Conservatives "cling to their guns and god" and Liberals cling to their "good will" and government
The further a culture moves from its religion the closer it moves to its government. Humans have a need for the illusion of empowerment and a grand scheme beyond their own lives. With religion humans get the comfort that there is something watching over them giving their lives meaning. It gives them a grand epic to be a part of; everyone working for the end judgment whatever form that judgment takes. After they lose their faith in the fairytale they look to more humanistic forms of empowerment, the idea that the people in charge are in control and can save us from ourselves and all other forces in the world, whether that force be the evil Republicans that are destroying our nations benignness or the global warming that the Republicans caused. Both are reflexive reactions to the feeling of loss of control. Neither demon can be struck down by the will of the people, of course.
The empowerment of the lower levels of society is always dangerous to those at the top of society. Winners want to keep on winning. The lower levels of society win by gaining what the top of society had monopolies on. The previous winners, those on top, begin to lose. Those who begin losing tend to continue losing as they attempt to grasp at what was previously theirs. This eventually leads to social upheaval. The top of society prevents this from occurring by two methods. The first is by ensuring those at the lower levels are without and devote their lives solely on attempting to get by. The second is by causing the lower levels to rely on the top for support and thereby. They will only give enough for basic subsistence, but once this system is established the lower levels rely on the established social structure for their daily bread, and will in fact fight to keep this system in place.
Giving is a method of control. It is a display of dominance that keeps the beneficiary in a state of obligation and submission in order to continue receiving. But the receivers of the gift will always maintain a level of malice toward this arrangement as they are reliant on the giver and are jealous of what the giver has. There by a giver in order to maintain the situation where they are dominant must take care not to give too much or risk enabling their beneficiary.
Those that want from a benefactor are satisfied with the system as is, and are in a mindset where they are unable to see their own potential by necessity. They cannot perceive the transaction being any different. This is the case of individuals under deep oppression of either body or spirit. It requires a state of mind of the beneficiary that they view the benefactor as superior. When the benefactor is a state it requires the beneficiary to view the state as an embodiment of supremacy. This illusion of control becomes real due to the subjective viewpoints of each member embedded in this society. That is enough. In reality both parties could have equal potential but the situation has placed one as “superior” to the other. Neither party recognizes this or the system would collapse as it is a system based only in the subjective.
This is the illusion of control. The human mind cannot tolerate a disorderly world. By design the human mind is set up to create order out of chaos, to make meaning out of the objective realm. The priests of religion soothe the need of control over the world of the unknown whether the unknown be nature or disease or death. After a populace loses faith in their religious leaders they turn to the scientists, the doctors, the governors to control the realms that they cannot, to have control over those forces unknown to them.
But this too is the illusion of control. Scientists do not have control over the climate, doctors can kill or cut out cancer, but cannot cure it, the government does not have the knowledge or capacity to prevent economic collapse, the police are not capable of stopping the flow of narcotics and bureaucrats will not end poverty.
And yet in the state we trust. This is the illusion of control.
Comments
I appreciate your thoughtful comment. In responce to your comment about the will of the people I agree. I suppose my sarcasm may have been a little too vailed though I'm sure you caught it. That specifc portion of the essay was refering to things that cannot be changed simply by will. Republicans will continue existing whether silenced or not and global warming, may or may not exist, may or may not be caused by humans, and may or may not be able to be reversed assuming it should be if it were real. We do not yet have the knowledge or capacity to enact control over the global climate with intent resulting in intended actions.
What I am suggesting is that societies generally tend to put their faith in the "higher levels" when in fact their rule is generally benign. The fact is that generally that 3 percent of the population that can change things once enabled will yet again impose their own specif ideals upon their society, which is something you mentioned.
What I am currently working on is in fact a responce to this observation that I have made, and I have read in your own essay. More control at a centralized level is not what we need. Communication technologies have empowered everyone at all levels of society. Our modern societies are already tending toward this new structure and current policies are proving the fallacies of fighting this change. The new structure is de-centralized control. Your observation that nothing occurs untill there is a need for it is particularly astute. Just because there is a will and a way does not mean there is a need. In fact it is nearly always pure need that drives us all. Where there is a need there will arise a will and a way. This is a very important point that must be observed when studying any society. We now have a need for a new structure.
Decentralized control is possible and necassary because of three basic devlopments; societies and economies are to complex for central control; We have become a specialized society; we have the ability of communicating effiently at all levels. Lets the specialists work it out and let the central authorities be a guide, nothing more. This is Social engineering as opposed to the social engeneering that you speak of and I am investigating. Rather than the 3% at the top implementing their idea on how to engineer society all of society is capable of engineering itself with conscious intent at all levels. This creates the "organic" structure that you discuss that is able to adapt rapidly to current climate or even to prepare for a future climate. Free flowing, ever changing, ever adapting, with conscious intent. This is the future of society. This is where the "neo- enlightenment" will bring us, freeing us of the hierarchical, humanist social engineers of the enlightenment who attempt to force their ideals of perfection. This is the ultimate self-determination.
Thankyou again,
Keep spreading "the gospel", if you will
Delian
Delian Valeriani | 01/25/09 | 20:06 PM
Always nice to meet someone like minded in purpose.
Brian Taylor | 01/26/09 | 20:03 PM
I agree with much of what was said, until we get to this part. Any group small enough to successfully engage in this type of activity would also have to be small enough to be allowed to fail. This is simply another definition of a tribal society.
However, with the communication and technology mentioned, the real problem is that we can be inundated with information faster than we can evaluate its legitimacy. Therefore while we have access to more information than ever, we can also be deceived more readily than ever. In my view, the biggest risk to our modern society is that it will ultimately lead to a form of dictatorship that succeeds because of the "will of the people".
Gerhard Adam | 01/26/09 | 20:47 PM
I agree that there is the threat of mis-information or disinformation being spread widely and rapidly, however there are enough checks and balances through out the world, from international media to bloggers, who have there eyes out for anything like this, the real issue is whether or not people will listen when the truth is told. And to your last point I belive that the "will of the people" of America just did. Not that any other option would have been much better.
Delian Valeriani | 01/26/09 | 21:03 PM
"...the real issue is whether or not people will listen when the truth is told."
But how is the "truth" to be determined? We already see more polarization of views because people tend to gravitate to what they already believe rather than analytically evaluating information. In addition, most of us are already overwhelmed by more information than we can reasonably spend time assessing. Invariably we create bigger rifts rather than developing understanding.
Global climate change is a perfect example. You would think that there is certainly enough information available to make a determination about how significant the current research is, but instead we find that it is being assessed as being either "a planet in peril" scenario or a vast liberal "conspiracy". The majority of people engaged in the discussion aren't even remotely qualified to evaluate the information, let alone intelligently decide what, if anything, should be done. At this stage it is virtually impossible to ascertain what truth may exist or how to assess that which does.
Gerhard Adam | 01/26/09 | 21:19 PM
To me your statement seems somewhat jaded, but then again maybe you are right. That is something I am working on currently actually.
-Delian
Delian Valeriani | 01/27/09 | 21:00 PM
(Just kidding Gerhard, I mean, bleep bloop!)
However, I will comment on this:
""...the real issue is whether or not people will listen when the truth is told."
"But
how is the "truth" to be determined?"
symbolic logic understood and filtered through authenticated paradigm, Jeez! ;)
"We already see more polarization
of views because people tend to gravitate to what they already believe
rather than analytically evaluating information."
Two quick points:
1.) "We see more polarization of views." I see less. Yes people are still idiots, but I think you're evaluating the situation on too short a time scale. 50 years ago = No Obama. I think what is actually happening is the "ends" of the polarization are getting extreme in their desperation.
2.) "...Because people tend to gravitate to what they already believe rather than analytically evaluating information." True, ultimately humans are lazy. But there is a marked reduction in contemplative paradigm paralysis exemplified by the growth of the Awareness movement and the exponential increase in rate of shift. People are starting to see things in shades of grey.
It doesn't mean we're going to accomplish anymore than we did 50 years ago. It just means that we are going to, at least, take a couple seconds to contemplate it.
Maybe I'm a sucker???
Always a pleasure,
Brian Taylor
Brian Taylor | 02/03/09 | 18:55 PM
I've been reading Gerhard for a couple months now, He's one of the smartest humans I've had the pleasure of debating.
Hear, hear! :)
When Gerhard says "We see more polarization of views" and Brian says "I think what is actually happening is the 'ends' of the polarization are getting extreme in their desperation," I think you can make the argument that you are each saying the same thing (then again, you can make the argument that they are different too).
I would posit that the extreme ends are getting louder and more desperate, as Brian says, and as a result it appears that we are more polarized, as Gerhard suggests. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? For example, occasionally I'll come across a report that the majority of people in Israel and Palestine want peace and want nothing to do with the on-again/off-again warfare. But all we hear about are missiles and bombs and death and anger and hatred. The extreme ends make the news - they make for a "better" story - so it appears that they are more polarized in their views than they really. Of course, this issue is one of those mired in the shades of gray Brian mentions - there are issues that are more binary, I think, with more firm borders.
Becky Jungbauer | 02/03/09 | 19:46 PM
Gerhard Adam | 02/03/09 | 19:23 PM
Hi Delian,
I enjoyed your "God and Government" article. It was more political than scientific but I write philosophy so how can I complain?
Some thoughts:
“The larger a society or confederacy, the greater the amalgamation of collusive factors - which is typical of every large organization - the more aggravated the moral and spiritual degeneration of the individual.”
-Carl Jung
If this is correct then your suggestion that man's need turns from God to Government when he tires of the fairy tale and seeks empowerment elsewhere, while timely, may have little to do with reality. Your point is not without it's merit save considering, at least, the possibility of collusion between church and state, publicly through "evil Republicans" as you put it or clandestinely via the propagation of certain ideals. Furthermore, the moral and spiritual degeneration of the individual both you and Jung speak of is a product of society getting too big for it's britches, not the "will of the people." It has been demonstrated time and again that the will of the people can change anything they need to, it doesn't even take many, 3 to 5 percent. The problem isn't that "Humans have a need for the illusion of empowerment and a grand scheme beyond their own lives," the problem is that they don't know the need exists. If they understood A.) That there is a legitimate physiological claim to "Authority" (parental to meta-physical)
B.) "Faith" by it's definition insists that we keep unknowable beliefs accountable to empiracle logic.
C.) That they themselves grant the power to the forces they wish, be they illusionary or otherwise.
I think it's likely that you could have faith, be moral and believe in a grand scheme beyond your own life without bending to or suffering from the demands of "dominant benefactors."
The problem is people are idiots. We assume what we shouldn't. We have illogical reactions from counterproductive associations. We can't help it, outside sources have wet-wired us to fail and therein lies the real truth and beauty of your essay. ie: The natural inclination for large organisations to arrange themselves into heirarchys that then must be controlled. They then grow, fail, repeat. The difference being that we, in our super-ego, can realise this machination and take steps to first examine our paradigms, change our minds, then change our worlds.
“The absurd depends as much on man as it does on the world. For the moment it is all that links them together. It binds them one to the other as only hatred can weld two creatures together.” “The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.”
-Albert Camus
Camus' "human need" is the need for answers to the very hard questions. The unreasonable silence insists that we have to figure it out for ourselves. The fact that the need and the silence exist simultaneously in the same plane at the same time provides the absurdity. (The "world" in Camus statement is all existence and knowledge, not the actual Earth.)
To rid Humankind of the need for these answers would be unhealthy in ways that would require a whole 'nother essay. To answer them would solve the need, but people aren't looking because answers are being provided in laws, morals, faiths, what you refer to as illusion. (And you're right.)
But it is our own damn fault. We are asleep at the wheel because their radio show is so boring.
Fortunately, there is a growing movement afoot of people doing things a little more logically, sooner or later we'll have to wake up before we hit the pole.
You might be interested to read my Blog Post "Conservatism in Unnatural."
Best Thoughts,
Brian Taylor