Are You An Animal?

My underlying understanding of human beings is that our behavior mirrors that of animals and that we have an additional capacity for behaving in a way which is opposite to animals. That is to say that we have the “free will” to shut down our animal programs and behave in an opposite fashion. So, for example, we can steal like animals do or we can choose not to steal (even in the face of hardship). We can hoard our wealth like animals do or we can share or give away our wealth away. We can kill like animals do or we can choose not to kill (even when threats are upon us). These things, this ability to stop our programs from running, is (I believe) a uniquely human thing. What the ability also seems to do (when operating properly) is to create guilt when we act contrary to it (i.e. when we act like animals). Many Christians (while most lack a fundamental understanding of the principle) call this component the “Holy Spirit”. It is also termed “your conscience”, “your morality”, “your spirit”, “the son of god”, “Allah”, “Jesus”, and most often simply “god”. None of the terms (as classified) change the component nor it’s functionality. For the purposes of this discussion I will call it the “god component”.

A basic problem arises in the operation of our god component in two different ways. The first arises because (unlike animals) we humans can rationalize animal (immoral) behavior. This gives us an added dimension which permits us to operate in an animal mode while producing what we claim is a good reason to do so. Usually one which looks rather humane at first glance. That is to say, we are able to continue to act like animals and yet justify our behavior (to ourselves) in a way which makes it appear to be the correct and moral behavior. And thereby eliminate the guilt we would otherwise experience. We rationalize the behavior as moral behavior even though it amounts to nothing more than being and acting like an animal. For example, when we steal we can rationalize that behavior by saying things like, “the other guy had more than enough anyway.” Or when we hoard our wealth we might say “I worked hard for it so why shouldn’t I reap the rewards, why should I share my money?” Or when we kill, we label it a “penalty” and rationalize it as a necessary evil to deter other killings. Many people make the ultimate guilt-relieving rationalization and justify immoral behavior by believing that it is sanctioned by god. And this type of rationalization permits limitless guilt free animal behaviors. In short, we can find many reasons to justify animal or immoral behavior. And these rationalizations work to suppress our otherwise god-component-related-guilt.

These types of rationalizations come from different groups of people and for different reasons. Often the justifications for acting like animals is presented in the context of survival and preservation. Or the “us against them” context which actually plays upon our contemporaneous animal needs to create bonds and maintain power structures. Of course the means to maintaining this survival is usually by “any and all means” - including those which are exclusively animal in nature (killing, hoarding, stealing, etc.).

In short, by rationalizing animal behavior, we are able short circuit our god component and thereby alleviate our guilt, ignore our conscience, and behave immorally without an individual mental consequence. In effect, we fool ourselves in to believing that our behavior is justified when in fact it is not.

These types of rationalizations are not limited to packs which are inherently concerned with power. They also exist in groups which claim to follow god. Historically. we often see animal behavior exhibited in the confines of a belief in god. Couched in the blessing of or at the request of same. In fact, all religious organizations fuel the continuation of programs which have historically created conflict among we humans by creating divisive power structures which beckon to our animal needs to defend and fight. More specifically, those programs which control our innate need to dominate or be submissive. To “lead: and to “follow”. To be sided up with and defend the dominant pack. And, of course, the ultimate pack is the one with god on it’s side - of which each religious group claims exclusivity. None of these affiliations (in and of themselves) speak to anything other than behaving like an animal. Either in the context of filling our need to belong (to rule, to follow, etc.) or our animal need to survive (in this case transfixed from biological survival to eternal survive). And within these hierarchies, no matter how much one person claims to be “following” god, what they are really primarily following is their pack. Their instinct to protect their pack is primary. Even when there is a complete and utter absence of any justification to do so. Their desire to be a member of the powerful pack is prevalent. We have, as a result, the Muslim extremist who kills in the name of Allah. Or the Catholic who defends a priest’s behavior regardless of the fact that that behavior has it’s loyalty in animal behaviors. As I noted before, having god as a rationale for animal behavior is the greatest means of eliminating our conscience (our guilt). God (or the thought that our actions are morally correct) permit us to act like animals in a guilt free fashion. How could I be wrong to kill the infidel if this is what god wants? How could it be immoral to stand up for the unjustifiable acts of a man of god? A man who stands for all of those things which god wants? What these justifications really are is a means to eliminate our guilt and suppress our god component. In the case of defense they are propagated by an innate need to defend our packs. I suggest that this type of defenses is one of blindness and that the blindness stems from systemic programs which are unrecognizable in their operation by us on a conscious level.

The second problem arises in the fact that these animal programs are highly imprint-able on our behavior. For the sake of brevity I will only touch upon this second obstacle to behaving as our god component suggests. Once we engage in something like stealing, our brains attach a high to the behavior (as is intended in our biology) and we want to do it again - even in the face of our guilt. The more we engage in this animal behavior, the more we want to engage in it. It becomes a vicious cycle for us in that at some point we are physically required to behave like animals, have created a strong biological need to behave like an animal, and yet have the guilt remain as a result of our god component’s normal operation. This type of suppression does not alleviate the guilt, but rather creates a duality and a conflict that can even lead to mental instability. But more often than not simply leads to habitual behavior. For example, when we defend a position we are running innate programs. The more the position is attacked the more we need to defend it and the greater the lengths we will go to defend it. The effects of operating these animal programs is therefore cumulative and progressive.

The most troubling part of the programs which are at war with our god component is that they are strongest when they are both permitted to run and re-run and when the justification for behaving as such is simultaneously rationalized as moral. The equivalent of two jet engines pushing the behavior to normalcy. Resulting in a simultaneous condition of unawareness of action and a satiation of an underlying biological need or needs.

It therefore stands to reason, that until we can successfully identify our own sub-conscious animalistic programs, consciously eliminate them, and avoid reinforcing our animal programs, we humans (individually and as a collective) will continue to be nothing more than animals.

Oprah's Religious Power - YOU WILL BELIEVE!!!

I wonder if Oprah Winfrey came to us today and said “last night I spoke to god and he said there’s a new set of rules to follow” if anyone would eagerly line up to get the hard copy? In a similar fashion, I wonder if a group of people led by Oprah came to my door and said “Larry Willaby just performed ten miracles and he says he the new messiah” if I could buy in to that? Especially if ten was his miracle limit and I missed them all. It’s these types of hypothetical ideas that make me question how anyone who believes the messiah is actually going to come back (or get here for the first time) will be able to identify that event when it happens. I have to surmise that any advance alien form could do a few alien card room tricks and turn the world upside down. Seeing how some religious texts already warn about false prophets it’s going to be a hard call no matter what the scenario is. Imagine for a moment that two alien races show up throwing fire balls at one another – each claiming to be angels of god. The level of religious confusion that this could generate is out of this world. But then is there really some exact level of believability in such a skeptical world that would permit someone (anyone) to believe that the new messiah had arrived?

When I talk to Jews or Christians or Muslims or any religious people about their beliefs they have a hard time articulating just why it is they believe what they do. Especially when you make parallel comparisons to hypothetical modern day scenarios. So you wouldn’t believe Oprah spoke to god last night but you believe Abraham did? You wouldn’t believe Larry Willaby and his ten miracles but you believe the Jesus set? How come? How come Jews believe that Moses parted the red sea but they don’t believe that Jesus walked on water? How come Christians believe that Jesus spoke to god but Mohamad did not? Doesn’t it make more sense to believe modern day people who say they saw Mr. Willaby do all these miracles than to rely on a less advanced people who claim to have witnessed the miracles of Moses or Jesus or Mohamad? If Oprah said god now designated the people of New Jersey as the new chosen people how is that any different than Abraham saying that about the Jews? “But Abraham was a great holy man”. Okay, Oprah is a great credible and believable gal - now what? “But many people witnessed the miracles of Moses” Yeah, a whole bunch of people said they witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Mohammad and Mr. Willaby also.

Clearly ALL religious beliefs are based upon a system of passed down stories which people take as truth without any rational thought as to whether they have any valid basis. For the most part these beliefs are based upon nothing other than a past account which has been and is taken as true. But what makes people take hold of one belief and not another? What makes people believe something so strongly that they are willing to kill and die for it? Certainly it can not be the rational examination of the belief and the infallibility of positions which can not be proven. Especially those which are easily challenged in their provability by competing beliefs with the same or similar substance and origination (for example recanted second-hand tales of miracles). Nor can it be the degree or value of the claims made to support the belief (i.e. the TEN Mr. Willaby miracles are not controlling).

Most people, in fact, do not have any understanding of why they believe what they do other than that they were told to believe it. The source and the credibility of the source of this telling are critical factors in whether the belief will take hold. Figures designated holy or worth while, parental figures, persons shown to exhibit leadership qualities, seemingly intelligent people, all exhibit influence in what we believe. Perception of the source is critical. But this in and of itself is not the controlling factor in why we believe what we believe. Because clearly many people are swayed to believe things from less then reliable sources (in my mind inept political leaders often fall into this category).

How can two people believe in two competing positions so strongly when neither is based upon anything other than a recantation of events they were not a party to? In my examples above this method of recantation (in and of itself) does not seem capable of swaying someone to a particular belief. But what if you revered and loved Oprah? Well, you’d be more likely to take her word for it (of course). And this is why our parents play a critical role in the development of our beliefs. Nevertheless, one would tend to think this alone would neither create nor maintain a strong belief. What if Oprah formed a group dedicated to Mr. Wallably (the Wallabies?)? With this added element I think the scenario of a Mr. Wallably religion gains momentum. The simple fact that you can join these other individuals in a common goal (with someone like your beloved Oprah!) places Mr. Wallably at a new level of believability. And if belonging is coupled with a displayed understanding that this is the superior pack (to which you the outsider are made to feel welcomed and even wanted) the underlying belief is further propelled. In a sense these cumulative elements are what is required to create and maintain a belief. While you can be born in to a belief system, maintenance requires allegiance to the pack. Consequently, I believe the most essential element to be the establishment of some hierarchy with perceived strength or ability. A hierarchy which permits the reinforcement of our genetic program to belong - which is in lineage with that of pack animals. There is some program in us that says belonging to a group, and especially a strong group or a group with the answers, is essential and necessary to our survival. Such a requirement of our programming makes sense, given that the goal of our programming is to further our survival. Our post-conscious desire to circumvent this existence in favor of some after-life has caused our pack alignment program to be repositioned to account for this extension by making us align with the strongest after-life pack we can find. The one which we believe will get us to the point of survival beyond death. In fact, most religions preach that their belief system is the pathway to eternal salvation for this very reason.

When do people jump ship from their religion? When their beliefs are in conflict with those of the pack; when the fell unwanted (misallegiance); when their position in the pack is diminished; when some other pack invites them in and in doing so provides rearticulation of that program that requires a sense of belonging to a powerful pack; when they question the beliefs of the pack in rational thought and can find no acceptance of those beliefs; when they are rewarded or feel they will be rewarded for changing packs - or any combination of these or like things.

Reinforcement of religion is therefore best accomplished by a reinforcement of the rewards of the pack (“you will only go to heaven if”), the strength of the pack (“we are the chosen people”), the weakness of the other packs (which is why religious persons often belittle the substance of other religious beliefs, i.e the Pope Benedict XVI) and a constant never ending attack on any belief which may be contrary to those of the pack, a separation and definitive line establishing the distinction of the pack (usually made vis-a-vis physical separation, by wearing some symbol, celebrating some holiday, wearing a particular clothing, engaging in particular rituals, and the like). The rules of organized religion mirror many other pack facets in our culture and society. From armies to sports teams to civic and political groups these basic methodologies and requisite elements of maintaining the strength of the pack and allegiance to the pack are present.

ARE JEWS PIGS AND MONKEYS?

I have a very close Jewish friend who is conservative in many respects. Today he sent me a video of the Glenn Beck Show (on youtube.com) about the propaganda used by Muslim extremists to sway public opinion. In the video (among other things) young Muslim children are taught to hate Jews and associate them with monkeys and pigs. As evidence of the power of these teachings, some children (as young as three years old) were shown to recite their hate for Jews verbally. “Jews are monkeys and pigs”, a small child relented. The video noted that the basic means of teaching this hate was advocation by people the children looked up to - mostly their parents and religious leaders. I would surmise that my Jewish friend saw this teaching of false ideas to children as an aberration. But what struck me most about the way in which Muslim children are taught to hate Jews was not that this is in fact abhorrent, but rather that the technique used by hateful Muslims is the very same technique used by the Jews to teach their children their religious belief systems and values. And the same technique used by Catholics to teach their children religious beliefs and values. My conclusion is that what is glaringly missing from the learned process of acquiring a belief (which is not only lasting but which would propel someone in to insane acts of violence) is that it requires absolutely no rational examination. There is no examination of just how Jews are monkeys and pigs - these children are told they just are. The children usually have no personal contact nor experience with Jews. And the fact that such a strong ingrained belief can be taught without any real examination by the believer, such that he or she can use that belief to kill someone, is (to me) eye opening. I wonder aloud if the majority (if not all) of the Christians and Jews realize that the way they formed their religious beliefs (and their values) is in this very same way those small Muslim children learned to believe that they are monkeys and pigs. The parallel to me was something that over-shadows the intended message of the Beck episode. Here was a parallel example of a way people acquire their beliefs in every major religion in the world - used to insinuate just how insane those beliefs were. It struck me that the same thing could easily be said about people who believe that god exists. Except that the belief in god is more universally accepted than killing Jews because they are monkeys and pigs. Fundamentalism is essentially a firm belief in anything that has no basis in “reason” or “logic”. I would add that these fundamental beliefs often involve a total lack of any examination of the belief. There’s no real thought about what it is we have learned to believe. And for some there never is. By this definition the Muslim extremist who believes Jews are monkeys and pigs is no different in his chosen belief than the Jew who believes god wants him to eat only Kosher foods. They each were taught this to be a truth; they each practice the truth without any rational thought as to the validity of it; they each follow the belief blindly and it dictate their actions. What separates them is simply the acceptability of the end result. We are not shocked by the Jew who refuses to eat a pig. We are, however, shocked and outraged (morally) by a Muslim who kills a Jew because he believes he is a pig. It’s a strange world we live in indeed.

How You Can Change the World

I am an American. And there is no doubt in my mind that I live in the greatest and most civilized internal nation in the world. My standard of living is beyond adequate, my potential within this country is unlimited, and my status is subject simply to my abilities and work ethic. I am also a member of this world. I reside in a world with war and famine and hunger and strife and death and destruction and violence and hatred and conflict and more conflict. It seems conflict and not cooperation, hatred and not love, selfishness and not self-sacrifice are all fast becoming the global norms. I am not a participant in these things on a macro level: I have not started a war; I have not exploded a car bomb; I have not killed a human; I have not paralyzed a human; I have not taken anyone hostage; I have not created a nuclear bomb; I have not threatened to use a weapon of mass destruction; I have not taken over a country nor a government by force. Nor am I prone to the forces which encompass these types of actions: I do not seek power or control over other individuals; I do not seek to convert people to my point of view; I am not interested in hating individuals based upon their race, religion, creed, color, economic status; I am not interested in accumulating wealth to the point of excess. But I have to wonder - as a member of this world am I somehow to blame for these events? And if not, is there something that I can do to change them?

I have on occasion felt anger or even violence toward another individual. I have on a very micro level wished ill upon someone who either threatened me or caused me pain. But for the most part the extent of my participation (even on a micro level) has been limited to verbal attacks. And even those it seems are rather isolated and limited. Yet my ability to participate in conflict on the micro level gives me some understanding of the forces at work in the global macro level - and they are from my experiences intense and difficult to shake. Nevertheless, even this insight does not lend itself to a solution regarding my potential (as an individual in a free nation) to diffuse global conflicts, create world peace, or change the prejudices and attitudes of the millions of people who have them. It seems insurmountable from an individual standpoint. Any attempt to try and stop the avalanche of despair with bare hands would seem at best futile, and at worst insane.

I watch and read and listen to anti-war protestors, and have images of them dating back to the Vietnam War. And I find these types of approaches to have a minimal impact on the actions of the people involved. Nor do any of these protests ultimately eliminate the sources of conflict on a global scale. As evidence by the fact that war protests have come and gone along side different wars between different parties and for different reasons.

I have seen the political packs form and the arguments rage and the debates continue about war and the like and from a historical stand-point these types of events have no lasting impact on the future of conflict. Wars have continued through the ages despite the formation of groups of opposition. None of these irritated intermittent blisters seem to offer any long-lasting dent in the propensity of humans to war.

The basic premise of any fight is for something. And the world is ripe with somethings that people value for various reasons which are directly opposed to those things which other people value for their own various reasons and these variables are an inevitable by-product of our existence. Scarcity in resources, a psychotic affiliation to some or any belief system, the differences in our genetic code, the differences in the way we look or behave, the predisposition of animals to often seek conflict, the inherent propensity in us to seek revenge and get even, the inherent propensity in the majority of humans to seek control and power of their environment and the people around them, the desire of people to strengthen their pack by either converting other individuals to their point of view or destroying them, and others, are all elements of this world which are here to stay. This is our stew, it’s cooked and we have no more ingredients to add.

When interpreted and applied properly, there are fundamental elements of Judo-Christian-Muslim-Buddhist (etc.) belief systems which offer a solution to these global problems. What can violence become in the face of compassion? What can hatred become in the face of love? What can scarcity become in the face of self-sacrifice and cooperation? What can hatred become in the face of understanding? What can self-control and submission become in the face of a threat? Yet even these solutions seem to offer no hope for an individual faced with global conflicts caused principally by an indifference to them. How can anyone profess the power of love to someone in another culture who rationalizes god as a basis for war and killing? Or self-sacrifice and corporation and sharing to a society that overwhelmingly values the perverse accumulation of material possessions? That worships the wealthy? That admires the powerful? How does one extrapolate compassion for the plight of the hungry to an individual who would pay millions of dollars for a single baseball?

So then the question remains, what can an individual do to change global events beyond their immediate realm of influence? No one at the bottom can start the climb at the top of the mountain. What’s required is a continuation of things like truth, love, self-sacrifice, compassion, caring, self-control on the micro level in the hopes that a chain reaction can be created toward (or to) the top. When you are kind to someone they recognize that and they remember that and they may be led by example. When you diffuse a conflict with rational behavior it’s possible (although not probable) that someone who is prone to violence may remember your actions in his next potential conflict and act accordingly. What is required is your individual behavior in situations of despair to be exemplary. The next time someone asks you for a dollar, do not judge them, give them the dollar. The next time someone threatens you, do not fight them, diffuse the situation. Then next time someone needs help, help them. For leading by example at the micro level is the best way for anyone to make a difference in our world.

PLEASE, CONSIDER THE SOURCE!

Inherently we Americans are drawn to conflict. Conflict (and often violence) it seems is always at the fringe of our behavior waiting to push it self to the surface. A middle finger, one guy who cuts you in line, or even a dirty look can set us off. For some of us resorting to conflict and violence requires nothing more than some form of insult. Nothing more than a simple word or two directed in a negative way at our person. What is it about something like an insult that would require someone to physically attack another individual? How do words create such strong reactions and equally strong behaviors which are contrary to a civilized existence? The answer is rather complicated because there are numerous variables which play a role in how we behave in any given situation. Things like environment, past influences, past results, past experiences, our beliefs (i.e. in god), etc. all play a role. However, there is a very short answer and that very short answer is: “our biological programming causes us to either seek or avoid conflict”. We are programmed to either (a) instinctively react to a threatening situation by defending our positions (dominant programs) or (b) by submitting (submissive programs) to the threat by backing down. Yes, just like on animal kingdom. And that’s why even when it seems improbable that controversy should ensue, it does. Let’s take a quick look at some examples:

Should anyone really care what Tom Cruise has to say about psychology? Isn’t he sort of like a homeless guy who calls you a loser from the alley when he tells Brooke Shields that psychology is bunk? If he told me that my air conditioner was bunk would I get insulted? Isn’t he an actor? Yet his words created controversy. So much so that they required an apology. How could this be? Who the heck is Tom Cruise when he’s talking about anything but acting (or maybe tooth polish)? Of course, good old Tom apologized to she-is-still-in-therapy-Brooke in the face of public pressure and a disintegrating public image. He was motivated to do so for his own sake and the whole thing died down and off the pages of People Magazine. And while I’m on the subject of drunken conflict creators, how about Mel Gibson? Does he really feel that way about Jews and if he does should they really care? He’s in the public eye but why do Jews care if THE ACTOR Mel Gibson doesn’t like them? He was raised a Catholic and there are inherent prejudices in any religious teaching. He made a movie about Christ where Jews are portrayed like some group of Zombies who chase Jesus through a mall - wait that’s not the movie. In any event, I’m sure there are plenty of drunk Jews who speak badly about Catholics. And probably even more who had a few bad things to say about Mel Gibson. But I’ll tell you, if some drunk blonde haired girl said she didn’t like brown haired guys it would just make sense to me - and nothing else. I don’t think I would need an apology.

Of course, it’s not only a drunk actor who can get the conflict going. In 1998 Reggie White (a three hundred plus pound football payer) outraged homosexuals when he said homosexuality is a decision, not a race, and it should not be placed on par with the civil rights movement. Homosexuals were outraged! How come? When a guy who knocks off heads for a living makes a statement concerning atypical sexual behavior how can someone get outraged? If he said my wife was a lousy blocker I might have to agree. But when he’s talking about her sexual preference I think it matters little what he thinks. In any event, White stood his ground when he said, “I would rather God not be mad at me and let people be mad at me, so I have to speak the truth — no matter the consequences." Of course, White died of a heart attack at only 43 caused by poor health including what looked to me to be a severe overweight condition. I guess in his mind sloth is not as big a sin as sexual immorality. Still White never apologized for what he believed -- conflict or no conflict. Take that Tom Cruise.

After the actors, the drunk actors, and the football players we then get to the untouchables. And those instances where the source itself has a role in creating additional controversy and conflict. Take for example the soothing words of Pope Benedict XVI when he recently said "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. Muslim leaders around the world to this day are continuing to demand a “full” apology (and not half of an apology). He’s the Pope - head of the Catholic Church. Why would Muslims care what he has to say about a religion he doesn’t believe in? It’s sort of like Darth Vadar making a speech in which he says all the Jedis are morons. Would the Jedis care? Why should they - he’s on the other side! And that’s why - because he is on the other side. There’s no rational reason to care what he says - it’s simply about defending a position. And it’s simply about a program which makes us want to do that.

So there you have it, absent any real explanation of why we get insulted, a desire to engage in conflict clearly emanates from some genetic programming stemming back to the times when you had to fight for your mate and for the top spot in the pack. That little thing inside that signals green when you get the finger. And for all of you who are insulted by any of this (or my Blog) - PLEASE, consider the source!

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE

Conservatism is a ploy. A ploy to get you (the middle class or non-wealthy) to help the wealthy and super wealthy in this country to protect their positions and possessions. Conservatism is a morally bankrupt belief system centered on self-interest. What conservatives seek is not to protect America (or the sanctity of America as they often claim) but rather the positions and the possessions of the most affluent Americans. We need only look at the basic positions of conservatives to see that conservative lore is based upon self-preservation and not (for example) self-sacrifice.

Conservatives often speak of cutting social spending, cutting their own personal taxes so that their own personal income can remain high, implementing the death penalty, harsher criminal sentences, the elimination of threats (like terrorists) by force and violence. All of these positions are aimed solely at maintaining one’s possessions or one’s positions without addressing the morality of the underlying means. While self-sacrifice entails helping someone at your own risk and/or your own peril, conservatism and it’s policies seek to eliminate the risks to one’s self (self interest). To eliminate both the peril and/or the cost associated with preventing or fixing the peril. In fact, the tools of a conservative are principally preservation and elimination. In the use of preservation, conservative policies deprive others who need a conservative’s possessions or positions from obtaining them. In the use of elimination (and to a lesser degree control), those people (locally, nationally and globally) who pose a threat to the positions or possessions of conservatives are eliminated (either killed or removed from society) through any and all means possible.

The Patriot Act; Harsher criminal sentences; Illegal searches and seizures; Warrant less wire taps; Who do these types of infringements target? Is it the (politically connected) wealthy and super wealthy? Is it the powerful? Is it the individual who has enough money that stealing is not necessary? Or are these types of infringements targeted to individuals at the lower end of the economic spectrum? At individuals who are essentially powerless in our country? But who nevertheless may pose a threat to a wealthy business man?

Who therefore wants the stiffest penalties for crime? And why? Who supports the death penalty? And why? Who seeks the harshest sentencing rules? And why? Who wants unaccountable aggressive police forces? And why? Who seeks to cut social programs? And why?

What is the foundation of these “conservative core values”? Are they to help people? Are they concepts which speak to self-sacrifice and love? Are they positions which help or hinder the downtrodden? Do they improve humanity?

In the mind of a conservative, a thief, a crook, a criminal, a poor person, a murderer is not a person with (spiritual or economic) potential but rather a potential future attacking entity. A person who could threaten their position or their possessions. A person who needs to be controlled and/or eliminated. A conservative does not accept that a criminal is person with a potentially rehabilitatable soul. Because a conservative focuses not on rehabilitation but rather elimination for the sake of their own position. Conservatives do not seek to address either the root causes of the threats to society or the possible transformation of these threats to a benign category, but rather their starvation, suppression and ultimately their elimination. Conservatives seek to deprive the lower class and poor in this country of the very means toward productively while simultaneously failing to acknowledge that the threats posed to them often arise from their inflicted positions of poverty. Conservatives do not consider what it might be like to have no wealth, no pinnacle position, no advantageous start, no or poor education. There is no thought that many individuals in this country begin life with an insurmountable starting position of despair. All that is central to conservative values are protection and possession of themselves.

A conservative appeals to other people to conform to their conservative beliefs and their ideals of maintaining the upper class in this country through various means. The most prevailing of which is fear. They motivate people to act by inciting their own basic self-preservation instinct. You better sign on to the Patriot Act’s freedom infringing policies because if you don’t the terrorists will get you. You better permit police to trample constitutional protections and permit warrant less searches and seizures because otherwise the criminals and terrorists will get you. You should permit harsher sentences or the criminals will get out of jail and get you. You should subscribe to the death penalty because it deters other killers from killing YOU. It’s always presented as being to YOUR benefit - but what it really is to the benefit of the people in power, the people with a great deal of money, and the people with a great deal of political connections. In short, the people who have the most things to lose. Do the poor really have a problem with theft? What is the likely-hood that the police are bashing down the door of a rich socialite and obtaining illegal evidence and that that socialite will go to jail (for example for ten years) ? How many rich socialites can not afford the best lawyers? How many rich socialites (by their sheer willingness to throw money at politicians) have some connection at the top somewhere that can bail them out of even the most over-reaching invasion of their civil, human or constitutionally protected rights?

To some extent the middle class in this country have the same core value system of protecting their position because they too actually have something to lose. The difference is that their positions are far less valuable. To offset this fact, the wealthy and super wealthy give the middle class simple diversionary pleasures to strengthen their desire to maintain their own lesser positions. They create positions of just enough comfort to make them follow the leaders.

The second most prevalent tactic of conservatives is to call anyone who is not immediately taken to support the wealthy, and super wealthy and their positions a traitor. Or worse yet, “un-American”. And in doing so they acknowledge that your failure to support the preservation of their wealth will lead to some diminution of our country. This is clever in that it plays upon our animal instinctual need to not only to belong, but to belong to a strong pack. If you don’t support the war in Iraq you’re un-American and you’re jeopardizing our country by doing so. Don’t you want to belong to the strongest pack? Don’t you want us to “win” the war so that we can maintain our position of power? Of course you do - it’s programmed behavior ingrained in all of us. Unfortunately, for so many people the reality is that these concepts are like drugs. They satisfy our programs to be dominant and in control and the strongest while simultaneously permitting us to feel “safe” and “secure”. All instinctual elements of our programming. And in this satiated drugged state we sacrifice our morality, That is why conservatives hammer the notion that they are “better able to protect us”. They know you are (by nature) afraid. They know that your natural instinctual fear will permit them to erode your constitutional rights so that they can keep their stuff and their lives in order. To erode your compassion for the criminal, your compassion for the poor, your over all sense of right and wrong. The real question is not “who is better able to protect you” but “who is better able to protect the possessory assets and positions of the wealthy and super-wealthy in this country?” And the answers are: those who will permit the erosion of our constitutional rights; those who will support the harshest sentences for criminals without addressing human rights, constitutional rights or even a persons humanity; those who will permit the killing (elimination) of the killers as opposed to those who would attempt to address the root causes of crime or the rehabilitation of a person’s soul; those who will permit war; those who will permit the slaughter of innocent women and children in the name of self-preservation.

Conservatives are not about fixing “our” problems but rather they are about maximizing control and/or eliminating “their” problems. They are not about humanity. They do not seek to address the root causes of evil but rather foster a perpetuation of their own morally cloaked evil toward their own self-preservationist goals. The Iraqi war is prime example of this - and naturally an extension of these core conservative self-preservation beliefs and modalities. It also offers us a glimpse in to how conservatives manipulate the public to continue their protectionist policies by “any and all means”. This (of course) includes killing and violence and death. Remember, protectionism of what they have is paramount. And it’s not the protectionism of our “American way of life” or even our safety but “their” way of life and “their” safety. Your safety is how they package it. That’s how they get you to sign on. But the truth is that their lives are a far cry from the lives of we average Americans.

Without speculating on what the Iraqi war may or may not really be about (oil, weapons of mass destruction, etc.), lets look at it in the context of conservative preservation and elimination. In the context of morality. In the context of what we can definitely say it does and does not entail.

The Iraqi war definitely entails violence and death - and the violence and death of innocent people (including women and children). It definitely entails the destruction of American families - over 10,000 dead American soldiers are a testament to this. It definitely entails the destruction of Iraqi families. It definitely entails the destruction of American Lives (over 21,00 wounded Americans) and Iraqi lives (over 40,000 dead an wounded Iraqi’s). It definitely entails the perpetuation of a multi-billion dollar defense industry (also run and controlled by the super-wealthy) - or the continuation of a money making entity for the super wealthy. It definitely entails the continuation of a conflict between Muslin and non-Muslin people. It definitely entails control (and an attempt to retain control or some relationship) over one of the richest oil bearing lands in the world. It short, it definitely entails the protection of self-interested positions and possessions by “any and all means” of the wealthy. Because whose sons and daughters are fighting over there? Whose children are dying? Which people are really exposed to terrorist threats in a public airport?

Ane then there is what the Iraqi war definitely does not entail. It definitely does not entail love, self-sacrifice, kindness, peace, sharing, giving, or compassion. It is never-the-less supported by self-proclaimed morally superior conservatives.

And how was (and how is) the Iraqi war being sold to you? Firstly by fear. You better be afraid of the terrorists so we need to use “any and all means” to protect you. Again through your instinctual need to feel safe. How else? Through your instinctual need to dominate. “We need to win this war to maintain our dominance”. “You like being the big dog don’t you? Well them we got to keep killing and slaughtering and....”

If you’re stuck on conservatism because you also believe that it’s the more “moral” position to partake in, you’d be sadly mistaken no matter which religion you subscribe to. I could get involved on this point, but do the math - what things are most meaningful to the God of Abraham, or Allah and or even Buddha. If you’re a Christian take this simple test - would Jesus be a conservative? Would Jesus support tax cuts for the wealthy? Would Jesus support the death penalty (or would he rather support the eternal soul of the individual and it’s potential to repent or even just grow?)? Would Jesus support a war based upon a potential threat (which as it turns out was probably at best a perceived threat and at worst a lie)? Would Jesus support killing innocent children in the name of one’s personal safety? Who are all these god-fearing conservatives kidding? The truth is, conservatives are not only devoid of any real moral fibre, they are also hypocrites as they continually point top their “good” and “godly” behavior to justify their immoral positions. It’s very easy to be a law abiding citizen and to remain a law abiding citizen when you have all the things that being an unlawful citizen could possibly bring. And while behaving morally when it is unnecessary to behave immorally is their selling point, the truth is something far less contrived. Simply that to be a conservative is to support those things which are most unimportant to god. And to ignore those things which are most important to god. All in exchange for protection of position. Things like self-sacrifice, love, caring, the rehabilitation of souls, the relinquishment of wealth, the relinquishment of power, and the relinquishment of self are abandoned for things like protectionism, accumulation of wealth, power, punishment, control and war.

GOHO TEACHES US THE VALUE OF RELIGIOUS RITUAL

It’s amazing to me that we live in such a supposed technologically advanced time and people are still running around thinking that things like rosary beads, doing the sign of the cross, wrapping themselves in shawls, wearing head gear and the like are going to make god happy and make an actual difference in peoples lives. Either in a positive way by following these rituals, or in a negative way by avoiding them. One of my favorite is this fear of offending god by saying things like “god damn it” or “I swear to god”. Or the need to capitalize god in a sentence (God not god). Imagine for a moment if it were actually true that if you swore to god he’d punish you. What kind of sensitive god would that be? Creating the whole universe and his ego is so shallow that if you use his name in vain he gets offended. Just what type of overwhelming proof would people need to abandon such a belief? Clearly I can say “god damn” several times a day and nothing seems to happen at that moment so it’s clearly some delayed punishment down the road type of thing. How many times do you need to say “god damn it” before god gets really mad and zaps your ass with a lightening bolt? So far I said “god damn it” six times today and nothing happened.

Apparently, people are really still beating drums to their gods around a big great fire with wooden sticks in their noises and they don’t recognize it. If we look at some other so called “primitive” belief systems and watched some tribe dancing for rain you’d say ‘that’s crazy - look at those idiots” But yet people still believe that making the sign of the cross is going to bring them some blessing. Amazing. It goes back to two things. The first is the almost universal simplistic view that people have about our existence and out potential creator. The pronoun “he “ is indicative of this type of belief system. “He” is like us. “He” gets mad. “He” gets insulted. Are you serious? Some human type “he” created all this? And “he’s” just as sensitive as the rest of us? That would make me sad - not afraid to piss “him” off. If that’s the case - god damn it we’re all screwed. I’d hate to think that the all mighty creator get’s mad when you don’t wear some hat all the time. Or fail to kneel before an alter. Is it just me or does anyone else see the parallel to other rituals in the past which we now find retarded (yes I say retarded) . Second, it’s that these ritualistic beliefs are like colds. Once you pick one up from some alleged reliable source that’s usually all you need. After that it’s almost impossible to get rid of it. “My dad said so” or “that’s part of my religion” is the standard type of explanations you get when you ask someone why doing something ritualistically is going to make a difference.

Do people remember when we used to sacrifice animals? What happened to that practice? Allegedly it was supposed to appease the gods. No more I guess. Instead we replaced that ritual with things like wearing certain attire, kneeling, chanting, bowing, making the sign of a cross, etc. I have to assume that one day someone woke up and said “you know that whole kill the animal on the alter thing is not working for god anymore. It’s so messy - get me a yamika instead”. And for those Christians and Jews I would remind you all that sacrificing animals is biblically sanctioned. So how come it’s being ignored? Did god send out a memo entitled “animal sacrifices to be replaced with kneeling?” I must have missed the memo. So basically these rituals are taught (or caught) and then once we have a belief that they are actually doing something affirmative for our relationship with god, unfortunately (as I have noted before) our genetic biological programming makes us instinctively want to defend this idea despite the fact that it’s just an extension of things we clearly no longer believe. While we know killing animals does not work to actually influence either god or our situation, we find some other thing to do which we think does. However, the replacement ritual is just really a modified version of the original. And bizarre as it is, we just don’t recognize the substitution. What’s more, we’re often afraid (fearful) that we actually might offend god if we don’t keep doing this ritual. Which is also a byproduct of our programming and social interactions (with for example authority, i.e. our parents). Not only that, but we’re not even willing to acknowledge that such a practice might be wrong even in the face of probative evidence that it’s practice is not having any effect. If all you needed to do was pray or eat kosher or follow 10 or even 10,000 rules to stay clear of trouble than all those “religiously” following those things would be invincible. And as we know they are not.

Hey, not too long ago we killed other humans to make the gods happy and that also seems to have faded away. Which brings me to the point of all this, a little story about human sacrifice. As the historical telling goes...

Once upon a time, hundreds of years ago, there was a custom of the people on the island of Formosa (now Taiwan) to offer human sacrifices. At that time the island was governed by a respected and beloved emperor by the name of Goho. Goho wanted to change the barbaric practice and instituted his law which permitted only animals and not humans to be sacrificed. However, one year there was a terrible drought causing a famine on the island. The people believed it was their failure to sacrifice to the gods and demanded an immediate human sacrifice. Goho pleaded with his people to abandon this painful and useless ritual. But the people’s superstitious beliefs caused them to resist. “Very well,” said Emperor Goho, “tomorrow morning at dawn go into the forest and you will find your victim for the sacrifice. He will be tied to a tree and wearing a red robe. Kill him for he is your sacrifice.” Early the next morning the men went with their clubs and found things to be just as Goho had said. There was the sacrifice tied to a tree and wearing a red robe, a robe that obscured his face. They rushed forward and killed him. When they pulled away the robe that covered the sacrifice’s face they were mortified to see that it was Goho, their beloved emperor.

Goho had taught them the ultimate lesson about rituals. They had sacrificed their leader and yet the famine continued. The gods had not been appeased. Their ritualistic efforts actually killed what was good. From that time forward there was never again human sacrifice on the island of Formosa. Stated in another way, the practice of a mindless ritual (while having no real effect on our relationship with god) may have a profound affect on our lives. What we are often doing is substituting a manual motion or materialistic action for a better focus on what is important to us and to god.

9-11 CONSPIRACIES AND HOW WE SPEND OUR TIME

What motivates someone to spend hundreds of hours attempting to prove a conspiracy (like those who think 9-11 was the work of the United States) when no matter what they tend to prove their efforts go nowhere? Is it ego? Is it the concept of “I told you so”? Because realistically all the time and effort and examination of this and that and the general outcome is usually “who cares?”. Really, who cares? I say it doesn’t change a thing. Is any of this “proof’ that the government was involved in killing it’s own citizens really going to change anything? Is there a smoking gun out there that will cause the whole government to be indicted? Or change the way men behave in general. You think if the government was indicted and convicted the next set of rulers would suddenly be a moral bunch? What’s the goal of proving a conspiracy (or even believing in a conspiracy)? There’s so many and I don’t see any real goal. How about that New World Order? When they finally prove it exists it will probably be too late - don’t you think? They’ll be some announcement in the New York Times indicating: “NWO ANNOUNCES ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT - MARSHALL LAW IMPOSED”. And when it happens some guy will stand up and say, “I told you so”. Again, even in retrospect, who cares? Im my humble opinion, all of this type of mystery proving behavior is really worthless. Take for instance those people who are obsessed with the end of the world. And in case you didn’t know about these people, all you need to do is Google “end of time” to see what they’re up to. One theory is some planet (often called planet X as either dark matter or invisible or currently unknown and yet undiscovered) is hurling toward us toward our doom and gloom. Again, if it is and they can prove it is - who cares? What’s the difference? See I told you we were all going to die from the great Planet X. Again, it must be ego. Then there are those pesky date doomsday lovers. Many believe 2012 is some mystical year of destruction. And in fact there’s 2009, 2010, 2011 (probably 3012) and some handful of other randomly picked years when it’s “definitely” all over for us. Unfortunately, the past dire predications never got there so there’s a need for new ones all the time. In case you forgot there was the year 2000 when all the computers were going to crash and the food supply chain was going to be wiped out. Not to be outdone by the myriad of previous predictions of past destruction of this planet that never came true. And yet, people continue to spend inordinate amounts (I say inordinate amounts) of time trying to prove the end of time. Trying to discover the date when the earth is going to go through this woe or that woe. When the asteroid will hit or the nuclear war is clearly predicted by the incoherent ramblings of dead people like Nostradameous or some other self-proclaimed soothsayer. When they do discover positively when Armageddon will finally (if that’s even possible) I want them to let me know what was the goal? I’m hoping the answer is something like “let’s re-set the axis of the earth so that the big end of destruction will whizz by and we can all look at it like some fireworks display”. You think that’s the answer we’ll get? Hm. Many of these predictions are naturally predicated on some religious text and mostly on god. For all the end-of-time-at-the-hands-of-god-people, I wonder if god would want them to spend all of or time and efforts on something they supposedly have no control over? I think the end of our respective time would be better spent not trying to figure out our collective end of time. Maybe something along the lines of helping people, sacrificing for people, and changing the world (even in a small way even for even one person) for the better. But again that’s just my opinion. In any event it supposed to be the END OF TIME so what are they trying to figure it out for? It’s not a lunch bell that let’s us know it’s time to eat but rather the last second of recorded time. Just like the announcement of some new world order, this end of time thing will probably blind side whoever is alive when it happens. I hope these discoverers of truth don’t get the date right and try to stop something that god supposedly wants in the first instance. I bet that would be some kind of major “sin”. “Who art thou who stopeth the end of time”? And (of course) it almost goes without saying that most of these god-is-going-to-end-it-all people devote so much of their time to discovering something that at least god in the new testament says is impossible to know (“therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour the Lord will come.” Matthew 24:42). So that brings us to the natural question which arises from all this, how should we spend our time if not to find it’s ultimate end? That’s a tough one. Ands an answer which depends on our values. What is it that we value? Some of us value eating - so we spend a lot of time eating. Some of us value people - so we spend a lot of time helping other people. What you do is really about how you view the meaning behind these examples.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Does The Middle East Spell Doom and Gloom For the World?

There is (for me) a misconception of what the brain does and does not do. Chomsky and other cognitive behaviorists have it half right. They are correct in that certain behaviors are learned via stimulus induced unconscious abilities (genetic programs). In addition, the brain is obviously a device which stores information for later retrieval (memories) as well as for the purposes of recall (fire is hot). These memories are not accessed until some relevant stimuli calls them in to play. That is the extent (for me) of the so called unconscious. Science (behaviorists, anthropologists, etc.) mix and match morality and the motivations of morality with the unconscious because science continues to attribute moral behavior to the operation of the brain. Prompting not only a search for rational explanations of why we behave morally but also an extrapolation of the functionality of the cognitive operations of the brain to moral behavior. Giving rise to things like the creation of Freudian unconscious and preconscious theories. And an explanation of why logically Searle refuses to acknowledge an unconscious mental intentional phenomena.

The formation of religious groups (cults, countries, terrorist groups, etc.) is nothing more than the running or innate ANIMAL programs. Since they are nothing more than the formation of packs under the auspice of god, defending one pack at all costs is what is called for. And once you participate further participation is progressive - violence begets violence (etc.). The reason for this is rather complex, but essentially these programs are learned and reinforced through their use. As Darth Vadar learned the dark side is very strong once you participate.

When operating in animal behavior, our programs dictate our behavior. When we act morally, god (our spirit, conscience or morality) dictates our behavior. When we act at all there is a conflict and a duality.

The rules of animals in their survival are simple, evade danger (escape or be destroyed), confront danger and be victorious (face the fight and win or be destroyed), attack and destroy or be destroyed (start the fight and win or be destroyed). There are no other possibilities in the survival paradigm. Animals operating in packs (religions, countries, groups) have the same rules. Consequently, the opposing sides in the Middle East are operating with this inherent duality, Each of the sides or packs act in the realm of their animal programs (defense of position, dominance, etc.). They also are faced with moral issues (deferment, peace). However, in the Middle East (as is the case with most religions) both sides have distorted their morality to conform to their religious dogma. Which I might add is a product of not morality but rather their animal programs (we are superior because we have god in our pack, or god chose our group and we are dominant). Accordingly, they each use their created beliefs about their relationship with god to validate their actions in violence and killing and protection of their positions. As such, moral concerns are diluted and depressed in this instance in favor of animal tendencies.

Therefore, in the Middle East, we are strictly dealing primarily in animal programs. As such, the middle east is naturally doomed to continue it’s conflict until once side is defeated entirely (destroyed). I note that neither can escape to avoid destruction (escape or be destroyed). Whether this destruction occurs today, tomorrow or 100 years from now I believe it is ultimately inevitable. Unfortunately, the destruction of one side may lead to the involvement of other packs (other countries) whose interests will come in to view. Therefore the extermination of the conflict could lead (and should lead) to further escalation ON A GLOBAL SCALE.

While nothing is written in stone, the variables required to catapult the conflict in the Middle East in to a global event are present, dominant and in my opinion likely. As Carl Von Clausewitz “There are very few men- and they are the exceptions—who are able to think and feel beyond the present moment”.

Is Morality Divine?

I read in the New York Post under “Weird But True” that a pregnant woman about to give birth to twins rushed in to a burning building to knowingly save a paralyzed woman. “I knew it was a risk to myself but I couldn’t leave her she said” (July 13, 2006). This is clearly an irrational act contrary not only to the survival of this woman but her unborn babies. It is therefore actually an extraordinary act since the woman’s natural maternal instincts (which must be genetically paramount) were suppressed in favor of saving a paralyzed woman. How could this be possible? This of course got me thinking about morality and altruism. It has been by constant belief that altruism in animals is not the same as self-sacrifice. One is a conscious choice to give up something irrationally; the other has to do with animal programming overwritten by directly related social consequences.

There are many so-called scientists who believe that morality is an extension of innate abilities and the mechanisms of the brain. Or like the physical development of humans, morality is a natural extension of evolution. Taking a look at just one such individual, Noam Chomsky, we can see the flaw in this reasoning. Chomsky seems to believe (as I do) that humans are programmed computers whose internal mechanisms can be both be turned on (programmed) and changed (re-programmed) by external stimuli. Chomsky's work reinforces the philosophical tradition of "rationalism," the contention that the mind, or "reason," contributes to human knowledge beyond what is gained by experience. He is opposed by the "empiricists," who claim that all knowledge derives from external stimuli, including language (Noam Chomsky , Major Twentieth Century Writers, 1991). The discovery of cognitive structures common to the human race but only to humans (species specific), leads quite easily to thinking of unalienable human attributes." ((Noam Chomsky , Major Twentieth Century Writers, 1991, citing Nation, Edward Marcotte). "Mind is the software of human psychology, and thought is individuated as instances of the mind's operations. The behaviorist is seen to be insisting ... on a very minimal sort of software; the rationalist is out to show that much more powerful and abstract, perhaps in good measure innate, software has to be involved (Justin Leiber in his work Noam Chomsky: A Philosophical Overview).

Unfortunately Chomsky and other cognitive behaviorists only have it half right - while our brains come pre-programmed as do the brains of animals ("Chomsky has said "if we assume that human beings belong to the biological world, then we must expect them to resemble the rest of the biological world"), what they entirely attribute to the innate software of the brain, I attribute in part to innate programs and in part to divine morality. Since we know little if anything about the brain and how it operates, I'd say our respective theories could each be as equally correct. But I also believe my theory is based upon logical and rational conclusions.

I suggest you try to suspend your beliefs and prejudices for a moment and imagine a regular old computer. This computer has pre-existing programs running which are intended to support both it’s survival and it’s ability to evolve in to a smarter machine. The programs are automatically changed inside the computer as a result of external stimuli. At some point this computer becomes so intelligent that it acquires a new ability (and desire) to determine that some of it’s programs are no longer required toward it’s own survival and it’s further evolution – non-computer software related abilities were inserted (morality). Or that some of it’s programs can and should be limited in their operation. Unfortunately it can’t erase the original programs because they were and are inextricably intertwined with’s it’s continuing functionality. So the computer is faced with a duality in the conflict between it’s preexisting programming (which it can not shut off) and it’s desire and new ability to limit or turn that programming at will (free will). And this is the fate of we humans. At some evolutionary plateau, we suddenly learn that killing, hoarding, stealing, etc. can be substituted by love, self-sacrifice, sharing, caring, etc. This ability is what makes humans distinct from animals who have no such abilities. It is worth noting that both the pre-existing programming and our morality are not constant in this battle. Our programming can be reinforced with it’s operation (i.e. habit, physical dependence) as can our new ability to be moral through it’s use (kindness, compassion, caring).

Animals, therefore, are not moral creatures. For survival alone, while "[t]he greater part of naturally occurring behavior in most animals, especially for those that live in relatively predictable environments, appears to be predisposed (see Boice, 1973), and it is released by external events (e.g., hormones that are produced in response to seasonal variations in sunlight or temperature)" (A cognitive behaviorist approach to the study of animal behavior, Journal of General Psychology, Oct, 2002 by Thomas R. Zentall), there remains a need in animals to be able to alter their behavior based upon environmental stimuli and behavioral consequences. This is not morality but simply a readjustment of their innate programs (see: Mary Cover Jones' work or Pavlov's dogs). Animals are not making conscious decisions based upon what they feel is right or wrong. They are reacting to stimuli and altering their programs. This is especially applicable in unstable environments. If I smack my dog on the nose he immediately stops eating off the table. Did he do it because he thought it was bad behavior? I think not. If I smack him every time he does it eventually his natural instinctual program to eat first and ask questions later is re-written - but not because he now know's it's morally wrong to do so. This ability in animals and humans to overwrite our natural programs makes sense because without it behavior would be unable to respond to an otherwise chaotic environment. It would seem necessary that our innate survival programs should be permitted change based upon our often changing environmental situations. Having been officially reprogrammed to act when the environmental situation has seemingly or actually permanently changed. For my dog continual nose smacks tell his program that says “eat! when there is food on the table" with “try to get the food and experience pain”. The ability of our programs to be re-written in response to our environment is in fact the true genius of our genetic programming. For humans, a prime example of this external stimuli which shapes our innate behavioral programs are our moral codes and laws (religious codes, criminal codes, etc.). Fear, pain, punishment and the like are the same tools I use on my dog toward changing his programing and they work in an identical fashion in we humans. But what give us this added ability to make a choice to ignore our programs? Or even to challenge our laws on moral grounds in acts of civil disobedience or protest? And what is telling us that our choice is the correct choice?

While animals and humans have innate survival programs which can be changed according to external stimuli, clealry humans have the additional ability to ignore or actually turn those programs off in favor of alternative solutions. Nevertheless the pregnant woman not only suppressed her innate survival programs, she was spurred to action by her sense of doing what she felt was right. The behavior of humans, therefore, while similar to animals, has an added component which permits actions which are directly in opposition to our very survival programs. These actions are often irrational in the context of survival. And especially in the context of survival of the fittest. How could such an ability possibly be tied to some evolutionary development?

The distinction I am amking here is between pre-programed abilities (which initially need to be turned on and then can be changed in response to external stimuli) and the ability to make contrary (irrational) decisions based upon what we feel is right (morality). And while science clearly supports the idea that man evolved from a primitive animal in to an intelligent creature by way of evolution, it would seem that there is no scientific evidence to support a similar development of morality. In fact, moral decisions like the one made by the pregnant woman are contrary to our survival as a species.

Clearly, our survival tools and programming (what we now label evil) are natural behaviors necessary in both the survival and evolution of a (primitive) pre-moral human. Consequently we see (quite correctly) in most creation myths that it is an EVOLVED intelligence and wisdom (symbolically a serpent or snake) which was necessary for god to insert himself in to man. In his pre-conscious state (in the symbolic Garden of Eden) man was in fact just an animal - that's why he didn't need to be clothed - he (like my dog) had no sense of awareness. Clearly then, “original sin” is just another term for our animal programming (evil) which we still are all continually born with - just now (in a post-moral state) with the opposing force of god (spirit, soul, morality, a conscience) operating against it. I'm certainly not a creationist in the six day traditional sense. Science is real - just not the answer toward explaining morality and god..

Let’s return to altruism as the basis and support for the evolution of morality. Again, like repeatedly slapping the dog on the nose toward modifying his natural tendencies, altruism is strictly a tool toward survival learned vis-a-vis the external stimuli of the animal's
environment. There's no conscious choice to act irrationally present in animals. Nor any plausible (i.e. evolutionary) nexus to suggest that altruism developed as such in humans. I have tried extensively to find cases of altruism in animals which are not directly related to their own survival – and can find (by my means of examination) none. As an example, deferring in the eating order of pack animals has a rational relationship to the survival of the weaker members - by permitting the strongest to eat first the weaker members increase their survival potential. Compare the pregnant woman above who risked three lives to save the paralyzed individual in that burning building or a starving mother on a deserted island who gives her baby (who can not thereafter sustain himself alone) the remaining food toward her own demise.

In conclusion, morality is not evolutionary but divine.

Your comments are welcome.

Hoarding Your Nuts and Tendencies of Good and Evil

Did you ever wonder why a squirrel hoards nuts? How does he know to do that? Do the other squirrels get outraged when one squirrel has all the nuts and there are starving squirrels all over the forest? Everything considered "evil" (it seems) is acceptable in the survival of an animal - theft, hoarding, killing, even eating their own young. However, when we humans engage in this behavior there is a reactionary judgment and this reactionary judgment is caused by our morality - there is something that separates us from animals - religious people call it a spirit, atheists call it morality, spiritual people call it our soul - no matter what we call it (even god) it causes us to judge what is considered an otherwise natural reaction in our survival programming to be (now) bad. If we are the evolutionary products of some creator, and we required this animal programming to get to this stage (i.e in our survival from animals to an intelligent being), and we are then given conscious understanding of our actions (at some later level of intelligence), than the evil (our natural animal tendencies) served a purpose in getting us here. Killing, hoarding, stealing and the like all work perfectly well toward survival. And it would be perfectly understandable for this or that creator to have created both evil (natural instincts in survival) and good (a later ability to understand that these actions are now bad). The problem is not understanding all this but actually having some motivation to develop your morality in lieu of your animal. And most of us do not have the ability to recognize when we are stickily following our innate programs at the expense of the development of our morality. This is essentially what habits are - looping our programming. Serial Killers are really just running programs which are innate in our genetic code. Killing is perfectly acceptable to animals. Serial Killers have suppressed their concepts of right and wrong to satisfy a program. The way in which this program comes to fruition is through it’s use. Once a serial killer kills the program recognizes itself. Killing then becomes progressive as the serial killer’s mind is indicating that this program needs to run again (that is why it’s there). All programs we have seem to me to be progressive - that is the more we use them the more we need to use them. For example, people who engage in deviant sexual behavior like sado masochism are running programs concerning our innate genetic programs of dominance and submission as well as violence. The more they engage in this behavior the more they want to engage in this behavior often leading to behaviors which transcend fantasy (i.e. actual rape and killing). People who have a sense of moral outrage at specific immoral acts do so as they have developed their morality to a level which no longer permits one or more particular programs to take hold. Original sin is simply our genetic instinctual programs which without morality (often called god, spirit, soul, consciousness, etc.) would result us in simply being animals . Genetic code predisposes some individuals to have variations of the functionality of these programs. That is to say our genetic code predisposes us to use this program or that program more prevalently than it may be used by someone else. In short, we humans aren’t all that hard to figure out. It’s dealing with our inherent duality which is the tough part. The key I believe it to avoid behaviors which mimic our programming. Because engaging in these behaviors is, as I noted, progressive.

North Korea Launches Some Conflict

Like animals we humans like to defend out positions - even when they’re ridiculous. I don’t think it matters what we really believe - it’s all about conflict. That’s what the world is selling you in case you didn’t realize - they’re selling you conflict. In fact, when see a movie the principle element of that movie is conflict. Usually evil verses good or some offshoot of that principle. When you listen to some conservative talk show host talk about liberals with disdain - he or she is selling you conflict. What makes a sports rivalry great? The conflict creates the drama. Don’t we just love it when a fight breaks out at a baseball game? How about the show cops? Is it just the conflict that make us want to watch? So conflict sells as well as sex if not better. So what’s the problem with this? Well the problem is to varying degrees (based upon our genetic predispositions and environmental history) we humans are naturally aggressive. We are easily drawn in to conflicts (did you ever see a riot break out at a soccer game?). In fact, once we get started conflict is progressive. Take for (an easy) example the Middle East. I heard on the news today (it could have been any day) that more people were killed. Sadly today it was a 12 year old Palestinian girl. So there’s an inciting event and then more conflict and then another inciting event and then even more conflict and so on and so on. Conflict is naturally escalating and humans naturally escalate conflict. Did you ever get insulted? What was you’re first reaction? Were you ever robbed? What was your first reaction? When someone hurts us do we do the godly thing and forgive them or do we want revenge and satisfaction for what they have done to us? So the media (television, movie industry, news stations) are constantly selling us conflict almost like drug dealers. They’re preying on our genetic weaknesses and we fall for it like addicts. The Michael Savages and the Rush Limboughs of the world are really just connflict dealers and the people who call in to argue or side up are really conflict addicts. The news media not only sells you conflict it likes to show you pictures of the conflict so you’ll get even more hooked. Just picture a cocaine dealer showing you pictures of not the cocaine itself but what cocaine can make you feel like.
So we have all this conflict going on in the world and I have to wonder how the people in charge of selling it to you really feel about it? I mean without all this conflict what would they talk about? What would they sell us? I can picture some news media executive hearing the news about North Korea firing a few missiles and saying, “thank heavens, I thought they were going to back down”.

Johnny Depp’s American Stress Syndrome

Not surprisingly, our great democratic right to vote is a sham because the candidates are all card board cut out of themselves. Do the millionaires of this country really represent the interests of the poor and disenfranchised just because they say they are liberal or democrat? How come some poor guy from Ohio isn't our president? They always own oil fields lately.
I realize that with the way we live in America we can and do find all sorts of sides to jump on (and that is our nature). We can call in every week on this radio station or another but there’s not a lot we can actually do to change anything. We are either powerless or apathetic. Patriotic of Anti-American. Conservative or liberal. And the guys in the suits just keep doing whatever they want anyway. Fed a higher standard of living we’re sort of like fat branded cows in the field who complain a lot but never get out of the pasture.
And so maybe this obtuse character Johnny Depp has it right? If you’re well off why would you want to be a part of all of this American Stress Syndrome? As soon as I make my first twenty million dollars I’m getting the barn next to Depp’s. Maybe he has satellite TV and I can still catch the Met games at his place? Johnny I'm home...

Superman Returns Full Of Holes

I’m not in the habit or reviewing movies, but I just saw Superman and need to vent. If you have not seen this movie and intend to do so, please do not read on as I give it all away. I usually have no problem dispelling my disbelief when I go to see a movie. However, some movies just insult even my most unimportant and unintelligent sensibilities. Superman is one of those movies that drives me nuts! Here’s a brief run down of all that’s wrong with the movie (and the poorly written script):

Lex Luther
In the movie Lex Luther somehow finds superman’s unguarded all powerful crystals (how does he find them and why are they unguarded?) and (after playing the Superman instructional video) decides to make his own continent by dropping them (like alka-seltzer) in the ocean off the coast of the United Sates. While Lex Luther understands the value of owning real estate, he apparently doesn’t see the problem with owning land that looks like parts of the moon since the land this process makes looks post-nuclear. He should have at least had a landscaper in his crew of three (yes three) bad guys. Also, as far as I can tell, when he decides to make his land mass he has just one helicopter (and a multi-gazillion-dollar disposable yacht that he abandons to be destroyed). Why not develop all the futuristic weapons that these crystals can supposedly provide (I bet they would be weapons with jagged edges) before you start making noise? Oddly he makes a new land mass in the ocean which ripples NYC and no one shows up to investigate! I knew our intelligence was bad but come on. Aside from these annoyances, while there’s mayhem all over the world Lex Luther and his cliche (oh it’s so sad when Superman get’s hurt) idiotic girlfriend use an out of control car to attract (distract) superman so they can easily steal the (rather common?) chunk of kryptonite that is coincidentally a story in the newspaper just when Lex needs it. Of all the (simultaneous) disasters in the world how did they know Superman would go for the loopy girl in an out of control car trick? After walking in to the museum and politely stealing the kyrptonite (did they really just kill the lights, break the glass and walk out?), he mixes it with the crystals and shoots it in to the ocean to make a sort of a Superman weakening land mass. Lex fails to kill Superman when he shows up and gets de-powered (I was waiting for the chain saw but instead he stabs Superman with a small piece of kryptonite and lets him float away in to non-kryptonite water with a small shard of krypto-meteor stuck in his side). Lex later entrusts the remaining super powerful crystals to the lap of his I’m-so-upset-this stuff-is-happening girlfriend who promptly dumps them out, and he and her finally end up on a (Gilligan’s) deserted Island the size of my back yard (good thing she took a sun umbrella on the helicopter). I also want to know what kind of he-almost-previously-annihilated-the-world-bad-guy has a double life sentence and gets off on appeal because a (post trial?) witness (here Superman) doesn’t show up - as an attorney it boggles my mind that Hollywood can’t at least get some paralegal to make up some plausible procedural explanation in a two hundred million dollar movie. In short Lex Luther and his jagged story line are hard to swallow.

Lois
We first see Lois aboard an airplane which is acting as the mule for a new space shuttle. I’m thinking the writers thought that they needed to have Superman save Lois and that they needed some exciting and spectacular vehicle to save her in. Ah, Boat? No, kind of boring.
Train? Eh, too mild. Airplane? Not bad, but..I got it! An airplane with a space shuttle launching on it’s roof. Cool! Over all, this Lois is beautiful (about time) and a little vulnerable - giving her character some sympathetic qualities that the prior portrayals failed to muster. As far as the love story (which is basically paramount here) we get the same old he-flies-her-around-town-in-the-moonlight cliche that is so tired even sappy romantics must have been bored.

Superman
The big guy! The back story here is that Superman leaves for two years to see if his home planet is still out there when (earth?) astronomers think they may have seen it. My first thought was, Superman flies in outer space and he thinks our astronomers can figure out if his planet is out there? Why didn’t he just fly out to the hubble telescope himself with his super eyes and take a look? Did he need to fly to the door step of Krypton or could he see it was gone when he was half-way there? During the movie Superman learns that the crystals are gone, that the electrical power grid has been blacked out, and that a meteor was stolen from the museum, and yet he never seems to put two and two together - sort of wondering around waiting for things to happen before he reacts. Despite his super vision he can’t see the green glowing material in Lex’s new land mass and flies right in like some sort of pizza delivery guy. Neither a thinking man nor a proactive force are you Superman? Included in this movie is the out-played he’s-a-boy-running super-fast-through-the-corn-fields-and-jumping-on-barns starter kit. What the heck? Two hundred million plus dollars and they bring us back to the corn fields to watch super-boy barn hopping? I’ll just say, I’m available to write scripts if anyone needs me.

Unlike the Spiderman movies were each plot point and event in the movie has a rational relationship to the characters and the story, this movie fails to remain connected. With it’s very simplistic plot, it’s basically just a sappy love story wrapped in a few eye catching action scenes.