Mind-programming in the Information Age

Recently in the news, there was a small story about the death of two people during a ‘spiritual retreat’ in Arizona. In case you missed it, basically two people died in this ‘sweat lodge’, and several others were injured. They said that the people were not forced to stay in the sweat lodge if they were feeling physically strained, they were only highly encouraged.
This story got me thinking about how easily the human mind is programmed. After watching an interview with a survivor, I’m convinced that the leaders of the retreat were using psychological control to keep people inside. The question lies at the line between psychological influence and psychological control. How much influence must you have over someone before you are controlling them? Maybe any at all? Regardless, it got me thinking about other situations and existing institutions that use this same type of influence, whether it be negative, such as psychological intimidation, or positive, what you might call motivation. Either way, it’s never healthy. It says something very strong about human psychology. That being, why in the hell are we so gullible? Being a species that passes information from one generation to the next requires that we be gullible to certain extent. Richard Dawkins described this very phenomenon with an evolutionary justification. He proposed in The God Delusion that the reason the human mind is so gullible is because it is necessary for survival in society. To sum up the natural selection of it, children who always listen to their parents learn more about how to survive than children who question everything and need to test everything for themselves (i.e. my mother told me that you should not walk off the side of a cliff, but I need to test it for myself—leads to a dead child). In other words, Dawkins says that maybe we’ve been through a long process of natural selection already where the psychology being selected favors gullibility. Unfortunately, it seems to have set us up to be somewhat overly gullible (has it not?), because our bullshit meters have become so shoddy that we can no longer distinguish when we’re having a ‘spiritual experience’ (which is another topic to be dealt with in itself) from when our very lives are in danger. Dawkins proposes that this be the explanation for why the masses are so gullible to religion and god concepts, because people who listen to everything survive better. If this is the case, what sort of natural selection is going on now? I think it’s a great misfortune, for example, that the public education system in this country seems more inclined to hand-feed children facts than to teach them how to think—because it only perpetuates the ease of programming minds. This is the ‘information age’. Now what we’re going to start needing to survive is a better information filter. For instance, if I tell you that you should go and try jumping off a bridge, well, you know… But to a deeper extent. Obviously foresight is bullshit, but it’s my best guess for what sort of natural selection might be going on. What bullshit can you find in your life?

Our Mortality

Every so often in our lives, we experience moments of clarity which, despite our lack of desire for them, can not ever, ever, be taken back. Amazingly, these brief, but intense moments can, if we acknowledge them, change the course of our lives. Sometimes interpretation can take time. My parents came to visit me at my college apartment this weekend. My dad stopped me in the middle of cooking to show me that our hands are shaped the same. It was so surprising, I didn't know what to say. I've always thought of myself as taking after my mom, but was forced to agree that our hands look the same. I'm not exactly sure why it was so shocking... I can only say that it was one of those moments that makes you stumble, and reevaluate the ideas about life you take for granted. What is it that makes these moments so simultaneously ephemeral and eternal? They've reminded me of my own mortality and power over my life. What makes these moments meld with my consciousness and in my memory so vividly remains something to be discovered.

Tryin ta break down these walls
But somethin in our 'culture' calls
So deep back in ya mind
This shit's never goin ta unwind
Till we can all step back from these rites and mores
Not just with our skins but fully, with our cores

And see the only truth written here--
our only chance for cure:
That pride only serves to divide.

Demagogues of Christianity

I’ve always been a calm and pacifist breed of atheist, which most people who know me, already know. I have issues with strongly religious people, and on occasion, I might begin a philosophical debate with the religious people that I feel I know well, and I ask challenging questions of their beliefs, maybe in the hopes that someday I might just cause a single person to see why I think they’re wrong; and if not that, to at least try and understand myself what they’re thinking and why. (I say “in hopes” because the conversation usually tends to leave both parties even more strongly adherent to their original position). Last night I watched the documentary “Jesus Camp”. Anyone who has seen this film should understand me when I say that the people portrayed in it must be clinically insane. Even in my most severe atheist anger, I’ve always been highly tolerant of the quasi-religious and individuals whose beliefs don’t fall into extreme categories (which could be considered an oxymoron in itself…). Anyone who has yet to see this documentary, I would highly recommend it; however, I would also recommend that you watch with an open mind, and don’t even bother trying to delude yourself about what’s going on. What this film made me realize is that I’m no longer comfortable ‘keeping my mouth shut’ about religious extremism and even religiousness at all. The film focuses on evangelical Christians who essentially turn their children into Jesus robots. What disgusted me the most was how delusional the children are, and the parents think they’re doing their kids the greatest honor in training them to be fanatical! The ignorance literally made me feel like vomiting. The youth minister, Becky Fischer, that the film follows, talks about how Muslims are training their youth to give their lives to god, and that Christians have a moral obligation to train their youth in the same way; even going so far as to claim that they have a stronger duty because “[Christians] have the truth”. What ever happened to Christian pacifism? (Oh yea, it never existed in the first place…) They train the kids at camp that the U.S. government is corrupt and degenerate because it is “no longer” (yes, they actually believe it once was) based on Judeo-Christian values and dogma. The children are taught that they have a moral obligation to bring America “back to Jesus”, and are brainwashed until they are willing to defend these beliefs violently. They are taught that “science doesn’t prove anything” and that a third of their would-have-been friends are not here because they were aborted.Just as I was beginning to feel simultaneously physically ill and angry (for several reasons), the youth minister made a comment that there must be “liberals [who] are just shaking in their boots when they see us”. Instinctually, I was feeling defensive, and I must admit, scared and even traumatized. But it made me see something more: if we fight back in rage and anger, we’re no different than they are. Atheists are supposed to be the group representing reason and level-headedness, we don’t let emotions or prejudice control our actions. I know some theists that practice this to some extent as well, and this I respect immensely. Those who disagree with what is presented in this film must stand against fundamentalists and extremists with a clear mind and rationalism behind them. Those who are religious for emotional reasons or because ‘if god is real, I don’t want to go to hell…’ must see reason as well. Reevaluate what you’re standing for and why. As Richard Dawkins so cogently argued, “creationism [and extremism] are only a symptom of the problem [for atheists and rationalists]; the real battle is between superstition and rationalism”. It’s one thing to lead a moral life (which is not necessarily religious at all), it’s another to be willing to die for dogma or to look forward to apocalypse. The greatest moral fallacy of all is to devalue what you have because there may or may not be something ‘better’ waiting for you; something ‘better’ that you have no ‘proof’ of at all. I’d like to ask these people, “what does religion prove”???

Bush will be the face of torture, but also the epitome of a great technique

Since we (the public) found out that the U.S. was torturing prisoners suspected of involvement in terrorist acts, I’ve seen a variety of reactions from various groups. I think we’ve all probably noticed them, so that should be obvious. I must say, though, that I have been surprised by how wide the range of reactions has been…what could I be talking about? Hmmmm… I’ve noticed select groups behaving in an almost defensive manner, which I find very interesting. I’m not going to go into detail here about who, but I would like to pick apart the argument a bit, if only for my own amusement. One such argument is that even though we were torturing people, and even though it was wrong, that the government shouldn’t have released that information to the public. The argument is that releasing the information to the public is bad for the ‘public image’ of the government. I’m sorry, but I seem to have missed something here… Participatory Democracy, anyone??? What? What? Some would also argue that torture was justified, given the circumstances. We ‘needed’ information that these people had, right? Aside from the widely discrepant views on the accuracy of information acquired from torture victims due to the extreme emotional and mental stresses being suffered by said victims, the way that these specific people talk about torture seems shockingly cavalier, even from the perspective of a grossly overindulgent vulgarian undergraduate… Do we even remember what torture is? Just to be sure…

torture (dictionary.com)
-noun:
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

Excruciating pain? Doesn’t really sound like much of a picnic to me; at very least colossally worse than what it sounds when these ‘people’ talk about it… where did these people come from, anyways? I could go on forever, but I would prefer at this time to make my point to the discussed groups, as well as select others: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil doesn’t mean there is no evil. Pretending something isn’t there doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Reality is reality, whether you see it or not. Point being, I find these groups of ‘people’, and their arguments, to be very obnoxious and highly obtuse.

On a somewhat lighter note, I feel a certain amount of elation at the fact that we have admitted, and released to the public, that the U.S. has tortured, and that further investigations are under way. The reason I am glad is because, as we all know, the first step in changing yourself (or your family, community, country, etc.) is admitting there is a problem and then seriously addressing the problem. I feel genuinely pleased with Obama’s performance thus far, and he’s done more things I support in 2 months than our former president managed to do in eight long, excruciating years. Wait… excruciating pain from our inarguably infamous former president while we watch his boneheaded actions; the resulting stress leading to severe nail-biting, a feeling of overall desperation and dismay? Sounds like excruciating pain to me…and prolonged as well. Could we be victims of torture?!?! Well, if we were, at least now it feels like we’re entering a period of convalescence.

The Conundrum that is Life

My thoughts at the moment are about how we are shaped, almost molded, into the people we become. I often wonder about how different a person I could be, if circumstance had led me to it. Mostly these questions pertain to the broader question about nature v. nurture, that sort of thing. But if we really dig, sometimes what we see isn't what we would have liked. As much as it scares me, I feel I've spent most of my life with my mind virtually wholly embedded in illusions. My ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, etc. They all came from somewhere... be it anywhere in my environment. The funny thing is, I spent years trying to define myself as something separate from anything mainstream; what I failed to see for a long time, and I think most of us do, is that even the simple act of trying to stray from the pack indirectly defines you as part of yet another group. I would have been happy to evade societal labels all my life, except that I suddenly wondered-- if we run away for the sake of running away, is it still worth something? And what?

Maybe I'm opening up Pandora's infamous box for myself, but I feel this pressing urge to know. And if I can't know, be it whatever force of the universe trying to trick me, then at least to pursue the knowledge. I know I'm not the first.

At this point in time, I'm not sure how much worth exactly my life has...maybe yes, to specific individuals, but within the terms of space, and time, and the universe at large, and whatever else there is that we don't even know about, I have no clue how to assign any sort of currency to something like a single human life--regardless of who and what role they play within their community/country/ global society.

Which brings me back to my first question--if we had, as individuals, turned out to be polar opposites (if you can even imagine it) of what we are today, would it really matter? Once again, I can see some immediate, but probably, on a universal scale, trivial differences. We might have different relationships, lead different lives. How much does it really matter?

I'd like to think someday, I'll wake up in something mildly resembling the plot of The Matrix. However, I have some feeling...that if any sort of what we might consider 'enlightenment' were to take place, the truth might be something way freakier than anything we could imagine, or plot a movie from. In addition, as much as I would like to think this could happen, it's also this sort of blind belief that really drives me insane about the human race. So, I've managed to contradict myself. But, I'll take a wild guess that it matters not to anyone, and post it anyways.

My closing thought is that in all I know, I think there's a good chance I may know nothing. And I think the same of you as well.

Enigmatic Leader, or Cowardly Bully? : The truth about Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh. Call him what you want. He goes by many titles these days…. Unofficial face of the Republican party, Michael Steele’s probable cause of headache, conservative visionary, liberal archenemy…like I said, lots of things these days. Even to liberals, he’s something, cos everyone’s talking about him. Even me! Haha…
Really though, this guy is emerging as something. It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t quite find the word. Personally, I think it’s more along the lines of emerging as a schmuck than any form of(or even slightly resembling, for that matter) leader. The first point I want to make is just the general schmuck sort of nature of this guy. All he does all day is sit around and criticize anyone he can. And then when he does something wrong or just generally shitty in character, right away he expects an apology!? Like he’s a friggin’ god? It’s like everyone who criticizes him has to apologize, but when he criticizes, that’s just alright. And when he does criticize, it often crosses the line from pure criticism to utter insult. For example, saying Michael J. Fox was ‘exaggerating’ the effects of Parkinson’s disease. I mean honestly, if you can’t find a real reason to criticize someone, you think reaching like that is going to make you popular? Ultimately, it was just a low blow and I think portrays well the true character of the Limbaugh. To go on, for a second point, he’s just not so smart. As Jon Stewart and then dozens of others rightfully pointed out, he misquoted the constitution at CPAC. He confused something from the Declaration of Independence with the constitution. And hey, that’s not so bad, anyone could do that. Except that if you’re speaking at a convention about it, you might just want to do some quick fact-checking. Just so you might not end up looking like an idiot. What I really want to point out though, is how much this guy and his message are in such discordance with American fundamentals. First off, just look at this guy. He appears to be physically, mentally, and emotionally unhealthy. But hey, there’s a lot of people fitting that description around. But anyone who would see him as a leader probably has some serious issues of their own. He also apparently lacks any sense of personal well-being or even survival, according to his declaration that he “hope[s] Obama fails”. I’m sorry, Mr. Limbaugh, but you make no sense. If Obama fails, according to your ideology, you, along with the rest of the U.S. population, would be killed by terrorists; but before you found death, you might get the chance to live on the streets, and maybe even starve to death before the terrorists kill you, because of a tanking economy.
What I would like to say before closure is that I’m not saying Rush Limbaugh is a loser because he criticizes people, or because he criticizes Obama and liberals, etc. I personally feel that dissent can be an important form of patriotism and citizenship. However, criticism for the sake of criticism is not. Because Rush chooses to take cheap shots at people, and because he criticizes people for standing up for their ideals (Obama) or for something out of their control (Fox), is what makes him scum. If Rush wants to criticize those in power for carrying out action based on their principles, then he is a hypocrite. The truth is he has no basis for his criticism; he is nothing but an overgrown bully, pushing others around because he’s too afraid to admit that he’s got problems of his own. So, congrats, Rush. On being the new, unofficial leader of the Republican party, and an incredibly egocentric tyrant. And to his Republican followers, I would like to remind you of 2 things: 1-(as some of you felt the need to remind liberals leading up to election 2008), remember that ‘Hitler was a good public speaker, too’; and 2-I’m sure that someone with talent and vision such as Limbaugh’s will surely help boost the popularity of your party for the 2012 election. Just keep telling yourself that…. To everyone else, good day.

Lessons we ignore from the bible and religion, Part II (Origins of a Beloved, but Taken Wildly Out of Context, Story, Installment II)

As I think back to my days as a young child, there’s something funny there. I remember playing the game of ‘telephone’ at my catholic preschool (at the time, there was no public alternative). I remember that the lesson or ‘moral’ of the game was that when you say something, and everyone says it to someone else, etc., as the story goes down the chain, it changes, and in the end, it is far from resemblance to your original message. Then they began trying to brainwash us all into believing the bible. What???? Obviously at the time it didn’t register for me, but it amuses me to think back that some of the lessons taught were so contradictory. The first lesson was to be careful what you believe, that sort of thing. The second was that there’s this person, or whatever, called God, and he made the earth, and everything, and then Adam and Eve spawned all of humanity in a garden with a poison apple and talking snakes; and then there’s something about this guy Jesus, and he rose from the dead. I don’t claim to be a genius, but you can’t deny there’s some sort of disconnect here.
The only part that the catholic church, and every other religious institution, forgot to teach everyone was how to connect the dots; how to see the facts at face value. Because it’s not about God, or creation, or salvation or damnation, it’s about control. Because as soon as those men wrote that killer Twilight series, they realized that-- even if it was indirect-- they had spawned with it tremendous power. And the right thing to do would have been to say, ‘hey, it wasn’t supposed to be that way’. But instead, for the sake of their own rewards and pleasures and powers, they didn’t.
In the modern world, religion has taken on an even more twisted pretense. It warps the minds of otherwise rational and intelligent people. The true crime that I see is the wasted power of man without the illusion. Friedrich Nietzsche said that “hope in reality is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs the torments of man”. I must admit that I concede. I am free from the illusions of god and religion, and the truth is that I am content with it. I have learned to live the mystery of life, and accept what I do not have answers for. If we as people can learn to overcome our own individual fears in life and in death, then we have no need for religion. God and religion represent comfort for people, and that is what holds them to it. If these people could only see that they don’t need god, that they are the primary holder of power within their own lives, maybe they could be free. We aren’t kids anymore. We’re adults now. And I don’t think I’m alone in saying this: we ALL need to start acting like adults, and cut the shit.

Origins of a Beloved, but Taken Wildly Out of Context, Story

Note: you can interpret the following however you so choose; be it fact or fiction, because, unlike a religious institution, I am not going to try and force you to accept a mere [wo]man’s thoughts as truth, and more…
My thoughts are that the origins of the bible as a factual book seem pretty sketchy. Basically, what we know is that some guys a few decades after some guy who maybe existed decided to write up some stories about said guy. The stories through oration become very popular, especially among kids and teens. The men who came up with the stories decide to bury them. Some other guys dig them up a few hundred years later and decide they’re so great they’re going to publish an anthology. Somehow something here got really f*#$ed up, and people started interpreting it as truth.
Ok, so here’s my modern-day version of the story. There’s this story called Huckleberry Finn, about this boy, and it’s nothing really extraordinary, but it’s adventurous and well-recieved. It’s really popular among young people for a long time. But after a while, society changes so drastically that it just doesn’t seem relevant to kids anymore, and it’s ‘boring’, and so the popularity of the story is on the decline. A few decades later, though, some kids happen to come across the story and the gap between the story’s society and their own lives has grown enough that it’s something that, instead of discouraging the kids, becomes almost interesting. Like an engaging history lesson. So this author decides they are going to pick up the story and totally revamp it and make some dough, man! How could you go wrong exploiting to the maximum a story that already exists just by tweaking a few points? So here comes Harry Potter, and it pretty much explodes in popularity. But people don’t care about Huck Finn anymore, cos now there’s something better out there. No one notices that Huck Finn has been transformed from this pretty much average kid into a superhuman, or at least they don’t consciously see that there’s anything wrong with it. And there really isn’t. Except that a couple years later, another author decides to write a new series, and it’s drastically different—and it’s the same character, just transformed again—but again, nothing really wrong with it. And this time the series is called Twilight, and masses of teens start what very closely resembles a cult following of the series. And girls start dumping their boyfriends because they aren’t enough like ‘Edward’. Edward, as in a fictional character. But somehow, the original message got lost. Convoluted beyond recognition. And this cult following was the beginning of what we now recognize as Christianity. Pretty warped? Tell me about it…

To be continued...