The "God" of *any* religion, due to the nature of the human mind and sensory system, is necessarily a figment of the imagination. If follows, all too tragically, that all tenets, dogmas, and methodologies for interacting with such a "God" are also imaginary and self-circular. If any truly believe that they are made in the image and likeness of a "God", then such an entity must have absolute commonality with each and every human being whoever existed, does, or will exist. That means that no single religion, or collection of them, can possibly point with any accuracy to a deity.
The only possible such commonality is awareness, as such, itself. Religions don't address awareness itself, so their methodologies are insular and self-referential. If there is a methodology which is transformative, it must be one which experientially makes the nature of awareness conscious.
That methodology has been around and has yielded identical results from the dawn of history. It has yielded those results regardless of time, location, culture, status, gender, intellectual capacity, religion or the lack of it, political or economic standing, or any possible criteria, including contact or lack of it with others who come to the same discovery. That methodology includes deep self-inquiry, negation of opposites, and the most celerituous route, direct pointing. Once the inevitable result of that work is revealed, the world, remaining inevitably the same, changes radically and completely as seen from this standpoint. Religion and the lack of it both fall away as easily as a mirage disappears.
~~~
Religion isn't the cause of good behavior. It's the accidental coincidence of explanation for it, depending on where you were born and to whom. Further, it is more likely to be the cherry-picked justification for ego's vagaries and random preferences, mild or perverted.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Thursday, November 19, 2015
The world is full of mystery
The world is full of mystery! I often think that "the biggest room in the Universe is the room for improvement!" That room is between our ears and caged in our ribs in a system unique, subtle, and powerful. It absolutely depends on others for its launching into competency.
Those others, through no fault but the accident of birth and the dynamics of the subconscious mind--which has no waking awareness or sense of person, values, or anything else but data storage, pass on *their* acquired limits to their children. These limits were, long ago, formed through the necessity of very specific conditions and environments.
These are now in this day thrown all on to the Wold Stage, each sensing as if its own paradigm is the absolute and only truth. Yet there are a few who have gone past the machinery of the mind and actually can think clearly in the present, with accurate perception, able to tell fact from fiction and emotional reaction from reality. It is our sport and mission to suppress these people, even to crucify them, because they are a danger to our habitual comfort of unexamined beliefs.
Like a drug, this is a temporary fix, and like a drug, because it is the general habit of the Race, it may kill us. The ways and understandings of our potential saviors are now starting to be understood and revealed true and practical by science, and even economics. And yet it may be too late. The drug of belief, necessary in infancy, is deadly in later years.
This is mostly because it is not part of any culture to understand and know that it is not the only valid or even useful culture. It may be for a time and in a place, but we, as Humanity, no longer live there. But we do not know this, precisely because of our habituated and illusory limits.
These limits, though false, are harder to kick than cigarettes, heroin, or alcohol. And again, it is because of our blindness both to the disease and the cure. There is a cure: It resides in the same place as the heart and brain which are pathetically limited to ancient mental chains through long practiced habit. And again, it cannot bloom in isolation, though the isolation of deep poersonal introspection and work is necessary for its fulfillment.
Yet this work can be done, and may yet miraculously save the whole of us if we can but hold each others hands in courage and do the do. If I have a prayer for humanity, prayer being primarily and in reality only a tool for self-adjustment if used properly, my prayer is that we do this work before it is too late for all of us.
Those others, through no fault but the accident of birth and the dynamics of the subconscious mind--which has no waking awareness or sense of person, values, or anything else but data storage, pass on *their* acquired limits to their children. These limits were, long ago, formed through the necessity of very specific conditions and environments.
These are now in this day thrown all on to the Wold Stage, each sensing as if its own paradigm is the absolute and only truth. Yet there are a few who have gone past the machinery of the mind and actually can think clearly in the present, with accurate perception, able to tell fact from fiction and emotional reaction from reality. It is our sport and mission to suppress these people, even to crucify them, because they are a danger to our habitual comfort of unexamined beliefs.
Like a drug, this is a temporary fix, and like a drug, because it is the general habit of the Race, it may kill us. The ways and understandings of our potential saviors are now starting to be understood and revealed true and practical by science, and even economics. And yet it may be too late. The drug of belief, necessary in infancy, is deadly in later years.
This is mostly because it is not part of any culture to understand and know that it is not the only valid or even useful culture. It may be for a time and in a place, but we, as Humanity, no longer live there. But we do not know this, precisely because of our habituated and illusory limits.
These limits, though false, are harder to kick than cigarettes, heroin, or alcohol. And again, it is because of our blindness both to the disease and the cure. There is a cure: It resides in the same place as the heart and brain which are pathetically limited to ancient mental chains through long practiced habit. And again, it cannot bloom in isolation, though the isolation of deep poersonal introspection and work is necessary for its fulfillment.
Yet this work can be done, and may yet miraculously save the whole of us if we can but hold each others hands in courage and do the do. If I have a prayer for humanity, prayer being primarily and in reality only a tool for self-adjustment if used properly, my prayer is that we do this work before it is too late for all of us.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Some thoughts on taxation and the economy:
Of course we shouldn't tax everyone so that they have the same amount after, as someone falsely suggested that I wish. That's ludicrous. You know, that's the one after ridiculous. How did you come up with that one??? As I see it, everyone, with few exceptions, is interested in bettering themselves. But in the same way that the industrial revolution freed people's time to get more creative, more innovative, because they were freed from the drudge of subsistence living, so should we consider something a bit above the poverty line as a base necessary income.
Taxing can start after that, or taxing becomes a means of maintaining poverty. Small businesses, the same. It is less of a public expense in the long run, as has been pointed out by several communities, to give indigents a minimum living situation, than to clean up after their efforts to do it on their own. Safer, too, including drug usage. Salt Lake City UT and Richmond CA are examples.
Taxing can from those points be graduated. It's been done before, "in extremis" compared to today, and people still got filthy rich. Why? Because there are in fact two economies. But that is another discussion, although it bears on this one in that being more heavily in the paper one pays enormously better than the labor one, both in income and in greatly reduced taxes.
As for graduated taxes, while there can be much boasting that "I built this all on my own", that's essentially bullshit. No one does anything alone except die. So somewhere along the line the great guru of free enterprise, Adam Smith, has to be acknowledged for his least popular and least invoked directive: There has to be a mechanism to ensure that money circulates, else it will pool at the top (yeah, that's not happening) and eventually the system will fall over for lack of support. That system would be taxes, those going back into infrastructure and public works, including the Arts, those all being the very stuff of material civilization.
There are also other ways that what we have chosen to do that would fund the government independently from taxes. We have, because of certain Western tendencies, not gone down those roads, often to our detriment. Principally this is because we are pathologically infected with a view of success that is extravagant, unbalanced, and extraordinarily expensive in terms of social and geophysical ecology. And please remember that "ecology" is no fru-fru term. It comes from the same root, "eco-" as does "economy" and both relate to keeping house.
Restricting our considerations of those to the absurdly and suicidally dangerous narrowness of supporting astonishing accumulations of money by a relatively few is both pathological suicidal in terms we most likely refuse to look at because we think of supporting all that in terms of our own personal survival. Nothing could be further from the truth. But in the same way that a successful Wall Street campaign convinced the general public that this is a Nation founded on christianist, not secular, values, we have as a public also been mislead into thinking that the kind of capitalism we practice is God's gift and it cannot be improved upon.
If you ever talk to a banker who operates at an international level, and ask the right questions, you will discover, as one I know admitted, that our current economy and financial practices are the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind aside from religion. But that is another pair of discussions yet. And if you are interested in a short bit about the money pooling in one place I will PM that to you on request.
I'm sorry that this was so long. Not because you or someone had to expend attention reading it, but because it is evidence of how potently packages the lie of our economy is packed in pill Those are two different questions. What do you think?
Of course we shouldn't tax everyone so that they have the same amount after. That's ludicrous. You know, that's the one after ridiculous. How did you come up with that one??? As I see it, everyone, with few exceptions, is interested in bettering themselves. But in the same way that the industrial revolution freed people's time to get more creative, more innovative, because they were freed from the drudge of subsistence living, so should we consider something a bit above the poverty line as a base necessary income.
Taxing can start after that, or taxing becomes a means of maintaining poverty. Small businesses, the same. It is less of a public expense in the long run, as has been pointed out by several communities, to give indigents a minimum living situation, than to clean up after their efforts to do it on their own. Safer, too, including drug usage. Salt Lake City UT and Richmond CA are examples.
Taxing can from those points be graduated. It's been done before, "in extremis" compared to today, and people still got filthy rich. Why? Because there are in fact two economies. But that is another discussion, although it bears on this one in that being more heavily in the paper one pays enormously better than the labor one, both in income and in greatly reduced taxes.
As for graduated taxes, while there can be much boasting that "I built this all on my own", that's essentially bullshit. No one does anything alone except die. So somewhere along the line the great guru of free enterprise, Adam Smith, has to be acknowledged for his least popular and least invoked directive: There has to be a mechanism to ensure that money circulates, else it will pool at the top (yeah, that's not happening) and eventually the system will fall over for lack of support. That system would be taxes, those going back into infrastructure and public works, including the Arts, those all being the very stuff of material civilization.
There are also other ways that what we have chosen to do that would fund the government independently from taxes. We have, because of certain Western tendencies, not gone down those roads, often to our detriment. Principally this is because we are pathologically infected with a view of success that is extravagant, unbalanced, and extraordinarily expensive in terms of social and geophysical ecology. And please remember that "ecology" is no fru-fru term. It comes from the same root, "eco-" as does "economy" and both relate to keeping house.
Restricting our considerations of those to the absurdly and suicidally dangerous narrowness of supporting astonishing accumulations of money by a relatively few is both pathological suicidal in terms we most likely refuse to look at because we think of supporting all that in terms of our own personal survival. Nothing could be further from the truth. But in the same way that a successful Wall Street campaign convinced the general public that this is a Nation founded on christianist, not secular, values, we have as a public also been mislead into thinking that the kind of capitalism we practice is God's gift and it cannot be improved upon.
If you ever talk to a banker who operates at an international level as I have, and he is honest with you and you have asked the right questions, it will be revealed to you that our present economic system is the biggest hoax perpetrated on humankind along with religion. But those are two other discussions.
I'm sorry that this is so lengthy. Not because it may have taken some expenditure of attention on someone's part, but because the lie of the necessity of our present system has been made into such a compact and potent pill to make it easy for the public to swallow. It takes this much space to untangle it even a bit, and could take much more. It is that entrenched. And it is also likely that you are completely immunized to even thinking about it a tiny bit, that tiny bit which could lead to a new kind of freedom, one many seem not to be capable of imagining. Nor do you want to, being perfectly happy with what in the end are crumbs.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Hungarians Think the Darndest Things!
I'm Hungarian, and my Grandma taught me that Hungarians invented language, fire, the wheel, the steam engine, and a few other things. Even as a child that seemed an unlikely tale. I'm more aligned with this story, though:
"Flying saucer buffs have long cherished the belief that extraterrestrials from an advanced civilization landed in South America centuries ago and left a contingent of scientists behind. Their job was to infiltrate our species and subtly feed us their ideas to bring our earthbound civilization technologically up to par. Physicists scoff at such a notion: no flying saucers ever landed in South America. They landed in Hungary."
This hypothesis was hatched during the Manhattan Project, where the group of Hungarians working on it were dubbed "The Martians". It was to some degree confirmed by one of them, Dr. Leo Szilard, when confronted with the well known Fermi paradox: " Fermi believed that there had to be other earthlike planets that would develop superintelligent beings who would then explore other parts of the universe. "And so," he concluded, "they should have arrived here by now, so where are they?"
"They are among us," Szilard replied, "but they call themselves Hungarians."
Quotes from: http://www.nytimes.com/.../hungarians-think-the-darndest...
"Flying saucer buffs have long cherished the belief that extraterrestrials from an advanced civilization landed in South America centuries ago and left a contingent of scientists behind. Their job was to infiltrate our species and subtly feed us their ideas to bring our earthbound civilization technologically up to par. Physicists scoff at such a notion: no flying saucers ever landed in South America. They landed in Hungary."
This hypothesis was hatched during the Manhattan Project, where the group of Hungarians working on it were dubbed "The Martians". It was to some degree confirmed by one of them, Dr. Leo Szilard, when confronted with the well known Fermi paradox: " Fermi believed that there had to be other earthlike planets that would develop superintelligent beings who would then explore other parts of the universe. "And so," he concluded, "they should have arrived here by now, so where are they?"
"They are among us," Szilard replied, "but they call themselves Hungarians."
Quotes from: http://www.nytimes.com/.../hungarians-think-the-darndest...
Monday, July 27, 2015
Truth claims, chapter and verse? (Mark, 4, 33,34)
So I have this kind of view on Bible-based truth claims
The "Bible" isn't an entity, but an artifact. And while it is claimed by some to have "divine" authorship, what that means is very debatable, even among believers. To most, its entirely human origins are very obvious. That would include many scholars, I'm sure. But the divinity claim, along with the deep discomfort with uncertainty wherein many humans live, gives the psychological heritage of attachment to the bible a powerful ability to offer a kind of security and authority that finally doesn't reside in it.
So when we are looking at a bible-based claim to "truth" we are looking in fact at the belief dynamic of either an individual or a group, not at Reality. There is a reason that belief is not called "knowledge", and only the more refined qualifications of belief might properly be called "faith", and that is not a religious phenomenon, but a psychological one. Contrasting belief and knowledge, we might even say that belief is necessarily incorrect even if carrying some element of knowledge.
This is why, while we *all* trust that mathematics works, eg the Pluto shot, we cannot say the same for some random tenet of say, one of the 40,000 sects of christianism active today. This is why we use science to deal with measurable commonality and have measurable results by it in the physical world. It is also why we trust science as an analytical tool in the realm of physical phenomenon.
But we are not only physical creatures, and a scientist who won't admit to that is doing the reverse mistake of a religionist who claims their bible to be a text on physics or history, even barring possible examples of inclusion. We are mental creatures as well. We produce Music and Art in many forms at our best, and human expression is empowered by emotion. But that realm is interpretive in nature, and has the quality of depth, while science is restricted to surfaces. It is this difference in domain that creates the voltage of thought that blurs the line between the two, and the perception fo what belongs to what realm.
In this day and age, and in this Country especially, perhaps, our public validation of anything has collapsed into the realm of surfaces and measurements, especially that of the bottom line in economics. Little is left in the public arena for the elevation of explorations into meaning. And yet, this is where what makes us human resides. And while that is at the core of our being, the attempts of organized religion to be the vehicle of a truly useful understanding of that actual sacredness fail very sadly. The proof of that is in both the astounding variety of sects of any world religion or less, and in the uncanny agreement of mystics from any or none of those as to our actual Nature.
But therein lies a library of books and practices best left to individual exploration, despite what might be an inevitable understanding of Unity. If there is a value in religion, then, it is in the overcoming of it in the same way that someone might overcome a zen koan. But compared to the Bible, a koan is but a few words. The Bible, any of the 20 versions available now in English, is a collections of misattributed books and all the imaginative interpretation that is saddled on it by any particular interpreter.
And while even I conclude that there is a Truth "in" it, that is only pointed to, and so well hidden that without prior knowledge it is undiscoverable, except by exhausting the mind attempting to interpret it. And that exhaustion, achieved by any method, is not only a valid and productive way to achieve something that religion might fail at doing, it may be, with some modifications, the only and the much sought after Gateless Gate. It is where we might enter the apprehension and appreciation of Awareness itself. From that point, the Bible, or any bible, can fall into its rightful context.
And while even I conclude that there is a Truth "in" it, that is only pointed to, and so well hidden that without prior knowledge it is undiscoverable, except by exhausting the mind attempting to interpret it. And that exhaustion, achieved by any method, is not only a valid and productive way to achieve something that religion might fail at doing, it may be, with some modifications, the only and the much sought after Gateless Gate. It is where we might enter the apprehension and appreciation of Awareness itself. From that point, the Bible, or any bible, can fall into its rightful context.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
"Look at those chem trails!"
No, the photo of contrails doesn't look like a theory proving chemtrails, it looks like a poorly supported hypothesis. All contrails are *necessarily* chemtrails. So are auto exhausts, and factory smoke blowing in the wind, and the Fukushima radioactivity that has, I hear, now reached even California waters.
There have been known cases of deliberate spraying to test disease vectors or to seed clouds for rain. And there is chemical fallout from anything like smog from China making it to here, or from LA to Tucson, or Sahara sand making it all the way to here as well! So there are many ordinary things that can account for the alleged chemical fallout from "chemtrails", e.g. acid rain.
I can believe that there might be chemtrails for nefarious reasons. Corporations are known sociopaths. What makes belief, or better, understanding, very difficult is that the vast majority of what I've seen as "evidence" is accounted for by ordinary atmospheric phenomenon perceptible, even by an amateur? So normal things presented as "evidence" detract from the credibility of the argument to very large degree.
What detracts more than that is a very interesting phenomenon, one I have observed many times. A good illustration of this happened the day that flights were resumed in September just after the tragedy (or conspiratorial destruction) that happened in NYC in 2001. I was living in Buffalo and taking a deposit for our store to the bank around the corner. I was passing a coffee shop where folks were having coffee on the patio. As I approached a young lady jumped up from her seat and pointed to the sky. She started screaming "They're going to crash! They're going to crash"
I looked to where she was pointing. What I saw was two jetliners heading, one roughly NE, and the other W. Seeing their configuration and relative size, clearly they were at both different altitudes and distances from us, and way withing any conceivable envelop of safety. Yet she was actually shaking with fear until I walked her through it. She only settled down after the apparent paths crossed, the planes clearly not being near each other. Similarly, I've seen plastic shopping bags aloft in a wind as well as other things, mistaken in all sincerity for flying saucers. And, of course, there is the classic jumping back in fear from a stick mistaken for a snake.
So here is the thing: while it is always prudent to consider possibilities, there is a whole segment of society which interprets nearly *anything* from the standpoint of fear and survival. There are everything from MRI studies to psychological tests, all peer reviewed and public that demonstrate this. Nearly everything is seen by such individuals as a threat or a danger. that element is ferreted out in any situation for these sincere citizens. Of course, there is such an element in nearly everything. But is it in every case the overwhelming factor? Probably not. Statistics and experience belie that stance, whose roots are interestingly laid out in the reports concerning it.
Interestingly, those same folks are participants in another phenomenon. This is the one which happens when there actually is an immediate and present danger, such as a sinking ship. It is called denial. Fear and denial go hand in hand. The denial and fantasy portion is either of the situation itself, the ship, or the mitigating circumstances, the lifeboats, sometimes known as facts.
There have been known cases of deliberate spraying to test disease vectors or to seed clouds for rain. And there is chemical fallout from anything like smog from China making it to here, or from LA to Tucson, or Sahara sand making it all the way to here as well! So there are many ordinary things that can account for the alleged chemical fallout from "chemtrails", e.g. acid rain.
I can believe that there might be chemtrails for nefarious reasons. Corporations are known sociopaths. What makes belief, or better, understanding, very difficult is that the vast majority of what I've seen as "evidence" is accounted for by ordinary atmospheric phenomenon perceptible, even by an amateur? So normal things presented as "evidence" detract from the credibility of the argument to very large degree.
What detracts more than that is a very interesting phenomenon, one I have observed many times. A good illustration of this happened the day that flights were resumed in September just after the tragedy (or conspiratorial destruction) that happened in NYC in 2001. I was living in Buffalo and taking a deposit for our store to the bank around the corner. I was passing a coffee shop where folks were having coffee on the patio. As I approached a young lady jumped up from her seat and pointed to the sky. She started screaming "They're going to crash! They're going to crash"
I looked to where she was pointing. What I saw was two jetliners heading, one roughly NE, and the other W. Seeing their configuration and relative size, clearly they were at both different altitudes and distances from us, and way withing any conceivable envelop of safety. Yet she was actually shaking with fear until I walked her through it. She only settled down after the apparent paths crossed, the planes clearly not being near each other. Similarly, I've seen plastic shopping bags aloft in a wind as well as other things, mistaken in all sincerity for flying saucers. And, of course, there is the classic jumping back in fear from a stick mistaken for a snake.
So here is the thing: while it is always prudent to consider possibilities, there is a whole segment of society which interprets nearly *anything* from the standpoint of fear and survival. There are everything from MRI studies to psychological tests, all peer reviewed and public that demonstrate this. Nearly everything is seen by such individuals as a threat or a danger. that element is ferreted out in any situation for these sincere citizens. Of course, there is such an element in nearly everything. But is it in every case the overwhelming factor? Probably not. Statistics and experience belie that stance, whose roots are interestingly laid out in the reports concerning it.
Interestingly, those same folks are participants in another phenomenon. This is the one which happens when there actually is an immediate and present danger, such as a sinking ship. It is called denial. Fear and denial go hand in hand. The denial and fantasy portion is either of the situation itself, the ship, or the mitigating circumstances, the lifeboats, sometimes known as facts.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Sanity and vacination
from and article found at https://medium.com/@therebootedbody/bringing-much-needed-sanity-to-the-vaccine-debate-e143f089bfd1
I’ve tried to stay away from the vaccine debate, but it’s reached a psychological tipping point for me.
Watching the back-and-forth on social media alone has made it clear that there are massive critical thinking issues. And if we’re going to get to any sort of agreement or respect between the camps, those critical thinking issues have to end.
As the title says, I want to bring sanity to the discussion. That doesn’t mean I want to change your position on vaccines…it means I want people to stop acting irrationally.
So, while this is quite random, here’s what needs to be addressed in order to restore sanity…
Let’s fix the misuse of the word “consensus.”
The Definition: An idea or opinion that is shared by *all* the people in a group.
How it’s used in the vaccine debate: An idea or opinion that is shared by *a majority* of the people in a group.
Why it matters: There have been countless times in history where the majority of scientists and researchers agreed…and were wrong. Also, using the term “consensus” in this way is always dangerous in the realm of scientific research because there is an automatic obedience to authority for the simple reason that most people are not truly educated on complex matters of science.
A famous example of the consensus error is called the Semmelweis Reflex. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who found—and argued—that hand-washing by doctors reduced childbed fever mortality rates ten-fold.
It turns out that medical doctors (the trusted authority) used to perform autopsies and then see patients, including pregnant women, without washing their hands. This was the widely accepted practice at the time and Semmelweis objected to it. He was eventually shouted down and run into an insane asylum (literally) by his peers for advocating something that is blatantly obvious to us today.
The “consensus” argument was used as a weapon to defeat Semmelweis. But “consensus” is not an argument and using it as one is a logical fallacy. If you want to argue for the validity of vaccination, do so. But saying, “there’s a scientific consensus” isn’t a valid argument, especially when you’re misusing the word “consensus.”
While we’re at it, let’s make sure we’re using the word “eradicated” correctly.
The definition: destroy completely; put an end to.
How it’s used in the vaccine debate: It was significantly reduced.
According to the CDC, Measles has never been eradicated, though the term is thrown around pretty loosely.
It should also be noted that this is a global economy. We live in a time of planes and boats. Things arrive here from other countries.
In other words, blaming the “OUTBREAK!” on unvaccinated people in the U.S. is a bit of a stretch.
This also doesn’t take into account that there is a very legitimate debate about the cause of the decline of measles cases and deaths. It should not (even though it is) be automatically assumed that the vaccine ended the epidemic. There is no “consensus” on that.
If you want credibility, you can’t misuse terms that have very concrete definitions. That’s one of the first symptoms of appealing to emotion and debate manipulation.
Let’s get something else out of the way: violence can’t be your answer.
Not everyone advocates for vaccinating people against their will, but many do. One of the [legitimate] fears among those who don’t vaccinate is that vaccine advocates will use the power of government to force vaccination compliance.
If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t possibly support this because it directly contradicts your own beliefs about your body and your rights.
Even though many people have never heard of the Non-aggression Principle (NAP), they agree with it when it’s presented to them.
Forced vaccination does not adhere to the NAP. If you agree with the NAP and are also for forced vaccination, you’re contradicting your own beliefs.
We’re all adults here. Sell your position with reason, don’t cram it down people’s throats (or lock them in rooms and inject their children with it).
I guess this is a good place to throw in this, too: If you’re “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, then you can’t be anti-choice when it comes to vaccines. That’s just silliness. “It’s my body” can’t only apply to killing babies.
Reality: Both sides want the same thing.
An unfortunate charge often wielded by vaccine advocates is that those who choose not to vaccinate are “reckless,” “stupid,” and “thoughtlessly endangering others.”
Vaccine advocates are vehemently protective of their family…and so are the parents who choose not to vaccinate. Both sides want the same thing: to make the best decision possible for their family.
A key difference is that it often takes more thought to reject the status quo than it does to accept it. This is especially true when you understand that our society’s foundation is one of blind obedience—that’s what’s taught to the vast majority of our population through 13+ years of public schooling.
Obedience to authority is why the Stanford Prison Experiment worked and it’s why the Milgram Experiment worked.
One of the worst things you can be in life is blindly obedient to authority. It’s a forfeiture of your personhood—an acknowledgement of your nothingness.
So if you’re a vaccine advocate, I certainly hope you’ve done extensive research. Otherwise, you’re not just injecting your loved ones with something you know relatively nothing about, you’re doing so at the behest of a group of people you largely know nothing about.
If you choose not to vaccinate, I certainly hope you’ve done extensive research as well. Otherwise, you’re potentially putting your family members at risk.
Reality: Only one side has to overcome two significant challenges: the political motive and the profit motive.
(And often those two things are one in the same).
Question One: Do doctors receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Two: Does the government receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Three: Do researchers and educators receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Those are important questions, wouldn’t you say? Do you know the answer? Just be honest with yourself.
If you’re a vaccine advocate and you don’t have a confident answer to all three of those questions, that’s a bit reckless.
Anyone who thinks the medical establishment wouldn’t [almost] universally recommend something that’s [almost] totally unnecessary hasn’t looked into cholesterol and statin drugs or the [non] link between saturated fat and heart disease.*
*The government has peddled this same myth for decades. The entire food pyramid is a giant manipulation designed to reward Big Agriculture. And “manipulation” is not a shock-term. If you’ve never heard of Luise Light, then you’re grossly misinformed about what the federal government is capable of when it comes to pulling wool over the eyes of the American people.
Anyone who thinks the research establishment won’t come to specific, pre-determined conclusions due to collusion between governments and industry probably doesn’t know that 97–99% of medical journal advertising profits come from pharmaceutical companies, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Or that those who masquerade as “independent medical experts” aren’t so independent.
Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJM gave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds. (s)
This is a significant challenge to overcome. Unsafe things can be made to seem safe if the right amount of money or power lands in the right hands. And if enough hands are involved, combined with hefty doses of fear and paranoia, a “consensus” can easily brew.
I’m not saying that’s happened, but you must acknowledge that it’s a challenge. All of a sudden, citing “research” isn’t all that valuable unless you’ve researched the researchers.
Have you?
This isn’t far off from the Global Warming debate, by the way. There’s a “consensus” (misuse) there also. And “deniers” are treated in much the same disrespectful way as Semmelweis…and those who don’t vaccinate.
But the evidence that the government, researchers, media, and practically everyone else with a fingerprint on anything Global Warming related has manipulated data continues to arrive from every crack and crevice.
The government, especially when in bed with Big Business, has a horrible track record of manipulation and cronyism in nearly every industry. It’s not a stretch to be cautious about these relationships when it comes to vaccines.
Lesson: Maybe we shouldn’t build “consensuses” on such shaky foundations?
Speaking of: Is it legitimate that the government passed a federal law prohibiting lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers?
It’s not a statement, just a question.
If you’re a vaccine advocate, it would help your case if vaccine manufacturers weren’t themselves immune from the repercussions of putting out a potentially dangerous product. Then you could at least make the argument, “Hey, if your kid dies or gets seriously injured, at least you’ll be rich.”
But it begs the question: why is the government in the business of protecting a “big bad corporation?”*
*If you supported that 99% movement a while back, hate Capitalism, or hate rich people, then you also should hate vaccine manufacturers and those who protect them, should you not?
The only way the market works is if the manufacturers of products that harm people can be litigated against.
When you give the government the power to make people immune from litigation, and that government is in bed with said people, it brings us back to point #4…this is a significant challenge to deal with when making the case for the widespread use of vaccines.
Is it ever legitimate for the government to remove the risk of litigation from a company? The answer, if you care at all about your own wellbeing, is no.
“You’re putting people at risk of death.”
I’m not going to make an argument about vaccine efficacy or the potential for unvaccinated people to put vaccinated people at risk (or vice versa). What I’m going to argue is that the “putting others at risk of death” argument defeats itself based on statistical significance.
Most of the hysteria and current vaccine debate is in regards to the current measles “outbreak,” so we’ll use that as an example.
The death rate among those infected is typically 0.2%, or close to equal that of your chances of dying in a car accident this year.
In other words, if you’re that concerned about people vaccinating to prevent death, you should be making an equally strong case that both of you have your driver’s licenses revoked.
Actually, it’s worse because you have a 0.2–0.5% chance of dying in a car *this year* and it’s almost certain that you actually drive a car. The 0.2% chance of death by measles requires that I (or my child) beat the ENORMOUS odds to even get measles in the first place.*\
The same odds hold pretty steady for measles injury, except car injury wins out even more. And the chance of being killed or injured by the measles vaccine still surpasses the chance of being killed or injured by measles itself.
Again, I’m not arguing for or against vaccines, I’m arguing for sanity. If you believe that “you’re putting people at risk of death” is a valid argument, then the injury/death by vaccine argument is equally (actually it’s moreso) valid, is it not?
*This also covers the “not vaccinating your child is child abuse,” “is negligent,” and “should be criminalized” arguments.
“You need to vaccinate for the good of the herd. You’re putting us at risk!”
Putting the science about herd immunity aside, this argument is faulty because its premise is that I should alter my behavior for the good of the collective.
If that’s your belief, then at least own it in full…
I invite you to start MACB (Mothers Against Cesarean Birth) and SAIF (Society Against Infant Formula). Don’t forget to march against the current industrialized food supply (you don’t eat that stuff, do you?) and the government who subsidizes it.
This is a debate about immunity, is it not? If it is, then how can you not mandate vaginal birth and breast feeding until the age of two (minimum), the two primary components of the development of a healthy immune system—an immune system that can reduce the spread and severity of disease along with injury and death rates?
How can you support the current industrialized (and subsidized) food supply full of grains and sugars that are ravaging child and adult immune systems and leading to the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of more people than the diseases you wish to vaccinate against?
If this is about herd immunity and doing whatever it takes for the good of the collective, then let’s start REALLY focusing on the immunity of the herd! Who cares if that mom is struggling to produce breast milk—she needs to woman-up and nix those bottles, does she not? Who cares if she’s at high risk for vaginal birth complications…this is about all of us, not just her!
See, I don’t particularly care what your position is…I just want you to fully support it.
“Vaccines aren’t natural, so I’m opposed to them.”
You can be against the use of vaccines, but this not a legitimate argument. It doesn’t require much discussion, it’s a textbook logical fallacy.
You can do better.
“Vaccines cause Autism or [X]”
I’ve never been a fan of blanket statements.
Kids get something like 49 doses of 16 different vaccines before the age of six. It’s obvious that there are known cases of side effects—including death—from vaccines.
The reason one child may have a bad reaction where another child doesn’t is still being (and should be) hotly debated.
With Autism specifically, there is a correlation between Autism rates and vaccine rates. But correlation does not equal causation.
The general statement that vaccines cause Autism is unacceptable. Is it a specific vaccine? Is it a combination of certain vaccines? Is it the full vaccine schedule? If it’s not a guarantee that Autism will occur (and it’s not a guarantee that vaccines are 100% safe), then what is the underlying trigger?
It’s not like vaccines don’t have legitimate safety concerns. If we were talking about water and someone claimed that water caused Autism when water is otherwise 100% safe for all people to consume, that would be absurd. But we’re talking about something that has known safety issues and reactions other than Autism, so it’s something that should be looked at more closely.
See, there’s a lot of things to sort out. While I can’t say for sure that the use of vaccines has never caused a case of Autism, I also can’t say that it has. I’m not sure anyone can confidently say yes or no on either side, can they?
So the charge that vaccines cause Autism is a bad argument. We don’t need more vitriol though, we need more data. There’s obviously an underlying issue that is triggering sometimes horrific reactions (I’m not saying Autism is a horrific reaction) in certain people. It would be best for all involved to work to identify that trigger.
It could be that vaccines don’t cause Autism, but do trigger a change in some people that make the conditions for Autism ripe. For example, there’s a lot of research coming out linking Autism to the gut biome. It’s no secret that 70%+ of the immune system is located in the gut. Could the alteration of glut flora in a certain way (via any trigger, not just vaccines) create the conditions for the development of Autism? Who knows? Do you know?
It’s easy to make blanket statements on either side. Finding the truth is a bit tougher. Perhaps we need to increase our mutual desire for data and decrease our rampant confidence?
In any case: it helps if everyone just stays sane.
I’ve tried to stay away from the vaccine debate, but it’s reached a psychological tipping point for me.
Watching the back-and-forth on social media alone has made it clear that there are massive critical thinking issues. And if we’re going to get to any sort of agreement or respect between the camps, those critical thinking issues have to end.
As the title says, I want to bring sanity to the discussion. That doesn’t mean I want to change your position on vaccines…it means I want people to stop acting irrationally.
So, while this is quite random, here’s what needs to be addressed in order to restore sanity…
Let’s fix the misuse of the word “consensus.”
The Definition: An idea or opinion that is shared by *all* the people in a group.
How it’s used in the vaccine debate: An idea or opinion that is shared by *a majority* of the people in a group.
Why it matters: There have been countless times in history where the majority of scientists and researchers agreed…and were wrong. Also, using the term “consensus” in this way is always dangerous in the realm of scientific research because there is an automatic obedience to authority for the simple reason that most people are not truly educated on complex matters of science.
A famous example of the consensus error is called the Semmelweis Reflex. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who found—and argued—that hand-washing by doctors reduced childbed fever mortality rates ten-fold.
It turns out that medical doctors (the trusted authority) used to perform autopsies and then see patients, including pregnant women, without washing their hands. This was the widely accepted practice at the time and Semmelweis objected to it. He was eventually shouted down and run into an insane asylum (literally) by his peers for advocating something that is blatantly obvious to us today.
The “consensus” argument was used as a weapon to defeat Semmelweis. But “consensus” is not an argument and using it as one is a logical fallacy. If you want to argue for the validity of vaccination, do so. But saying, “there’s a scientific consensus” isn’t a valid argument, especially when you’re misusing the word “consensus.”
While we’re at it, let’s make sure we’re using the word “eradicated” correctly.
The definition: destroy completely; put an end to.
How it’s used in the vaccine debate: It was significantly reduced.
According to the CDC, Measles has never been eradicated, though the term is thrown around pretty loosely.
It should also be noted that this is a global economy. We live in a time of planes and boats. Things arrive here from other countries.
In other words, blaming the “OUTBREAK!” on unvaccinated people in the U.S. is a bit of a stretch.
This also doesn’t take into account that there is a very legitimate debate about the cause of the decline of measles cases and deaths. It should not (even though it is) be automatically assumed that the vaccine ended the epidemic. There is no “consensus” on that.
If you want credibility, you can’t misuse terms that have very concrete definitions. That’s one of the first symptoms of appealing to emotion and debate manipulation.
Let’s get something else out of the way: violence can’t be your answer.
Not everyone advocates for vaccinating people against their will, but many do. One of the [legitimate] fears among those who don’t vaccinate is that vaccine advocates will use the power of government to force vaccination compliance.
If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t possibly support this because it directly contradicts your own beliefs about your body and your rights.
Even though many people have never heard of the Non-aggression Principle (NAP), they agree with it when it’s presented to them.
Forced vaccination does not adhere to the NAP. If you agree with the NAP and are also for forced vaccination, you’re contradicting your own beliefs.
We’re all adults here. Sell your position with reason, don’t cram it down people’s throats (or lock them in rooms and inject their children with it).
I guess this is a good place to throw in this, too: If you’re “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, then you can’t be anti-choice when it comes to vaccines. That’s just silliness. “It’s my body” can’t only apply to killing babies.
Reality: Both sides want the same thing.
An unfortunate charge often wielded by vaccine advocates is that those who choose not to vaccinate are “reckless,” “stupid,” and “thoughtlessly endangering others.”
Vaccine advocates are vehemently protective of their family…and so are the parents who choose not to vaccinate. Both sides want the same thing: to make the best decision possible for their family.
A key difference is that it often takes more thought to reject the status quo than it does to accept it. This is especially true when you understand that our society’s foundation is one of blind obedience—that’s what’s taught to the vast majority of our population through 13+ years of public schooling.
Obedience to authority is why the Stanford Prison Experiment worked and it’s why the Milgram Experiment worked.
One of the worst things you can be in life is blindly obedient to authority. It’s a forfeiture of your personhood—an acknowledgement of your nothingness.
So if you’re a vaccine advocate, I certainly hope you’ve done extensive research. Otherwise, you’re not just injecting your loved ones with something you know relatively nothing about, you’re doing so at the behest of a group of people you largely know nothing about.
If you choose not to vaccinate, I certainly hope you’ve done extensive research as well. Otherwise, you’re potentially putting your family members at risk.
Reality: Only one side has to overcome two significant challenges: the political motive and the profit motive.
(And often those two things are one in the same).
Question One: Do doctors receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Two: Does the government receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Three: Do researchers and educators receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Those are important questions, wouldn’t you say? Do you know the answer? Just be honest with yourself.
If you’re a vaccine advocate and you don’t have a confident answer to all three of those questions, that’s a bit reckless.
Anyone who thinks the medical establishment wouldn’t [almost] universally recommend something that’s [almost] totally unnecessary hasn’t looked into cholesterol and statin drugs or the [non] link between saturated fat and heart disease.*
*The government has peddled this same myth for decades. The entire food pyramid is a giant manipulation designed to reward Big Agriculture. And “manipulation” is not a shock-term. If you’ve never heard of Luise Light, then you’re grossly misinformed about what the federal government is capable of when it comes to pulling wool over the eyes of the American people.
Anyone who thinks the research establishment won’t come to specific, pre-determined conclusions due to collusion between governments and industry probably doesn’t know that 97–99% of medical journal advertising profits come from pharmaceutical companies, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Or that those who masquerade as “independent medical experts” aren’t so independent.
Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJM gave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds. (s)
This is a significant challenge to overcome. Unsafe things can be made to seem safe if the right amount of money or power lands in the right hands. And if enough hands are involved, combined with hefty doses of fear and paranoia, a “consensus” can easily brew.
I’m not saying that’s happened, but you must acknowledge that it’s a challenge. All of a sudden, citing “research” isn’t all that valuable unless you’ve researched the researchers.
Have you?
This isn’t far off from the Global Warming debate, by the way. There’s a “consensus” (misuse) there also. And “deniers” are treated in much the same disrespectful way as Semmelweis…and those who don’t vaccinate.
But the evidence that the government, researchers, media, and practically everyone else with a fingerprint on anything Global Warming related has manipulated data continues to arrive from every crack and crevice.
The government, especially when in bed with Big Business, has a horrible track record of manipulation and cronyism in nearly every industry. It’s not a stretch to be cautious about these relationships when it comes to vaccines.
Lesson: Maybe we shouldn’t build “consensuses” on such shaky foundations?
Speaking of: Is it legitimate that the government passed a federal law prohibiting lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers?
It’s not a statement, just a question.
If you’re a vaccine advocate, it would help your case if vaccine manufacturers weren’t themselves immune from the repercussions of putting out a potentially dangerous product. Then you could at least make the argument, “Hey, if your kid dies or gets seriously injured, at least you’ll be rich.”
But it begs the question: why is the government in the business of protecting a “big bad corporation?”*
*If you supported that 99% movement a while back, hate Capitalism, or hate rich people, then you also should hate vaccine manufacturers and those who protect them, should you not?
The only way the market works is if the manufacturers of products that harm people can be litigated against.
When you give the government the power to make people immune from litigation, and that government is in bed with said people, it brings us back to point #4…this is a significant challenge to deal with when making the case for the widespread use of vaccines.
Is it ever legitimate for the government to remove the risk of litigation from a company? The answer, if you care at all about your own wellbeing, is no.
“You’re putting people at risk of death.”
I’m not going to make an argument about vaccine efficacy or the potential for unvaccinated people to put vaccinated people at risk (or vice versa). What I’m going to argue is that the “putting others at risk of death” argument defeats itself based on statistical significance.
Most of the hysteria and current vaccine debate is in regards to the current measles “outbreak,” so we’ll use that as an example.
The death rate among those infected is typically 0.2%, or close to equal that of your chances of dying in a car accident this year.
In other words, if you’re that concerned about people vaccinating to prevent death, you should be making an equally strong case that both of you have your driver’s licenses revoked.
Actually, it’s worse because you have a 0.2–0.5% chance of dying in a car *this year* and it’s almost certain that you actually drive a car. The 0.2% chance of death by measles requires that I (or my child) beat the ENORMOUS odds to even get measles in the first place.*\
The same odds hold pretty steady for measles injury, except car injury wins out even more. And the chance of being killed or injured by the measles vaccine still surpasses the chance of being killed or injured by measles itself.
Again, I’m not arguing for or against vaccines, I’m arguing for sanity. If you believe that “you’re putting people at risk of death” is a valid argument, then the injury/death by vaccine argument is equally (actually it’s moreso) valid, is it not?
*This also covers the “not vaccinating your child is child abuse,” “is negligent,” and “should be criminalized” arguments.
“You need to vaccinate for the good of the herd. You’re putting us at risk!”
Putting the science about herd immunity aside, this argument is faulty because its premise is that I should alter my behavior for the good of the collective.
If that’s your belief, then at least own it in full…
I invite you to start MACB (Mothers Against Cesarean Birth) and SAIF (Society Against Infant Formula). Don’t forget to march against the current industrialized food supply (you don’t eat that stuff, do you?) and the government who subsidizes it.
This is a debate about immunity, is it not? If it is, then how can you not mandate vaginal birth and breast feeding until the age of two (minimum), the two primary components of the development of a healthy immune system—an immune system that can reduce the spread and severity of disease along with injury and death rates?
How can you support the current industrialized (and subsidized) food supply full of grains and sugars that are ravaging child and adult immune systems and leading to the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of more people than the diseases you wish to vaccinate against?
If this is about herd immunity and doing whatever it takes for the good of the collective, then let’s start REALLY focusing on the immunity of the herd! Who cares if that mom is struggling to produce breast milk—she needs to woman-up and nix those bottles, does she not? Who cares if she’s at high risk for vaginal birth complications…this is about all of us, not just her!
See, I don’t particularly care what your position is…I just want you to fully support it.
“Vaccines aren’t natural, so I’m opposed to them.”
You can be against the use of vaccines, but this not a legitimate argument. It doesn’t require much discussion, it’s a textbook logical fallacy.
You can do better.
“Vaccines cause Autism or [X]”
I’ve never been a fan of blanket statements.
Kids get something like 49 doses of 16 different vaccines before the age of six. It’s obvious that there are known cases of side effects—including death—from vaccines.
The reason one child may have a bad reaction where another child doesn’t is still being (and should be) hotly debated.
With Autism specifically, there is a correlation between Autism rates and vaccine rates. But correlation does not equal causation.
The general statement that vaccines cause Autism is unacceptable. Is it a specific vaccine? Is it a combination of certain vaccines? Is it the full vaccine schedule? If it’s not a guarantee that Autism will occur (and it’s not a guarantee that vaccines are 100% safe), then what is the underlying trigger?
It’s not like vaccines don’t have legitimate safety concerns. If we were talking about water and someone claimed that water caused Autism when water is otherwise 100% safe for all people to consume, that would be absurd. But we’re talking about something that has known safety issues and reactions other than Autism, so it’s something that should be looked at more closely.
See, there’s a lot of things to sort out. While I can’t say for sure that the use of vaccines has never caused a case of Autism, I also can’t say that it has. I’m not sure anyone can confidently say yes or no on either side, can they?
So the charge that vaccines cause Autism is a bad argument. We don’t need more vitriol though, we need more data. There’s obviously an underlying issue that is triggering sometimes horrific reactions (I’m not saying Autism is a horrific reaction) in certain people. It would be best for all involved to work to identify that trigger.
It could be that vaccines don’t cause Autism, but do trigger a change in some people that make the conditions for Autism ripe. For example, there’s a lot of research coming out linking Autism to the gut biome. It’s no secret that 70%+ of the immune system is located in the gut. Could the alteration of glut flora in a certain way (via any trigger, not just vaccines) create the conditions for the development of Autism? Who knows? Do you know?
It’s easy to make blanket statements on either side. Finding the truth is a bit tougher. Perhaps we need to increase our mutual desire for data and decrease our rampant confidence?
In any case: it helps if everyone just stays sane.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
What about the "Wild Man?"
So what do we have to say about the WILD MAN:
Is Our culture, such as it is, yet ready for men to talk openly about the wild man inside us?Ken Wilber, the integral philosopher of renown, (in my understanding) claims that the basic male drive is to "f*** it or kill it". As far as the basic animal nature of males, adjusted for the "clock of sex" if you will, the variants of dispositions of "maleness" in a male body, this seems to be so. But Wilber also deals more importantly with the transit of ego from infantile self involvement to Transcendent Universal Consciousness. This is a long and arduous arc few manage even half of.
So it covers a LOT of territory. And mainly it has to do with the progress of maturity of individuals and groups. Usually when the "wild man" is being discussed, it is relative to male energy. It is interesting to note here that some have said that "civilization is a battle against testosterone". In a sense, this is so, and it is manifest in our history as patriarchy and the territoriality and desire for power and control that are its motivators in politics, economics, sex, and their various overlaps.
But any useful discussion gets down to the governance and transmutation of that energy, even to the idea of the "nurturing male". That concept is all but missing in Western, and particularly in American public culture, which is still fraught with destructive stereotypes, now that the West in all its aspects has been won, or wrested away from less technical males at enormous cost to both parties.
It is missing both for lacking prototypes and rituals which embody the psychological transmission of culture relevant to the governance of male energy. We're talking of the difference, in a blunt example, between the old and young bulls surveying a herd of cows. The young one wants to dash headlong down the hill and take what he can. The older suggest walking down, thus conserving energy for dealing with the whole lot.
OK for the animal part, but there is the part that goes to the Kama Sutra and the elevation of male and female energy for transformation as a cooperative endeavor. And that is the part that we are sorely missing. Not as an overt sexual happening, but as a refinement in the nature of understanding of our own selves relative to others, all seen as being unique manifestations of a yet common origin, as special cases of human awareness and its develop-mental possibilities. It is the antithesis of the cowboy and cavalier every man for himself and take all you can, that making it rightfully yours, regardless of cost to others and resources, replenishable of not.
It is also different, dangerously so in the eyes of current economic practices, from the Protestant and "conservative" (which is in fact anything but) work ethic. It is resource based, not consumption and ownership based. And it requires MUCH more power and control than the haphazard, arrogant, careless, and destructive attitude which is bringing an end to American society as it could have paradisacly been, with the rich having even more than their small minds in this system can conceive.
But that is why we don't have that. It isn't personally easy, because it takes training, education, and most importantly, transmission from someone who can live the state of inclusiveness necessary for young boys to be given the internal chance to become men of the highest order. That would be Men who have a sense of Unity and who see women's and families' needs as the root of morality, a morality which must also include, respect, and sustain everything that supports the maturation of human individuals in all four areas of their existence.
Most men have experienced the overwhelming surge of energy that can be a vital resource for survival or accomplishment. That is the fundamental reactor. But it can bear much refinement with exponential benefits for the male and all those in his influence. And that is why, lacking a popular societal culture that supports that, we only have small groups or simply individuals who are waking up to some sense of their own possibility of change and changing in the four areas. We must support these and attune them to each other, and reap a reward greater than we can now imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
