first popular stirrings of these views. Much happened in the first years of the 1900's: Abandoned by the philosophers who raised not a peep against several events assaults against the rights of the Individuals:• "Trust Busting" Teddy Roosevelt's first big assaults on private property, • they were the first generations to have their educations mandated, from outside their local communities, to be given outside the home - preferably in public schools, • the banks were corralled under the authority of the FED Reserve, • and they were of course shaken by the destruction of WWI.
The Philosophers greatest betrayal was to tell them that there weren't really any objective truths in the world - in fact there might not really even be a world at all - could be all in your head. The Good began to doubt the power, and worse, the worth of Virtue. In popular culture the Hero's began to be illustrated as strong silent types, burdened with a touch of grief and bitterness, such as Humphrey Bogart's characterization of Sam Spade, and others like him. This Hero was someone who still believed in, and fought for, the Good, but who no longer had confidence that it would be likely to prevail.
As soon as that character trait sank into the American psyche, assisted by the goings on of the Great Depression, there followed the overwhelming destruction of WWII. Well, the Good Guys won… huh, well… now what? Following on victories heels came the anti-hero, the disillusioned man of action bereft of direction and compass - typified by Marlon Brando & James Dean. Prior to their characterizations, the bad guy was still bad, and no one wanted to be like him, but after them, then people began to romance their plight, to sympathize with secular Christian zeal for the victimized, thinking that here were hero's unfairly separated from the pack and victimized by accidental circumstances.
But I think the worst case of cultural evil sunk into the American psyche, like a debilitating disease, through the onslaught of - (before typing the next word, I can't shake the image of the Wizard "Tim" in Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail' describing the fangs of the most horrible monster … which turns out to be a bunny rabbit...) - Humor (... ofcourse after The Knights scoff and attack the bunny, it then leaps and tears their throats out, killing them all).
It is said that Laughter makes the best medicine, what isn't mentioned is that it also makes the most effective and corrosive poison.
Read P.G. Wodehouse' stories of the ultra effective Butler named Jeeves, and you will see humor as it should be conveyed; some shades of that tone can even still be seen in Bill Cosby, where it is peoples foibles and shortcomings that are lanced with humor, so that with the laughter there comes no urge to emulate their failings. That began to change however with TV shows and Movies such as the campy TV versions of Batman & Get Smart, where the Good were made fun of because they were Good. But it reached its first truly destructive plateau, with the characters of M*A*S*H; particularly that of Hawkeye Pierce.
With Hawkeye, it is people's virtues, shown to be mere fronts to hide sins, which are lacerated by his cynical and sarcastic humor, albeit accompanied with touches of kindness and a "heart of gold". The purpose, the function, the result of art - looked for or not, is that people come away from it with a desire to emulate it's hero's '"virtues", the key actions & traits of the Hero of the story. Hawkeye's key actions and traits outside the operating room were those of Slovenliness, a tormenting sense of humor, "little white lies" to aid in womanizing, and in supplying a never ending supply of test tube Gin. His style was that of all things slacker, drawn to expose the fraudulent good among those in authority. All things High are false, all things low are common and "fun", and no things are worthwhile in the long run. That is true and naked evil, and few there are who see it.
Am I overdoing it? I don't think so. Look back to the movies of the 30's & 40's - the only characters with traits resembling this kind of humor were the out & out villains, or beaten up, partially reformed, world weary sidekicks - not the Hero. And even when the hero might be a beaten up world weary type forced by circumstance to become the Hero of the story, while he might slouch & mock when out of the fray, the moment he had to spring into action, he bolted up to his feet, his back ramrod straight, eyes steady & fierce inside a level head. Look at the Hero’s of today’s movies, the slouch never straightens, the humor always mocks, and no conviction is ever held.
The cutting edge of humor has been turned back towards the speaker (listener), cutting and putting down attacker and victim alike, through cynical, sarcastic, mocking. Gone is Sam Spades uprightness, replaced by Hawkeye's slovenliness, gone is Sam Spade's weary but moral tone, replaced by cheap derisive, mocking sarcasm - all capped off with a drunken haze of glamorizing humor and moral superiority which declares NOT I am holier than thou, but I am bitterer than thou, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou.
Emulating that characterization has brought into us an avoidance towards taking action at all, any desire to stand up for what is believed to be right (“nothing really is, don't you know, they'll show their true stripes soon enough”), and humor magnifies it's ability to spread that weakness by infectious humor and the widespread emulation of its style.
Millions of teenagers in the 70's, like me, drank that up, and emulated some shade of it in our behavior. This new corrosiveness was not spread throughout the culture by any force of Evil, but by an association with what was taken to be the good. The Hawkeye we consciously saw was a doctor, working feverishly, heroically, to save soldiers lives. What our minds saw via the subconscious conceptual integrations being made, the point of the show which was transmitted to the world, was that the true bad guys were discipline and standards, and that the greatest fools were those who let themselves be taken in by morality, and that the inevitable victims of the powerful would be those who attempted to defend the Right.
I know my friends to not be bad people, and certainly not evil, however, Evil does not spread through the power of evil alone, but through the errors and toleration of the Good. Evil is by nature a parasitic virus, it must have some vehicle to ride upon in order to smuggle itself into those who don't suspect its presence - that's the only way it can spread.
Knock on the door and proclaim yourself to be evil ("hello, landshark"), and the door will be slammed in your face, possibly followed by a shotgun blast. But claim to be a fellow member of the good, and with some star appeal, affect a twinkling winking humor with hidden implications of evil, and your message will be received, achieved, transmitted and emulated.
Look how "humor" has spread since M*A*S*H. The precocious-tending-towards-obnoxious kids of comedy shows starting with "Leave it to Beaver" have since progressed to those wisecracking snots of "Full House" (usually accompanied by a particularly "hip" [read childish] elderly character), and on to Beavis & Butthead, Bart Simpson, Stewie of The Family Guy - my god, pure sickness and filth with a smiling face "welcome! Come in! My goodness that was funny, rerun that show so I can try to imitate you!" comes the response of it's multi-million person audience.
The problem with Humor, is that outwardly, on the surface, laughter feels Good, a laugh is a laugh is a laugh - it feels pleasant! "What's the problem? " as my 13 yr old continually asks me as I turn his shows off, "You laughed too!". To a certain extent that is true, humor, if it makes the proper integrations with just the right amount of surprise and conceptual homonyms, you get a belly laughing experience. But what you may not notice, unless looking for it, is that of the degrading affect that laugh can have if directed not in support of your values, of civil behavior, of politeness - the stature, the value and seriousness which you allot to particular concepts & persons in your mind, are reduced by laughter being directed at them. There is also a further association being made, between this once sacrosanct serious item of mental furniture and something that is, well, laughable. It establishes a precedent for no longer automatically taking something seriously. That is a very strong offensive beachhead being made in your mind, for the forces opposed to any strongly integrated relationship between reality, and your assessment of its value.
Without that bulwark in the culture to fall back on, the leftists would be mowed down with righteous wrath, but with that "I'm only Joking!" and "you don't seriously believe…" established as a foundation to be built upon, they have the upper hand. It is now the morally upright who find themselves going it alone on muddy ground, with little or no support capable of being lent it from the popular culture, swamped as they are with the echoes still being amplified about through Hawkeye's children.
Homer may have summed this type of attack up best 3000 years ago with Odysseus's Trojan Horse - the ultimate image of virtue and worth to the Trojans was the strong and upright horse - and as they wheeled in that glorious idol wrought by their enemies, followed in by cheerful throngs of revelers, the evil hid in it's belly, and with the coming of night emerged among them, and slaughtered them, and threw down their protecting walls to destruction. Americans were once known as being the most remarkably sunny, optimistic, good natured people on the face of the planet. Now we are more known for celebrities affecting cynical conspiracy theories, bad manners, and the stupidest students on the face of the planet.
Positions of public cynicism are now the common stance of celebrities of all types. Spawned from the culture that lifted up entertainment such as M*A*S*H, with it's corrosive humor trained on anything resembling upright behavior & idealizing slovenly, hedonistic behavior as "Authentic" and sincere and more humanitarian than others, more Caring than any other.
After the widespread events of disillusionment in the last few decades (Hoover, JFK, Vietnam, always Vietnam, Nixon , Abscam, Jimmy "I have sinned" Swaggart and on and on) People are desirous, even eager, to come off rather as too smart to fall for believing in integrity and honesty from people with any hint of wealth and power or moral standing, than to be fooled yet again.
Taken together, the How’s identified in the previous post (The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 1), and this cynical humor as the standard backdrop to everyone's behavior, what else can we expect from our friends who find that the popularity of a position will have more currency and importance to their social standing and so adopt them as theirs (“after all, it’s not like they’re REALLY important to anything”); they are going to strike the pose of a Hawkeye Pierce, a sneering grin directed at anyone who claims to stand for virtue (“obviously a hypocrite”).
Again, with our Media Cultures’ glamorizing cynical humor over moral clarity, it leaves the casual citizen more likely to adopt as their new credo NOT “I am holier than thou”, but “I am bitterer than thou”, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou (“won’t get fooled again!”). Take a look at any popular TV character, such as that of Chandler from "Friends" - does that not sum him up rather well?
People who have no real interest in economics and politics, nevertheless don't want to appear to be clueless, so they adopt the language that they've heard used by those who are culturally acclaimed as knowing, and who have some tinge of glamour or status associated with them, which they can by association, siphon off of. Couple this with the stance educated into them through their professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and so not only do they not understand it the concepts they are scoffing at, they don't think that there really exists any relevant link, value or importance in it to their lives.
So we've got not only the urge to not be duped, but the desire to look like someone who won't be duped, and to tap into the cultural glow by adopting that (anti) Hero glamour.
Just as we might respond to a flat earther with an "Oh Come On!" were they to say that the earth was flat and there's no such thing as gravity, even though we aren't able to explain the reasoning behind it Newton’s theories, they "Feel" that they have an exceptionally valid and established set of reasons behind the assertions made by the Authorities they respect. They don't have an interest in investigating the point, they don't think it is necessary at all, and they're satisfied with the story they are passing on and upholding.
From this combination of sequences, we get people primed to continue the liberal line, but also to parrot and give a pass to the ones truly in the "know" to work their acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
But I’m not bitter about it.
Yeah right.
The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 1 (revised)
July 23
I want to take a small digression from the Aha! thread, to look at some examples of language mastering individuals. Two from today’s news:
Juan Williams is saying on Fox, that we shouldn't attack Hezbollah because it'll destabilize the new Lebanese democratic Government - as if it could be a stable Government, when it’s entire southern portion is controlled by a defacto Government. of Terrorists within, who are controlled by Iran & Syria from without. To him, because the Lebanese Government has the name, the title of Government, whether or not they have any actual substance, they are in his eyes, a legitimate and independent Government.
The "Peace Movement" when mentioned, is given a matter of fact regard among the Media Culture, and few question their claim to be acting for peace, even though it flies in the face of all history and knowledge of human behavior. Without being challenged, they assert that you can end a conflict between a peaceful nation and a warlike nation, by having the peaceful one disarm and give concessions to the warlike one, that that will somehow cause the warlike entity to see the light of nice behavior, and chuck it's ambitions for power.
There is something about being able to pin a word or name such as “Peace Movement” or “Democratic Government” to a collection of data and aspirations, pseudo-concepts - and by repeating it with sincerity and presumed moral authority, which makes it resemble nothing so much as an stylized incantation. Somehow they expect this process alone will have the power of making it true – true for us, true for them, and true in fact. The astonishing part is that for those involved in repeating it, it IS true; and those who question it’s truth, they look upon as interesting and slightly alarming bacteria swimming about in the petrie dish of Television.
How is it possible, we ask, for Leftist's to hold to these "ideas"(there are far many more than just leftists who operate in this way, but one step at a time)? What I'd like to question is what it is about those who harbor a Media Mentality, that causes them to approach the critical issues of the day, Ideas, Responsibility – Maturity, issues which they are clearly interested in, without ever really penetrating those issues. They ask plenty of questions, but they just keep repeating the same conclusions they had before asking their questions, they reduce thinking to a process of Parroting long dead answers to new questions.
How and Why does this occur? I think that there are two main mid-level reasons that explain this, one, the How, having to do with Education and the other, the Why, having to do with Glamour. In this Part1, I’ll look at the How in Education, the Glamourous Why portion I’ll leave for Part 2.
This is not an issue of intelligence, one person I've known for 25 years, is extremely intelligent. He's able to comprehend, figure out and solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - he doesn't go past what he's seen on TV. If he hears someone with some degree of credentialed fame (and even better, if there's some version of a cynical conspiracy theory associated with it), then that is what he will regard as having the status of truth.
Before condemning those who are behaving this way, you and I might want to consider what we know about the Law of Gravity. Or any of Newton’s 3 Laws of Physics. Or any other foundational law of Science. There's not one in a thousand of us who understands these laws, who can explain them, and who can demonstrate the key principles constituting them.
When we hear of those who lived before Newton, or primitive peoples of today who still have not heard of Newton’s laws, we us nod our heads knowingly, and snigger at those who supposedly believed that the Sun revolved about the earth, that planetary revolution occurred in circles, and so on.
But I say that we know our current laws no better than they, and we respect them with little better reason than those “old fools” did - we take it on authority (which is how it is taught to us - as their beliefs were taught to them) to be true. Teachers 'teach' these highly complex and astounding accomplishments of the human mind, which flow from the pinnacle of an enormous amount of lesser principles, laws and concepts spanning mathematics and other branches of the sciences - to 8th & 9th graders. 8th & 9th graders, who more than likely barely have a grasp of even long division and basic algebra - if that, let alone Calculus. And though they Don’t understand it, they are told that if they can pass an exam on it – they do understand it "Congratulations, you passed!".
This new knowledge they are 'taught' amounts to little more than pronouncements from authority, commands that are accepted, memorized for tests, and reinforced occasionally by other teachers, newspaper and magazine articles, and other parts of the cultural media.
But it is not understood. The 'knowledge' they have in their mind is little more than a label reading "Physics" pasted upon an empty box, attached to an equally worthwhile diploma; if they've collected enough boxes of 'knowledge' while at school. This is, I think, an extremely important concept to grasp, and has implications for the Aha! example of mental integration.
These ideas are ‘taught’, they are given as pronouncements from on high, with the clear implication that those who don't grasp them are as stupid as the medievalists, and those who don't accept them are fools and objects of mockery that can have no credibility in polite company. Those who have managed to collect enough nicely labled boxes, should just move on down the line, and shake those boxes as little as possible, so no one will notice that the majority of them are empty.
Newton’s laws of Physics are taught to nearly all the students in our highly technological society. And it is taught in the same manner, and with the same implications attached, with which people are 'taught' that FDR's welfare state policies ended the great depression, that Capitalism and all people of wealth and power are corrupt and bad, and that the United States of America in particular and Western Civilization in general, are hypocritical buffoons who only pretend to uphold Truth, Justice and the American Way, but in fact are behind the scenes just tools for greedy conspiracists and shadowy cabals of the powerful.
This method of 'Education' is extremely telling and alarming. Even worse, I don't think that the people responsible for it, realize that there is any problem with it, whatsoever.
These tenants of leftist ideology are not identified as such (and truth be told, were the Conservatives to run the schools, they would handle the situation no differently, only substituting different points of ‘knowledge’), but are presented as straight forward information that one should 'know' and adhere to, just as one should equally accept the laws of Physics, though understood no better. Any confession of ignorance or doubt regarding these issues will be met with just as much condemnation and derisive laughter as is reserved for those who question whether or not the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. They are items that are just 'known' and not questioned seriously - if you must raise a question about them, you just go through the motions of thinking it over and give back the 'answer' once again. It's known. It's part of everything else that it 'known'. Your beliefs are tied to it, your diploma is tied to it, your credibility is tied to it, to the carefully stacked pile of nicely labled boxes, some full, some empty, some in between, which supports your entire life. And it's not like most people realize that they don't know, like their teachers, they think that repeating back the approved answers IS knowing. To have memorized the Correct Answers, is to Know!
Now then, with this perspective, look again at your fellow Americans who accept the party line of the MSM and Hollywood, and who look at you as if you were wearing medieval monks’ robes when you make your claims of American Exceptionalism. Couple this with the stance educated into them through the professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can and should be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and it is no wonder that they don't think it's of any real value or import to their lives.
From this combination of sequences, we get people who are not only primed to continue unconciously (literaly) to carry forward the liberal line, but who will fight for it, not argue for it, but fight for it, demonstrate for it, evangelize for it, and so work it's acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
These 'truths' that are accepted through the perversion of the teaching process, are integrated into ones knowledge, unbalancing their belief system and their self esteem, through pure forces of authority, intimidation and fear, and they are tied deeply tied to their desire to be accepted among peers and society.
How that is done, I’ll leave for Part 2.
I want to take a small digression from the Aha! thread, to look at some examples of language mastering individuals. Two from today’s news:
Juan Williams is saying on Fox, that we shouldn't attack Hezbollah because it'll destabilize the new Lebanese democratic Government - as if it could be a stable Government, when it’s entire southern portion is controlled by a defacto Government. of Terrorists within, who are controlled by Iran & Syria from without. To him, because the Lebanese Government has the name, the title of Government, whether or not they have any actual substance, they are in his eyes, a legitimate and independent Government.
The "Peace Movement" when mentioned, is given a matter of fact regard among the Media Culture, and few question their claim to be acting for peace, even though it flies in the face of all history and knowledge of human behavior. Without being challenged, they assert that you can end a conflict between a peaceful nation and a warlike nation, by having the peaceful one disarm and give concessions to the warlike one, that that will somehow cause the warlike entity to see the light of nice behavior, and chuck it's ambitions for power.
There is something about being able to pin a word or name such as “Peace Movement” or “Democratic Government” to a collection of data and aspirations, pseudo-concepts - and by repeating it with sincerity and presumed moral authority, which makes it resemble nothing so much as an stylized incantation. Somehow they expect this process alone will have the power of making it true – true for us, true for them, and true in fact. The astonishing part is that for those involved in repeating it, it IS true; and those who question it’s truth, they look upon as interesting and slightly alarming bacteria swimming about in the petrie dish of Television.
How is it possible, we ask, for Leftist's to hold to these "ideas"(there are far many more than just leftists who operate in this way, but one step at a time)? What I'd like to question is what it is about those who harbor a Media Mentality, that causes them to approach the critical issues of the day, Ideas, Responsibility – Maturity, issues which they are clearly interested in, without ever really penetrating those issues. They ask plenty of questions, but they just keep repeating the same conclusions they had before asking their questions, they reduce thinking to a process of Parroting long dead answers to new questions.
How and Why does this occur? I think that there are two main mid-level reasons that explain this, one, the How, having to do with Education and the other, the Why, having to do with Glamour. In this Part1, I’ll look at the How in Education, the Glamourous Why portion I’ll leave for Part 2.
This is not an issue of intelligence, one person I've known for 25 years, is extremely intelligent. He's able to comprehend, figure out and solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - he doesn't go past what he's seen on TV. If he hears someone with some degree of credentialed fame (and even better, if there's some version of a cynical conspiracy theory associated with it), then that is what he will regard as having the status of truth.
Before condemning those who are behaving this way, you and I might want to consider what we know about the Law of Gravity. Or any of Newton’s 3 Laws of Physics. Or any other foundational law of Science. There's not one in a thousand of us who understands these laws, who can explain them, and who can demonstrate the key principles constituting them.
When we hear of those who lived before Newton, or primitive peoples of today who still have not heard of Newton’s laws, we us nod our heads knowingly, and snigger at those who supposedly believed that the Sun revolved about the earth, that planetary revolution occurred in circles, and so on.
But I say that we know our current laws no better than they, and we respect them with little better reason than those “old fools” did - we take it on authority (which is how it is taught to us - as their beliefs were taught to them) to be true. Teachers 'teach' these highly complex and astounding accomplishments of the human mind, which flow from the pinnacle of an enormous amount of lesser principles, laws and concepts spanning mathematics and other branches of the sciences - to 8th & 9th graders. 8th & 9th graders, who more than likely barely have a grasp of even long division and basic algebra - if that, let alone Calculus. And though they Don’t understand it, they are told that if they can pass an exam on it – they do understand it "Congratulations, you passed!".
This new knowledge they are 'taught' amounts to little more than pronouncements from authority, commands that are accepted, memorized for tests, and reinforced occasionally by other teachers, newspaper and magazine articles, and other parts of the cultural media.
But it is not understood. The 'knowledge' they have in their mind is little more than a label reading "Physics" pasted upon an empty box, attached to an equally worthwhile diploma; if they've collected enough boxes of 'knowledge' while at school. This is, I think, an extremely important concept to grasp, and has implications for the Aha! example of mental integration.
These ideas are ‘taught’, they are given as pronouncements from on high, with the clear implication that those who don't grasp them are as stupid as the medievalists, and those who don't accept them are fools and objects of mockery that can have no credibility in polite company. Those who have managed to collect enough nicely labled boxes, should just move on down the line, and shake those boxes as little as possible, so no one will notice that the majority of them are empty.
Newton’s laws of Physics are taught to nearly all the students in our highly technological society. And it is taught in the same manner, and with the same implications attached, with which people are 'taught' that FDR's welfare state policies ended the great depression, that Capitalism and all people of wealth and power are corrupt and bad, and that the United States of America in particular and Western Civilization in general, are hypocritical buffoons who only pretend to uphold Truth, Justice and the American Way, but in fact are behind the scenes just tools for greedy conspiracists and shadowy cabals of the powerful.
This method of 'Education' is extremely telling and alarming. Even worse, I don't think that the people responsible for it, realize that there is any problem with it, whatsoever.
These tenants of leftist ideology are not identified as such (and truth be told, were the Conservatives to run the schools, they would handle the situation no differently, only substituting different points of ‘knowledge’), but are presented as straight forward information that one should 'know' and adhere to, just as one should equally accept the laws of Physics, though understood no better. Any confession of ignorance or doubt regarding these issues will be met with just as much condemnation and derisive laughter as is reserved for those who question whether or not the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. They are items that are just 'known' and not questioned seriously - if you must raise a question about them, you just go through the motions of thinking it over and give back the 'answer' once again. It's known. It's part of everything else that it 'known'. Your beliefs are tied to it, your diploma is tied to it, your credibility is tied to it, to the carefully stacked pile of nicely labled boxes, some full, some empty, some in between, which supports your entire life. And it's not like most people realize that they don't know, like their teachers, they think that repeating back the approved answers IS knowing. To have memorized the Correct Answers, is to Know!
Now then, with this perspective, look again at your fellow Americans who accept the party line of the MSM and Hollywood, and who look at you as if you were wearing medieval monks’ robes when you make your claims of American Exceptionalism. Couple this with the stance educated into them through the professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can and should be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and it is no wonder that they don't think it's of any real value or import to their lives.
From this combination of sequences, we get people who are not only primed to continue unconciously (literaly) to carry forward the liberal line, but who will fight for it, not argue for it, but fight for it, demonstrate for it, evangelize for it, and so work it's acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
These 'truths' that are accepted through the perversion of the teaching process, are integrated into ones knowledge, unbalancing their belief system and their self esteem, through pure forces of authority, intimidation and fear, and they are tied deeply tied to their desire to be accepted among peers and society.
How that is done, I’ll leave for Part 2.
More Ahh... ha-ha-....Aha!
July 20
Ahh... ha-ha-....Aha!
I've been thinking about how our minds do or don't work to make language come out of our mouths. Gagdad Bob over at One Cosmos, was noting how some people, usually elites (I might say those who are more reliant on the impression that their language makes upon others) often seem to succumb to their language, rather than mastering it - they are more people spoken by language, rather than people speaking language themselves. It's as if having memorized various quotes, terms, phrases and definitions, they lay in wait for any moment that could plausibly be deemed appropriate for pulling them out; as if all they’ll ever have to say was long ago stored in their memory like a series of pre-recorded statements, mental DJ’s waiting to play their intellectual Top 40 jingles. Then as they try to elaborate in conversation, their comments more often than not, are either of a low level conceptual nature, or so mistreat the high level concepts as to contort them into a lower level nature.
Surely we've all come across one of these pompous, affected characters before (perhaps even found our(my)self as one of them at times, saying something chiefly because it would go over well, whether or not it was well thought out - hmm?). Think of a character such as Voltaire's Pangloss or even Diane Chambers from the TV show "Cheers" - wanna-be Elites, consumed with all things Intellectual (sounding), always speaking stiltedly - like walking plagiarisms, they seem to contort their attention in order to selectively grasp at fragments of life around them for the sole purpose of ostentatiously displaying their horded, long dead, ideas for your admiration. They contrast poorly with those who instead seek to engage life and describe their experience of it as best they can with the appropriate language available to them, and while their vocabulary and allusions may or may not be lacking, their meaning is clear, lively and sparkling with insight & humor. People like H.L. Mencken, Irving Babbitt, Richard Mitchell, or Winston Churchill - they make language dance, sparkling and alive – and their language makes our own minds feel more alive at its touch between our ears.
Why is that? What is it we DO with language? What does language DO to us? Or rather, what is the process our brains engage in, that results in language? How is it that it becomes alive or dead in nature, high or low in content? And why is it that we are susceptible to being taken over by that language - like in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (subtitled The Modern Prometheus), that ever popular Sci-Fi theme of Technology overcoming it's Creators, of Robots going from serving people to enslaving their creators whom they once served. Language can be used to lift you on high, or drag you down into interior darkness. Language might best be looked upon, depending on it's relationship to your Mind, as either Prometheus’s Fire or a Frankenstein’s Monster. If your use of language descends from Prometheus, from high level concepts, it will energize & lift you up. On the other hand, if from Frankenstein, dominated by glitzier earthly level concepts, it may well dazzle you, for a time, but in the end turn and pursue you to the ruins of spirit and soul.
I think I’ve found a clue in “Ahh! Ah, ha-ha-....Aha!”. Everyone is familiar with the Aha! Affect to one degree or another, where seemingly out of the blue, an answer blazes into your mind after seeking after it for some period of time. IMHO, The Aha! Effect, is when a sudden integration of a large array of seemingly disconnected data, is integrated into one, bringing many into one related whole. The intensity of the Aha! Felt by the person experiencing it, is likely in proportion to the quests size and duration in both time and effort.
It dawned on me recently, that laughter is probably closely related to the Aha! effect, with a slightly different flavor. It too, is the sudden integration of two or more unlooked for data relations in a way that is seemingly contrary to logic and/or custom… until you receive that integrating bit of data in the punch line. Varying the degree that the items are normally thought to be unrelated, the unexpectedness, the suddenness, and the number of integrations made by the punch line, corresponds to the intensity of the laughter. It’s interesting (and painfully tedious!) to watch children learning to express a sense of humor. They do seem to get that the key to humor, is putting together things that don’t normally belong, but it takes a seemingly long while for them to realize that the punchline needs to make it look like the items are related, though unexpectedly.
What parent hasn’t had to endure a 5-7 year olds attempts at writing Knock-Knock Jokes(“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Petunia, Petunia who? Petunia scrambled eggs!AH-HA-HA-HAA!” it takes SO long for the child to progress to (“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Orange-ya glad I didn’t say Knock-Knock again?! AH-HA-HA-HAA!” and finally you can honestly chuckle along with them). It’s a process of integrating seemingly unrelated data in a way that provides a pleasant, unlooked for surprise at their being linked together.
Integration of data and concepts from the simplest to the highest levels of an hierarchy, is, I think, key to many of the mysteries of how the brain works, and of language itself, a process of integrating from the perceptual to the conceptual (low to high), under a label of words and phrases. If you make your integrations Vertically, then you get a progressively wider perspective , and understanding of life. If however if you go predominantly Horizontally, with only the most unavoidable Vertical Integrations, then it only makes life more complicated and confused – gone is your ability to maintain peace of mind amongst the storms of life.
Ahh... ha-ha-....Aha!
I've been thinking about how our minds do or don't work to make language come out of our mouths. Gagdad Bob over at One Cosmos, was noting how some people, usually elites (I might say those who are more reliant on the impression that their language makes upon others) often seem to succumb to their language, rather than mastering it - they are more people spoken by language, rather than people speaking language themselves. It's as if having memorized various quotes, terms, phrases and definitions, they lay in wait for any moment that could plausibly be deemed appropriate for pulling them out; as if all they’ll ever have to say was long ago stored in their memory like a series of pre-recorded statements, mental DJ’s waiting to play their intellectual Top 40 jingles. Then as they try to elaborate in conversation, their comments more often than not, are either of a low level conceptual nature, or so mistreat the high level concepts as to contort them into a lower level nature.
Surely we've all come across one of these pompous, affected characters before (perhaps even found our(my)self as one of them at times, saying something chiefly because it would go over well, whether or not it was well thought out - hmm?). Think of a character such as Voltaire's Pangloss or even Diane Chambers from the TV show "Cheers" - wanna-be Elites, consumed with all things Intellectual (sounding), always speaking stiltedly - like walking plagiarisms, they seem to contort their attention in order to selectively grasp at fragments of life around them for the sole purpose of ostentatiously displaying their horded, long dead, ideas for your admiration. They contrast poorly with those who instead seek to engage life and describe their experience of it as best they can with the appropriate language available to them, and while their vocabulary and allusions may or may not be lacking, their meaning is clear, lively and sparkling with insight & humor. People like H.L. Mencken, Irving Babbitt, Richard Mitchell, or Winston Churchill - they make language dance, sparkling and alive – and their language makes our own minds feel more alive at its touch between our ears.
Why is that? What is it we DO with language? What does language DO to us? Or rather, what is the process our brains engage in, that results in language? How is it that it becomes alive or dead in nature, high or low in content? And why is it that we are susceptible to being taken over by that language - like in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (subtitled The Modern Prometheus), that ever popular Sci-Fi theme of Technology overcoming it's Creators, of Robots going from serving people to enslaving their creators whom they once served. Language can be used to lift you on high, or drag you down into interior darkness. Language might best be looked upon, depending on it's relationship to your Mind, as either Prometheus’s Fire or a Frankenstein’s Monster. If your use of language descends from Prometheus, from high level concepts, it will energize & lift you up. On the other hand, if from Frankenstein, dominated by glitzier earthly level concepts, it may well dazzle you, for a time, but in the end turn and pursue you to the ruins of spirit and soul.
I think I’ve found a clue in “Ahh! Ah, ha-ha-....Aha!”. Everyone is familiar with the Aha! Affect to one degree or another, where seemingly out of the blue, an answer blazes into your mind after seeking after it for some period of time. IMHO, The Aha! Effect, is when a sudden integration of a large array of seemingly disconnected data, is integrated into one, bringing many into one related whole. The intensity of the Aha! Felt by the person experiencing it, is likely in proportion to the quests size and duration in both time and effort.
It dawned on me recently, that laughter is probably closely related to the Aha! effect, with a slightly different flavor. It too, is the sudden integration of two or more unlooked for data relations in a way that is seemingly contrary to logic and/or custom… until you receive that integrating bit of data in the punch line. Varying the degree that the items are normally thought to be unrelated, the unexpectedness, the suddenness, and the number of integrations made by the punch line, corresponds to the intensity of the laughter. It’s interesting (and painfully tedious!) to watch children learning to express a sense of humor. They do seem to get that the key to humor, is putting together things that don’t normally belong, but it takes a seemingly long while for them to realize that the punchline needs to make it look like the items are related, though unexpectedly.
What parent hasn’t had to endure a 5-7 year olds attempts at writing Knock-Knock Jokes(“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Petunia, Petunia who? Petunia scrambled eggs!AH-HA-HA-HAA!” it takes SO long for the child to progress to (“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Orange-ya glad I didn’t say Knock-Knock again?! AH-HA-HA-HAA!” and finally you can honestly chuckle along with them). It’s a process of integrating seemingly unrelated data in a way that provides a pleasant, unlooked for surprise at their being linked together.
Integration of data and concepts from the simplest to the highest levels of an hierarchy, is, I think, key to many of the mysteries of how the brain works, and of language itself, a process of integrating from the perceptual to the conceptual (low to high), under a label of words and phrases. If you make your integrations Vertically, then you get a progressively wider perspective , and understanding of life. If however if you go predominantly Horizontally, with only the most unavoidable Vertical Integrations, then it only makes life more complicated and confused – gone is your ability to maintain peace of mind amongst the storms of life.
What is a proper view of Man's Nature? Aha!
July 19
What is a proper view of Man's Nature?
Given the assumptions that Man is a being of self-made soul, is the Thucydidean view that civilization is only a thin veneer upon the savage nature of Man, easily scratched away by adversity, valid?
Is the enlightenment and Socratic view that Man is by nature good, and perfectible, if only he is exposed to rational education, valid?
Or is the view that Man is but a fickle opportunist, who with limited prognosticative abilities, puts upon the public nature he thinks will win him the most favor to come, valid?
Or the Religious view, that Man is fallen, and can never be improved, only forgiven and pitied, and must forever be enyolked to rigorous oversight by the clergy, valid?
The question is important, because we are investing our war-time strategy in a bet upon Democracy being able to bring a goodness inherent in Man, where he will be able to lift himself by his own bootstraps, and become civil, responsible members of civilization.
How much of Man's nature is fixed within him at an early age, if not at birth, and how much is it open to influence?
For myself, I think that it is something that in theory can be changed, but that it requires an astounding level of emotional impact (Wham!) to do it at all, and for it to last, that influence must be sustained over a significant length of time.
As we saw with 9/11, while an entire nation can be swayed and changed - for the vast majority of the population the effects will only last for a short time. Still, for those who felt the same level of impact - why were they changed for the long-term? The people who made massive changes to their nature & beliefs, came from all walks of life, actors, truck drivers, teachers, etc - as did those who were only momentarily moved, if at all.
So what theory can account for it? I think it may have to do with the gut reactions best expressed by “Ahh!... ah, ha-ha… Aha!”. I suppose I’ll have to elaborate on that some… more to come.
What is a proper view of Man's Nature?
Given the assumptions that Man is a being of self-made soul, is the Thucydidean view that civilization is only a thin veneer upon the savage nature of Man, easily scratched away by adversity, valid?
Is the enlightenment and Socratic view that Man is by nature good, and perfectible, if only he is exposed to rational education, valid?
Or is the view that Man is but a fickle opportunist, who with limited prognosticative abilities, puts upon the public nature he thinks will win him the most favor to come, valid?
Or the Religious view, that Man is fallen, and can never be improved, only forgiven and pitied, and must forever be enyolked to rigorous oversight by the clergy, valid?
The question is important, because we are investing our war-time strategy in a bet upon Democracy being able to bring a goodness inherent in Man, where he will be able to lift himself by his own bootstraps, and become civil, responsible members of civilization.
How much of Man's nature is fixed within him at an early age, if not at birth, and how much is it open to influence?
For myself, I think that it is something that in theory can be changed, but that it requires an astounding level of emotional impact (Wham!) to do it at all, and for it to last, that influence must be sustained over a significant length of time.
As we saw with 9/11, while an entire nation can be swayed and changed - for the vast majority of the population the effects will only last for a short time. Still, for those who felt the same level of impact - why were they changed for the long-term? The people who made massive changes to their nature & beliefs, came from all walks of life, actors, truck drivers, teachers, etc - as did those who were only momentarily moved, if at all.
So what theory can account for it? I think it may have to do with the gut reactions best expressed by “Ahh!... ah, ha-ha… Aha!”. I suppose I’ll have to elaborate on that some… more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)