|
Herd Defense
24.10.04
Like all other animal species that socially congregate the vast
majority of humans seek protection inside a group. Mixing into
the herd usually enhances near-term individual safety. People
don’t have stripes like Zebras to confuse predators by obscuring
individual targets and they don’t have the speed and size
advantages of small birds racing around in clusters; being at
the top of the food change alters the predator dynamic
considerably. The herd that protects the human drone is one of
common belief and orthodoxy. Adherence to the herd and its
values is actually a rational approach for self-defense, to
believe whatever it is that everyone else believes and to attack
heterodoxy with an emotional outburst as if the belief being
challenged was their very own person, their very own self being
challenged. This is also why the herd defends current myths so
vociferously, because they know that a challenge to their
beliefs means danger for the group and their own safety. Even a
small change could potentially be harmful for those unable to
adapt or defend themselves using their own abilities, and thus it
seems better to avoid all risks and just do what everyone else
does: to support the local team, to wave the national flag and
so on, even if it’s in blatant contradiction to all objective
reason or individual health.
By adopting group beliefs the members of the herd gain
self-security, and they need it because they lack the
intellectual faculties to defend themselves let alone to
objectively and independently assess the nature of events on
their own. This is why belief still exists even in the 21st
century and why irrational responses to heterodoxy are actually
rational, albeit flawed, approaches to self-preservation for members of the
herd.
When beliefs are challenged they will change when a critical
mass is reached but the time in between will likely be chaotic
as the herd is forced to decide which side to shift towards.
When moral correctness becomes defined as
obedience to the habit of social tradition then society is
locked on a rail line to ruin because it has lost any ability to
adapt to changing events and situations.
Knots & Threads
22.06.02 The search for and
exploitation of universal consistency is an
ancient one, regardless of whether it be real or
imagined. Buddha found it in the universality of
human suffering; although totally relative no one
would debate it's conceptual significance to
humanity. Christianity uses the universality of
the human soul, a fictional but popular thread
to be sure. But the oldest and longest lasting
"religion" of them all, the fertility
'cult' uses the undeniable universal element of
birth. Conversely, yet another undeniable element
of consistency is that of death which oddly
enough seems to evoke more concern, fear and
distress than birth, probably because it's unpredictable, something we can't control, and
worse yet can't stop! There's a constant in
life and the creation of more life. It is the
tautology I've written of before that life is
created to create more life and within that self-created
reason is the ultimate purpose and the only
purpose that can never be taken away.
This is not a new
thing but indeed is, obviously, as old as life
itself. It's interesting to note the timelessness
and consistency of the fertility goddesses
throughout human cultures and histories. These
goddesses, and sometimes gods, have another
interesting element in their amoral stance over
humanity. This is because creating more life has
no right or wrong associated with it, it 'just
is'. These aren't the mystical figures that stand
around and judge behavior, they just determine
who or what grows and who or what dies, the
typical capricious qualities of nature. The
fertility deities remain to this day, albeit
somewhat less literally within terms like
'mother Earth', and even has a revival of sorts in
Earth worship and radical
environmentalism.
Perhaps the most consistent thread
is simply the nature of humans as creatures of both habit and
imitation of what surrounds them.
A Collective Race To
The Bottom
24.05.02 Government and other
forces of social regulation have not just lost
the battle they've lost the flippin' war. The
most recent statistics in the UK show that
illegal recreational drugs, such as LSD and
Ecstasy, have plummeted in price with all evidence
pointing to increased supply as the culprit.
These drugs are about as affordable as alcohol
and cigarettes both of which are subject to
cyclical tax increases while the illegal party
drugs are not. All this despite
chronic government efforts to stem the tide, plus
even more vociferous public outcry and the trite
advertising campaigns against drug use.
As soon as the public picks up on
the message that one drug is bad, another one comes along that's
even more potent and they get hooked on it, and on the cycle
continues. Legal penalties and restricting supply; neither
effort works, it's all just chasing the wind because as long as
the public wants a drug induced high they will find a way even
if it means sniffing cheap solvents from the paint store. You
can't make glue and every other potentially abused substance
illegal and neither can government solve the drug problem
through penalties.
So, what else goes
with getting stoned and drunk? Sex of course! The Guardian ran a news article
on French kids, who not unlike most other
European kids, now get their sex education from
violent, hard-core pornography on TV or
rental movies. Just like the drugs it's a cheap,
effective and easily accessible thrill. But kids
are very impressionable and it doesn't take a
doctoral degree in psychology to figure out this
is bad news for everyone, especially if you're
female. Not surprisingly sexual violence is
rampant throughout urban France and
seeping into the quieter suburbs as well.
"Porn does not
recognise that the other person might have a
different urge to yours."
The common element
in both is male behavior; who's doing the
gang rapes? Who's buying, making, and doing most
of the drugs? Young, bored and unfocused males are
absolutely the worst enemy of peaceful, ordered
and stable society. Conversely if you want to
shake things up the target demographic is
testosterone. Historically, the only reliable way
to crack this conundrum has to been to implement
young marriages (or bloody wars), but I digress.
But why is this?
Basal human behavior enhanced by prurient media
culture all within a society replete with human
redundancy. By that I mean we have too many
people, too few jobs and too much time. These
people in sex and drug troubles aren't smart
people nor are they naturally productive people
without an authority force compelling them to otherwise.
When given the choice to take up a constructive
hobby or read a book they would rather smoke weed
and watch porn flicks at 2 am. Furthermore, even
fairly productive people that know better than
to kill brain cells at parties when placed
within a group that doesn't know any better, then
everyone is reduced to the lowest level; this is
simple group psychology.
You simply can't maintain a
prosperous country when a major
portion of the populace reaches this level of
dysfunction. Problems create more problems, crime
needs police, the homeless need housing, the drug
addicted need treatment, the sex offenders need
counseling, the felon needs a parole officer, etc.
The conclusion is palpable.
Amongst the interplay of competing forces, a
society has never headed to nowhere so fast.
We're more plagued by dissonant messages than any
ever before creating a directionless, aimless,
and unfocused mass of angst ridden egocentrics.
In the absence of
external pressures and focused cultural guidance
human behavior is reduced to its logical basal
functions. And since most human
endeavor is self-centered and ego-driven it
should not be surprising at all that rape, drug
abuse, petty crime, hedonism and similar 'anti-social'
modes of thought predominate. Metaphysically
speaking this is a reduction to solipsism, which is actually
quite rational within the fractured context of an atomized and
desensitized milieu, because the self is the only
reference point left. But this isn't a hopeless
tragedy, it's a brilliant opportunity because we
all have a common reference point, the most
crucial, constructive social element is staring
back at us and waiting patiently, it's a consensus!
But even though the
tools and knowledge are better than ever, every
single pre-existing institution tasked by law and
tradition to solve our collective problems
remains unable to do so. Representative democracy
has been turned into a sham, too busy trying to stay elected to solve
anything; it's all they can do just to put a
bandage on a hemorrhaging wound. Isn't it
laughable the sudden burst of enthusiasm by mainstream political left
and right to address illegal
immigration issues? Despite the consistent
background noise emanating from much of the
electorate, the politicians didn't give a damn
until it became obvious that if they didn't do
something they would get run out of office by the
right wing "extremists"!
In the meantime
while the institutions of Church, media and industry fiddle, portions of western society
are nearing the bottom, which necessitates starting anew from
scratch anyway.
Unhealthy
Competition
08.04.01 One of the
unintended social consequences of technology is
the epidemic of dangerous and 'stupid' behavior.
This is largely the result of technology creating
a sense of security combined with the lack of
consequences for foolish actions. Think of medical science
that can repair badly injured people through emergency
room surgery and life-saving 'miracle' technology.
People lose a fear of accidental death when they
know they can just be fixed up with ease.
Likewise with pain, the timeless contraindication
for foolish behavior has unfortunately become
dated. Painkillers and modern medical technology
has significantly reduced the presence of pain in
the lives of all but the most serious hospital
patient. This trend is nothing to ignore nor is
it something to praise just because the apparent
benefits have been trumpeted minus the insidious
effects. Furthermore the situation and the
negative behavior stands to increase as people
abuse what they see as a security net, a
guarantee of protection and freedom from pain. As
socio-biological equilibrium is
dissolved, technology assumes the role of offender
not defender.
Another example I
can think of is sports wherein nearly everything
today has been subsumed into this numerical,
legalistic labyrinth where play and competition
became irrelevant against winning and possessing
the superior numbers. Ancient Greek runners
competed not against the clock or pre-established
scores but against other runners; it was
not how fast one could run, a mile in 5:45, but
rather a win against competitor A, B, and C. Ours is a
deleterious trend: utilizing rank to magnify one and denigrate
another, negative conflict versus positive game-competition.
It's not inherently wrong to
categorize but it is wrong to elevate ranking to the point it
inflates one and denigrates another. And really I think this
problem is just carrying the typical viewpoint of a certain sex
to an unhealthy extreme. Here's a hint it starts with 'm' and
ends with 'male'. Yes the quantifying male run amok. It's
abusing numerical results to erroneously legitimize superiority,
everything from my computer speed versus yours, my golf score,
the price of my car, etc. It has reached the point of ranking
everyone and everything so that one must always be better than
the other who then is automatically considered to be of lower
value! Reality is simply not that way, for everything has its
purpose, improvements are always needed regardless of who it is,
and yeah some need it more than others, but this negative
competition and needless partisan and fratricidal divisiveness
is just social poison.
A uniform is a
prison for the mind of the individualist.
Wearing a uniform is like being in prison and
when one is forced to wear it, it is prison by
whatever name it's called. A uniform is
dehumanizing not magnifying unless you're
trifling to begin with, and many are. A few truly
wish to create their own niche and a define
unique identity separate from the group. Most
only seek assimilation to thereby gain the
incessantly advertised values, powers and
successes of the collective by proxy. They
sacrifice separateness to secure success. Or try
to anyway.
12.00 Impressions and
image are so critical to the success of any
public endeavor that, unfortunately, too often our
culture takes it to the extreme and just dumps
valid content in favor of the monophonic pop-image.
Everything ends up being completely hollow and
it's because people are attracted to the bright
lights and loud noises, but once they arrive they
find there's nothing there! The message turned
out to be, there is no message.
Ever been to Las Vegas?
Baudrillard And The
Destruction of Icons
01.11.00 Symbols formerly
enacted to represent the most holy and powerful
forces are now used to invoke the trite, common
and the weak. So I think that it's likely due to
the overflow of media images being funneled into
everyone's mind (that's 'plugged in' anyway);
symbols are being watered down so to speak; they
lose their luster, their power to invoke
reverence and obedience. People become jaded and
inured thus losing their ability to cooperate
within societies rigid rules.
But this is really just an
uncomfortable inevitability that occurs for the right reason.
Nihilism has validity because the symbols that represent our
present Order are based on lies and destructive myths anyhow.
As long as humans have been
sentient they've been making drawings and symbols, just look at
the oldest cave art (32-35,000 years ago in Ice Age Europe!) and
you get the idea. Humanity doesn't lose its feeling, they just
slowly realize that what they've been believing as fact for so
long is really just myth. The need for icons and symbols is
ingrained into the human psyche and will never be jaded out of
existence since it's an integral, biological need. The
population won't completely lose faith until they've discovered
new and sufficiently popular symbols to replace the outdated
ones. The only question that really matters is what new symbols
will replace the old?
The Myth Drug
All things to
nothingness descend,
Grow old and die and meet their end;
Man dies, iron
rusts, wood goes decayed,
Tower fall, walls crumble, roses fade....
Nor long shall any name resound.
Beyond the grave, unless 't be found
In some clerk's book; it is the pen
Given immortality to men.
-'Master Wace' Norman chronicler
16.10.00 Factual truth is important
but a mature realization recognizes that myth is probably more
important to humans. Groups aren't swayed by analysis and reason
but by myth, lies and emotional attachments, they see what they
want to see. Hence famous historical figures true lives are
eclipsed by the historical revisions, the collective myths and
the legends that spring up in their wake. Napoleon, Cleopatra or
Hitler for example, they all become things they never were and
never intended to be when recorded in our collective history. We
steal their names and reinvent their lives and machinations,
repackaging them into a popular version based on outlandish
exploits and fanciful deeds that didn't occur.
It's interesting how famous people
fade and discolor over time. Assuming pastel shades eventually
they lose all original characteristics and become gods and
demons. Hence the worship of ancestors, ancient men and women of
exploit and valor change into symbols of the collective
character. From Jesus to King David to Moses, only time gives
them mystical meaning, their actions grow and evolve into
mythical proportions. These important individuals make up
history, and we see now that history is really all myth, at
least in the collective mind. Or rather it is a duality, a
binary history, one of fact through archeology historical
studies and careful, painstaking research. The other is the one
of movies and songs, of stories and fairy tales. One appeals to
researchers and fact-seekers, the other to everyone else, the
uneducated and the boorish. They need heroes and villains,
knights and maidens, partly because they're incapable of serious
critical analysis but equally because they need role models and
icons to structure their chaotic lives.
From religion to
fairy tales our heroes and villains come from a
corrupted version of actual events. Truth becomes unimportant
when reality is viewed through the lens of mythology. The
myth-seeking masses will vehemently
reject any scientific attempt to put their 'gods'
into a humanist or rationalist perspective, for
once turned into icons to turn them back into
real men and women is blasphemous and
culturally upsetting.
How to Usher in the
New Year
06.12.99 Hey dudes and
dudettes I’m sure you’ll all soon
be partying like it was 1999 seeing how it is
1999! Right on. We all know next year’s
the new millennium and probably the apocalypse so
be sure to stock up on the hard-stuff for New
Years.
But even the best
plans can bomb, so what happens when your party
goes sour and you end up in a dull social
gathering? Not to worry compadre; when you really want to
liven up the partay try this little trick
– confidently proclaim: hey everybody the
Holocaust didn’t happen! I guarantee that
will really get the gang charged up, especially
the women!
Interestingly
everyone seems to unequivocally know exactly
which holocaust we speak of without any
elaboration, this despite the numerous events
throughout recent history which can be classified
as a genocidal mass-murder. From Cambodia to
Russia to Armenia to Iraq and Kosovo – (yes
the media did for a while call it a holocaust);
ethnically motivated mass-murder is nothing new,
but the Jews hold the copyright to the only event
that matters, apparently. Not only do people know
exactly what you mean, but they instantly respond
with a sharp tongue and offended spirit.
Why?
What is the need for
the hostility and invective? If the whole story
were a scientifically bulletproof concept then a
rational respondent would merely laugh and change
the subject just as if someone had stated ‘the
Earth is flat’. But they don’t do they?
Does this reaction sound like reasoned response
or religious knee-jerk, dinner-bell reaction? I
can think of no other issue that has the push
button power that the Holocaust issue has.
To me it’s a truly
remarkable thing, a real taboo in a culture that
prides itself on being jaded and impossible to
shock! Which just goes to show that Joe and Jane-six-pac
are hypocrites, they respond exactly as the
ambient culture (mostly defined by TV) tells them
to react. If gangbanging is cool, fine, and if
homophobia is wrong, ok too. And if they see a
pile of emaciated bodies in front of a bulldozer
and an ominous narration telling them they were
Jews killed by Fascist monsters, well it must be
true. People seem to believe that pictures can’t
lie because they're simplistically influenced by
the shocking imagery they see and not with the
motives of the proponent, and even less with the actual context
of the event.
Here’s a simple
example (by the way the photo’s a personal
fave):
|
Unarmed
Timorese student cowers after being
arrested by Australian invasion forces.
|
|
Radical
Timorese terrorist subdued by Australian
peacekeeper.
|
Now unless you were
actually there you can’t deny the legitimacy
of either caption. So, just because we see lots of
pictures of dead bodies doesn’t tell us the
whole story, why the people are dead, who they
were or what they did or didn’t do before
they were dead; just like the Timorese guy with
his hands behind his back. For all you or I know
he could have just thrown a grenade into a
schoolyard. The WWII Germans had a lot of
different people in concentration camps, POW’s,
criminals, spies, terrorists, rapists - not just
Jews. But isn’t it interesting that we so rarely hear about the other ones in the cruel
captivity of the German war machine? And isn’t
it convenient how Jewish interests have managed
to milk the German treasury for billions, the
Swiss banks, the Dutch, the Swedes and every west
European nation for billions more in ‘reparations’
and ‘stolen property’? Indeed the
Holocaust continues to be a highly profitable
enterprise for Israel and Jews everywhere. What kind of sickos would try so hard to make
money exploiting such an astounding tragedy? Alas we aren’t
supposed to ask such questions, we’re supposed to instantly
respond with fear, hatred and revulsion at the mere thought of
Holocaust denial.
Keep it up and be sure to open your
wallet wide when the next 80 year old Jewess comes to town to
tell of her tortures and miraculous escape from the
blood-stained German fiends.
Collective Crimes
01.11.99 Cops become black
and white thinkers in a world of good versus evil.
By the logic in this world the cops are good
because they beat-up the bad guys. But criminals (like
most people) become what society expects them to
become, in this case evil. In fact society needs
criminals just like Christianity needs the Devil and if all the crooks were eliminated, somehow,
soon the definition of bad would trickle upwards into new
sectors of society; criminality changes to fit the new society
like a melting iceberg calving apart. Witch trials anyone?
The Salem witch trials are a good
example of this phenomenon. Puritanical society had a nearly
non-existent crime rate (certainly by modern standards) but they
led difficult, subsistence lives in a very strict and conformist
culture. Creating criminals allowed the stresses of life to be
vented in a specific, 'appropriate' outlet. I don't think the
witch trials were a conspiracy, just an inevitable psychological
reaction.
Much of popular
thought on crime is complete myth and it seems
surprising that common belief centers so
prominently on the myth that police somehow
prevent criminal acts. While it may be true that
crimes are less likely to be perpetrated right
in front of a cop; police do not stop crime,
and in fact they legally can't presume guilt
where none is shown to exist! They can only react
to a crime and attempt to capture and send to
trial the guilty party. Even if you know someone
is going to commit a crime and you tell the
authorities, the police cannot arrest until the
person actually does it, leading to the classic
criminal conundrum.
Crime doesn't really
disappear it just moves, which is why it wouldn't
change the overall crime rate even if it was
possible to put a cop on every corner. Most
crimes are committed in poor sections of the city
and against young males, but the areas that get
the most security patrolling, like the retirement
fortresses, are the least likely to be involved in
crime. Retirees have little reason to steal, kill or commit
other crimes, but those in the destitute neighborhoods
have plenty of reasons to do such thing: food, clothing, drugs,
unemployment, social status, and so on. Thus, logically the
poor neighborhoods should have all the police
protection and not the rich parts. This just
demonstrates that police serve as an
insurance policy for plutocrats and aristocrats.
Police uphold laws designed to protect property,
possessions and wealth and if you're a person who
has none of those things, the police are probably
not going to do you much good. And in fact a cop
would probably view such a person as a potential
criminal because you immediately have motive for
theft of property. So maybe one definition of
a criminal is any poor and destitute individual.
That certainly defines most of the people in your
county jail.
Since no matter how
utopian the motives of any society may be poor
people will always be around, it's
logical then that criminals will always be around too.
Crime is one of those social problems that is at
best minimized and never eliminated. So, if crime can't be
eliminated it must at least be mitigated; but how to
do that? Society has ways and most involve simply
stealing the life-time of the guilty. And in
fairness many, if not most career criminals, are
not capable of being rehabilitated or turned
into productive members of society. This all
leads back to the problem of assuming individuals
can be something other than what they are. Indeed
the information-age society really has no place
for these people anyway, crime is often the only
option these people have. Fundamentally,
punishment boils down to either living with crime
or completely removing such elements from society.
But criminology
rarely reaches that sober point in analysis
anymore. Locking 'em up is a temporary solution if it can be
defined as a solution at all; corporate interests certainly love
the profitable prison and security business. The most
troublesome problems arise from the fact that this reasoning has
been applied to civilizations throughout mythological and moral
history. What happens when everyone is a criminal? What happens
when evil is institutionalized? Or what happens when no one is a
criminal, when nothing is illegal? Is that possible? I tend to
think not, because human psychology favors a hierarchy, 'I'm
better than you are', and this translates into groups of ‘I
have’ and ‘I don’t have’, the good and bad. But
for the moment, imagining a place where such a
concept existed may bring us closer to some real
answers.
The Biblical
parallel would be Soddom with its in inhabitants
of sodomists, and the neighboring city of Gomorrah. Their evil
brought God's wrath upon them, burning both towns to the ground
along with the amoral citizenry. "Then the Lord rained
down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from
the Lord out of the heavens." Genesis 19:24 NIV*
God sought good people residing in the twin
cities and a reason to spare them, but none was
found, except for Lot and his family.
Likewise Nineveh was
a similar case although not with the same
dramatic ending. Nineveh was a city of sin (not
unlike Las Vegas) that Jonah was tasked with
saving by none other than God himself. Jonah
hated the town and all its rotten inhabitants so
he figured, why waste my breath on them? They
deserve God's destruction. Nonetheless, Jonah was eventually
convinced by certain heavenly powers to save the
town.
The ancient Greeks
believed in hubris, that humanities self-confidence
and arrogance would bring about their self-destruction,
usually due to godly retribution or their own
foolishness. When the humans got out of line the
gods felt compelled to intervene and shoot some
plague or a little bit of natural disaster in the
direction of Greece.
Both examples
demonstrate a fundamental human idea, that
morality is something that's not relativistic but
tangible, absolute and quantitative. Since
morality is definable then good and evil exist
and punishment is inevitable for wrongdoing. This
same thinking is what compels human authorities
to punish their own wrong doers. It's out of
inbred fear that if evil is not stopped it will
destroy us all! If crime is not punished it will
cause our entire civilization to become corrupt
and send divine retribution our way, wiping us
all out both good and evil with fire and
brimstone. That bum on the street corner is the
beginning of the end for our way of life if he
isn't locked up.
This reasoning seems ludicrous to a
modern rationalist but it's what makes our civilization tick,
just like every other superstitious one before it. Indeed most
people realize this and it has turned the criminal justice
system into a hollow, hypocritical institution. We punish but we
don't know why, but we know it doesn't do any good, but we keep
on doing it because it must be better than doing nothing.
Has any proof ever been verified
that prison is a crime deterrent? Or is it that it just gives
incentive for criminals to avoid getting caught? I would posit
that prisons are an anti-deterrent. Anyone who spends any time
in a state prison comes out more hardened and less able to
function and survive in traditional society. It's total
hypocrisy; the punishment only makes crime and criminals worse.
It's not founded on
rational thought but on a superstitious sense of
divine authority and a subconscious link between
forces we cannot control, such as death, weather
and disease and godly retributions. Not
surprisingly, Christians and other religious
people are some of the most ardent supporters for
stiffer penalties and stronger police authority.
***
*Yes Lord
is stated twice in one sentence just as I printed
it, which amply demonstrates the difficulty with
reading the Bible and a criticism I rarely hear
but is nonetheless quite evident, that being that grammar in the
Bible is atrocious to the point where one is reading nothing but
strings of syntax errors. How many translators and this is the
best that has been produced? Come on, and the King James Version
is even worse.
Many for the One
19.09.99 Why does our society
expend the resources to rescue a single
individual caught in a disaster or an accident?
Just think about the cost associated with the
massive system we maintain that serves no other
purpose than to save people from their own
stupidity and incompetence in many cases. A local fool tries to
drive his car through a flash flooded arroyo and
gets stuck, uh oh, better call in the National Guard and every
paramedic unit from here to god knows where, his life is in
danger! Another fool has gotten lost in the national
forest and didn't bring any food, water, compass
or cold weather clothing and now the sun is going
down and they can’t be found! Call out the rescue
team, the helicopters and every cop for three
counties over. They must be saved at all costs to
the taxpayer!
From any economic
perspective this entire system is totally
ludicrous and unnecessary. Not only is it the
cost associated with maintaining fire, paramedics
units, rescue personnel, but they must be
trained, and equipped as well. Oh but that’s
such a ‘heartless’ viewpoint, but guess
who foots the bill for a rescue operation: Joe-6-pak
the taxpayer that's who, yeah I’m talking
about YOU pal. And besides that having a system of
instantaneous rescues only promotes poor planning and stupid
behavior, after all why bother to be careful if the hordes of
police and paramedics will always be right there to help you for
free?
The entire moral
concept is flawed because except in very rare
cases no single life is worth the expenditure of
time effort and money put into a rescue operation.
It used to, be back say 100 years ago, if you did
something dangerously foolish, like get lost in
a desert or get stuck climbing a mountain without
any prior experience, then you would, gasp - DIE.
No mountain rescue teams with dogs and aircraft
searches, no paramedics to resuscitate you or med-flight
you to the nearest intensive care unit; a person
either knew how to survive in the natural world
or they didn’t venture out there at all
without a competent guide and proper supplies.
This is just common sense but evidently common
sense is just not needed anymore.
Going back even
farther, from a historical perspective, it actually
was worth the effort to try and rescue
people in danger. When every man woman and child
in the clan was needed for survival it was a
different story. But that simply isn’t the
case at all in our modern, overcrowded and
overprotected society. It seems like our culture
is operating on the old rule book but the game
has changed radically.
Maybe it’s time
we upgraded the user's manual.
Stimulus - Response
31.10.98 Generally I spend
far too much time trying to figure out the
irrationalities of human nature but in my
defense its hard to ignore something so pervasive
and simultaneously offensive. Still it really
isn't that complicated; it all distills down to
two rules:
1. ’Don’t
make waves’
2. ’Follow the
Leader’
Why do they do such
stupid things, fads and pop conduct? Well it’s
because somebody more important did it before
them and they don’t want to draw unnecessary
attention to themselves by not doing it,
and at the same time they want to follow the
leader.
This leads me into a related
interest - religion. Our society has a very narrow definition of
religion, limiting it to the boundaries of an official
organization. However the word ‘superstition’ doesn’t have the
restrictions of ‘religion’ but it covers the same meaning. So I
guess I should refer to religion as superstition but I digress.
One of the most popular
contemporary religions is Political Correctness. This belief-set
may seem especially ludicrous given the level of empirical
knowledge our society now possesses but its intent is certainly
no less pernicious than Christianity's. A debate is brewing
over PC and its aversion to open dialogue and
criticism. It seems that PC just isn't very
survivable outside a University campus, and this
leads to a very important point: criticism is
the arch-nemesis of all religion. In defense against criticism, religion (in other words
organized superstition) seeks to control a system
in totality; it wants not just the church but
the legal system, the government and the
leadership too. So just like during the dark ages in
Europe when they put swarms of bees and dogs on
trial, PC is doing the same thing, first by
totally dominating the faculty and students on
campus and eventually reaching out into larger
portions of society. But how does it spread when
it's so ridiculous? Just reference back to
the two rules of human nature! Most people avoid standing out by
following the leader.
The immunity to
criticism is so critical to religion that this
structure called the church was developed in lieu
of that total control of society that religion
needs to fully function. The church is an island
of refuge for the adherents to hide from the
dangers of criticism and truthful allegations.
Sometimes this church becomes so isolated that
the adherents never even leave. This is one way
of achieving that total control I described
earlier. Usually when this occurs we refer to it
as a ‘cult’, and send in the government
to burn down their housing compounds.
Digital
insignificance
Worldwide structural homogeneity is
a modern reality not unexpected, just improperly predicted.
Common economy has, and is, driving individual political
systems into greater global cohesion, and inevitability a true
structure of confederation. The revolution isn’t
top to bottom authoritarian dictatorship rather it's an
aggregation from bottom up. We see that gradually
the barriers to commonality, such as cultural and
nationalistic mores, become subjugated to pop-culture
and rapid, mass-communications. The group
interest is no longer localized, it's globalized!
Now we have the same political, economic, and cultural template
for everyone - just change the details to suit your
neighborhood, a global direct marketing program! For instance, language is no
longer a serious barrier since mass-communications
are generally symbolic anyhow and also English is
nearly universal thanks to Pax Britannica
uber alles .
Even thought
patterns adjust to suit the new system: act and
forget, live in the now, symbolic reasoning
through phantasmagoric imagery and sounds -
reduction to impulse and emotion, life like a movie. The distilled
substance left is a true herd-group as democratic
as they're controlled. Problems
simply become to daunting and remote to deal with
(it’s never a local problem so why
care?) so we simply hand them off to our "leaders"
who put on a performance and hope everything
works out in the end.
New sociological
realms will be a fundamental component of the 21st
century. How will group-think function on a
global scale? Who runs the group: the leader-actors
or the masses? It could be a chaotic feedback
mechanism. Insignificance reaches new heights in
our new world of digital purpose, the volume of
inertia simply becomes unstoppable and
unmanageable, and what then? 25.06.97
|
