I’ve been following “The Atheist Experience” videos for some time now, and recently started following the associated blog, where as you’d guess, fans of the show comment back and forth with the show presenters and others involved.

Right away, I noticed something interesting in the the discussion of an article by show host Don Baker called “A Suicide Note I Empathize With” . To me, as an outsider to this group, many of the comments seemed oddly fallacious. I say oddly because the show constantly goes through critical thinking and references several logical fallacies in theist positions, and the comments themselves demonstrate critical thinking of the Catholic Church. Also oddly because it seems, from an anarchist point of view, so unnecessary to strawman this guy and his actions in order to criticize.

So I jumped in, and some comments are pending moderation. I’m sure you can guess who I am if you don’t already know that pen name. It sticks out like a sore thumb in a pudding.

So, what do you understand about people’s ability to think rationally if they are anarchist, atheist, etc.. and some other area of their life goes unexamined or is irrationally defended? Why is it that we have brilliant scientists who are also theists, or brilliant rhetoricians who are prejudiced morons, or anarchist homophobes, or libertarian christians, or any of these combinations of ‘able to think clearly and decisively in this area, but not in this area’.

What is it that happens to people, or doesn’t happen, that allows them to really root around in their beliefs and really seek the truth, and why in some areas and not others?

And, I think importantly, what causes people to become unaware of their own poor argumentation on these ‘sensitive’ areas while still being able to retain that capacity and skill in other areas? Hypocrisy, it seems to me, isn’t so much about being an asshole as it is about what I would call the ‘false self’ taking over rationality and putting forward its hellish and transparent (to others, sometimes) ‘arguments’ that are clearly too bilinous to be anything but defensive shrapnel.

I’m still waiting for my last 3 comments to be posted to the article. We’ll see.

………..Part 2……….

Hey, thanks for the feedback and link eye2eye2. I like your simple metaphor take on it. It is like having the impulse to ‘just win’, rather than ‘just find the truth’. I have never really thought about it like that but I think you’re absolutely correct.

Lemme briefly label your insights with a few other terms to maybe draw out more of the process:

Paragraph 1: Black and White Thinking

Paragraph 2: Status-based false morality

Paragraph 3: Reflection on the need to belong to a group of admired peeps. “belonging over integrity”.

Paragraph 4: The source of the discomfort which prompts the above mechanisms is hinted at here.

I’m really getting fascinated by the aspects of #4 that I do not yet understand. I’m sure I’m as susceptible to this process as others, so I postulate that I protect the mechanism (to switch off critical thinking and adopt a ‘win-at-all-costs’ false self) by keeping certain aspects of it hidden.

Thanks again. By the way, my last 3 posts on that blog are now up. I never even had to go back to the early comments to demonstrate what I was talking about. The response to my ‘sticking a toe in’ was sufficient for analysis, which I found apropos to the whole topic. Makes me smile.

……….part 3………….

I agree, it does start with the family, or to put it a little more broadly: It starts with the argument from authority being made to be accepted by a child. This, I hope, broadens it two ways: One, it is any non-enemy authority figure the child experiences contact with who can have this kind of influence, not just a parent. Two, it narrows the list of possible experiences of a child to the required mechanism in common with the kind of mind-damage we’re really talking about. This broadens the utility of the statement “It starts with the family” to something more akin to a kind of forensic tool to do the digging with, rather than leaving it as a general idea somewhere on the shelf of good ideas.

The details of why I think the forced acceptance of arguments from authority is the sin qua non process in common with all experiences that lead to corrupted thinking is an article I’d like to write at some point. Like Christina on the “its the family” statement though, I doubt I’d be the first to make the case I would make. But it would be worth it to me to at least to the froo froo hypothesizing part of it. I’ll wait till my unicorn comes in and I am getting paid for it to do the required research and actually make a solid case with supporting evidence.

It is ground we have been over here at LiMi time and again with Cult talk, Alice Miller discussions, DeFoo critique, and everything else, and I hope and imagine that each individual probably has gained some insight via these things. For me, I just wonder if there isn’t a way to take these insights a step further and come up with a perhaps more comprehensive and quite probably more compassionate conclusion out of the compost heap.

What I experienced when I was ‘slammed’ for critiquing the atheists’ subtle statist posturing was different than mere defensiveness. I did feel hurt by the snarky mischaracterizations of my position, but though hurt, I wasn’t stung, if that makes sense. Rather, I had expected both the response and my feelings to be just about what they were, and was ready to roll with the punches with the point of furthering the discussion as it has to unfold.

An interesting thing that is from time to time discussed on The Atheist Experience video show is that for many atheists it is a long process before one gives up theism for good. Why?

I think this too relates to the problem of broken thinking and why it is broken: Fear. Yes, I said ‘discomfort’ earlier, because proximately this is the cause. It is really uncomfortable to challenge ideas you’ve held for the wrong reasons for a long time. But ultimately, the cause of broken thinking is Fear, rich and terrible Fear. So it is that ultimately it takes an inner heroism to ‘do the work’ of moving past and through that terrain.

Well, back to finding a “more comprehensive and quite probably more compassionate conclusion”. Its one thing to ‘win’ an argument by employing better arguments, even in the most healthy way. But it is another thing to heal broken thinking. Quite rightly there is the cliche that “You can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped”, but I don’t think that is the whole story.

Consistently, when I look back to pivotal moments in my own development I find that I had support for the changes I made. Experience, relationships, and perhaps most relevant here: Heroes. Examples of courage that baffled or otherwise held my attention in the past had sat dormant in my mind for years before becoming pillars of courage and inspiration in sudden leaps in the present.

So what I felt when arguing with the atheist about their statism was actually a kind of patience. If I’m honest with them and they don’t want to hear it, maybe someday the conversation will come back to them in some ‘aha’ moment. I don’t lose anything by the exchange. I’m not dependent on their reaction in any way. I think what I say is useful, for me, for them, and quite probably for the reader who happens across it, so I say it,. I take the opportunity to demonstrate that one doesn’t have to be manipulated by arguments from authority. It isn’t a goal to do that, but it’s a consequence of being honest and unafraid in a particular milieu.

I suppose it could be a goal, but its just one of those things that seems like a silly goal. Clearly people are highly resistant to changing certain kinds of thinking in areas where they’ve suffered strong conditioning. But it doesn’t hurt to take the opportunities we find to demonstrate courage, even little tiny internet courage like this.

I think the parts of the mind that get stuck behind arguments from authority are always in a state of stress due to other parts of the mind that are unhindered by great fear. The ‘false self’ doesn’t want to die, doesn’t want to be found out, but in some sense, knows it is false. When it is confronted directly and unashamedly (ie, with natural confidence and honesty), leaving no vulnerabilities to exploit (as that is it’s way to escape), this event I think has some impact whether we know it or not.

The slow-to-form Atheist and the slow-to-form Anarchist, like the slow-to-reform slave owner, are changed through experience and reflection, just like everyone else. Its just that corrupt and damaged thinking needs greater and deeper healing to ‘give up’ and let go than say, learning how to type rather than write by hand. The threats that corrupt thinking defends are quite real to that part of the mind. As such, a response with the intention of helping this process should take this into consideration.

And fortunately I think the right response is also the simplest: Forthrightness and compassion. Doesn’t make it always easy though. Not at all. After all, one has to do this for oneself first.

……….

Beyond ‘what starts it’ —> ‘bad authority’, I think the pressing questions have to reach out and forward to trying to understand ‘What do we do?’. The real answers are not simple, and certainly aren’t anything as base as just being on the ‘right side’. We already know what that is about!

I’m optimistic though, for each time I ask the question in a general sense of “So how do we mitigate the problem of the cycle of the Argument From Authority?” I am instantly reminded of all those people who reached out to me and who I currently see reaching out to others. Even if as a culture, or even a species, we never quite ‘grow up’ and clear away the damaging of young minds by crap like churches and bad parents and the state itself, each individual that is freed from their own ignorance is indeed freed. A = A, and somehow that can be enough.

-GF

1. The song “Harder Better Faster Stronger” by Daft Punk takes a journey around the internet. Hear the original on Last FM here or buy it from iTunes…. if you don’t have it already!

2. The song was a huge success. Some gents at Carleton decided to do an a capella version: Listen to it here. See a video performance here.

3. Not to be left out, it seems another Carleton student had a crazy idea. Watch his interpretation here: Daft Hands. This video became an internet sensation, spiraling out of control as so many videos do. The numbers are staggering. 28 million views?

4. Such inspiration begets more. As seen in some entertaining spin-offs. The Daft Bodies and the even more Daft Bodies from the girls rugby team at Wellesley.

What will tomorrow’s meme be?

“things seem to be moving along really well! glad to see you getting into the work! fun, fun!” (male)

“tee hee! love the small town fair too!” (female)

“How did it go? I went to a yoga class on Sunday for the first time in many months (Anne goes more frequently). I was certainly sore the next day.” (male)

“I’m reading Divisadero by Michael Ondaatje right now and loving it. You could also read that new Davis Sedaris book?” (female)

“Thanks for checking. I’m okay. Last night was horrible. I have some viral stomach thing and was in so much pain I had to go to the ER. I hope the worst is over. I’ve been in bed for the past 3 days facebooking ” (female)

“Hey Name, so nice to see you. You know, in all my memories of Our College, I don’t think there was anyone who was better at getting me to smile or laugh. How come I suspect that you’re still having that effect on everyone around you? I’m back in grad school now, working towards a new career as a counselor for adolescents. It’s sort of like a dream come true, leaving the corporate world behind and following my heart. Anyway, I’ll tell you more about it in an email soon, and really look forward to hearing more of where life has taken you. Take it easy, and I look forward to getting the scoop. –Douchebag” (male)

“Obama’s my man. Does that make Michelle my woman or my man’s woman? That sounds wrong.” (complete nunce, sex not important apparently)

“I’m with you!!
I think both my girls(15 and 17) and I will be coming to your next training!! cool!!
We’ll probably go to (boring place).. but no new nose piercings!! “ (female, retard. Poor kids)

“All in all we were pretty lucky. I have friends within a mile of our house who haven’t had power since Thursday. We only lost a combined 6 hours overall. The pine trees around our driveway, however, were not kind to our cars. Scott’s front windshield got cracked (hooray! Insurance covers), and my back side window was completely knocked out (not covered – hissss). We had three days off, which was nice – especially since nothing happened on Wednesday. Thank you for asking! I’ve loved your postcards. When do you start back to school” (fucking boring retard female)

“beautiful. love your sign-off.
One question: did Virginia MEAN to break the mirrors?” (female, making an in joke. see how it would only mean something to you if you were THERE. Wow.)

“(douchebag) is wondering if she should take down the “Boycott the olympics… free Tibet” poster she has on her window in light of watching every second of the games…” (female, lawyer)

“Hey lady! Sorry it’s taken me awhile to answer…I wasn’t sure if I was gonna be here on the 21st. I will. I would love to hang out with you. I’m at DJ & KB’s now but if you need a place to stay, you can always stay here with me. Scotland was incredible. I sent you pictures today. I love you muchly. Talk to you soon.” (rare decent person, female)

…………………………..

Well, that is it for now. Facebook brings out the FAKER in people apparently. I have grown to loathe nearly everyone I used to know unless I purposefully fuck with thier facebook. People left to their own devices seem to bullshit each other incessently. Well, fuck ‘em!

Breathe

Its long been a theory that one can take any dream, fairy tale, myth, or even real social situation, and re-examine it as if all the characters were internal voices, drives, motives, of a single individual. The parallel is easy to see in dream analysis. One person dreams about conflicting characters, and perhaps one observes a similar conflict or ambivalence in the person’s behaviors, aspirations, or neuroses.

Its a little more of a stretch to examine fairy tales and myths in this light, as often these are laden with seemingly intentional surface messages about morality, relationships, or the nature of the world. However, just as a dream may seem to be ‘about’ a particular external conflict in the world, we can sometimes be taken aback when we come to some insight regarding the internal nature of certain of these dream conflicts.

The process of analysis of all three metaphorical types: dream, traditional fairy tale, or modern drama, is always an artistic and creative proposition, because any given tale may reveal its meaning on many different levels, any of which could be correct interpretations of the message within. Discerning both the content, and the appropriateness of metaphorical level may always thus make the entire process seem ambiguous or perhaps less important than more direct forms of communication.

Nonetheless, it is a fact that certain kinds of messages are usually only received through their characteristic medium. Our unconscious does communicate to us through dreams. That inner realm also simply communicates through our felt conscious experience of self, but dreams can communicate something that our conscious inner chatter and response to body sensations cannot typically achieve. And hence not only are dreams valuable for their content, but for the seemingly indirect medium of their communication. They give us pause. They give us a chance to reflect on our experience in a new way. They may even tell us who we really are, or lead us to letting go of now vestigal parts of ourselves that we’ve carried from earlier life.

And there is a fourth (at least) category of message or ‘tale’ that can be reinterpreted as the inner experience of an individual: Real life. Our social experience. Indeed, sometimes our lives seem like dreams, and our dreams seem like our life. Sometimes our inner voices find alignment in external persons, and our inner life is played out around us, affirming our inner voices, but also our social interconnection. We belong with others as social beings because we can relate with them as we do with ourselves. And this can all be reversed as well by simply looking for the message about our external world: its important persons, our attractions, our fears and aversions, within what seem like messages about our inner world. This last can be a bit more difficult, but the parallels are clear, and hence the opportunities for meaningful metaphor are also clear.

Any time two systems can be aligned in symbol, sense, or even feeling, there is a potential for metaphor to drive us to new insights about either or both systems.

So, to the story of the Television show: “24”. Whether or not the show is likeable, realistic, or memorable isn’t so important to this discussion. Personally, I enjoy it as being fairly ridiculous but engaging. Its self-seriousness is somehow still funny. It is almost a parody of itself. But that aside, what about the show seems like the inner life of a person?

I’m growing weary of this post for now, and might come back to it and finish it up, but in light of that I’ll just unload the paraphrase of my analysis. Actually, the following is just exploratory, as I’ve somewhat lost the insight in my increasing need to end the post. But here it is:

The main character, Jack Bauer, is the false self’s impersonation, or counterfeit of the true self. When its really just the false self’s narcissistic idolizing of itself. He’s obviously much like Freud’s superego, however, if we look from the perspective of Alice Miller’s writings (among others), the character of Bauer is more than a morally perfect ideal. He’s a real force in the story. He’s seemingly the only important force, or the king of all the forces of good.

Evil keeps attacking the world of 24. The ‘good guys’ are all responsible for stopping this evil. That is the world of the false self, not the true self. As every good character must ‘defend’ (ego defenses are the hallmark of the false self) the nation (the nation cannot defend itself), Bauer is the particular good guy who always comes through and gets it done. He makes most of the connections between threats, appears everywhere there is danger that needs handling, and always seems to do the right thing. He has no real fear.

When the big uglies of our real lives come to confront us, we defend ourselves. We rationalize this defense against our experience of pain in order to cover up the fact of our fear and maintain a particular kind of ego identity. We make virtues of our false fronts, and believe them.

More later

As you sit in your backyard this summer and listen to groups of neighbors around the Barbecue, ask yourself: How is this different from the a-historical human interaction, and why?

This question is prompted by considering and wondering about why people do the things they do, and how they explain themselves and their behaviors. If we can sometimes take people at their word, it seems that everyone has goals and rules, standards of self image that they attempt to live up to and balance with goal-seeking behaviors. But the goals themselves do not seem to be frequently deeply examined. Perhaps the most annoying thing you can ask someone is “Why do you think doing so and so is Good?”. Because most of these paths of inquiry end in flat statements of premise, without a consideration of the how and why of that premise.

Indeed, maybe all lines of non-scientific inquiry, all questions of character, all pursuits into non objective reality must end in terminal blind spots. And this does make one wonder about the whole purpose and mechanism of the conceptual world in human experience. Is it all self-deceit? self-conceit?

Do our proto-humans, with their total lack of preconception via experience (culture, learning, socialization, etc..) still arrive pre-packaged with some sort of preconceptions? We know that our biology does predispose us to certain things, like conceptualizing the sky as relatively smaller than it is (land animals tend to have more conceptual space for the horizon, where most activity takes place). And our biological drives will occur whether or not we have a history. But do we also have moral senses, social tendencies towards certain arrangements? Or do we have a simple capacity for logic, and thereby ethics and morality (since rules make sense in a social environment). Or is it just a light switch that triggers in the presence of rule-filled social environments, but which lays dormant without experience?

If it is fair to say that all perpetuating deceptions rest on unchallenged assumptions (and we can argue that another time), isn’t it possible that the entire moral mechanism…no, the entire choice-making mechanism, including morality, rests on such a self-deception? A deception we learn as infants and reinforce at every opportunity, as if to bulwark our ego identity with ‘more of the same’.

It is not difficult to see, on examining the myriad behaviors of which humans are capable of claiming as “necessary” or “good”, that we are easily capable of rationalizing many things. But rationalization itself is for a reason. We rationalize to subdue those things which could shatter the fragile shell (of social group or individual identity). Most notable is hypocrisy, which can be alarmingly clear and yet made to seem diffuse in the face of other stressors.

So is it identity, and the need for identity (drive to identity?) that push us beyond our concept-less state of just-having-been-born into the tangled and colorful morays and memes that characterize and predict our behavior?

When I examine a life, perhaps a person I’ve gotten to know fairly well, and I can imagine how they would answer the questions like: “So, having children and helping them to be as healthy and successful as possible is Good because….why?”, and I can sense that at some point we are going to end with either: “Because it makes me happy”, or “Because it is Good”, I start to really wonder whether any of us has any idea what we’re doing. And if we don’t (which seems rather likely), our self deceptions seem to be in the service of something other than our own wills.

Some have argued that we are but cogs in the cultural machine, and as our culture evolves we take up a role within it of some kind as a cell takes a role in a body: With these inputs and environmental conditions, the cell is going to behave like so and so…

But then again, cells don’t try to justify their behaviors as free will or because of some high moral nature or strength of character. So, why do we, if we are just Cogs?

Why is the nature of our behavior often hidden from us? When we climb the corporate ladder for the revisiting of the ecstatic feelings of foiling our siblings’ ploys for attention, but on a conscious level see our behavior as motivated by our praiseworthy ambition and our decision to make a million by 30 years old, what are we doing? Why the disconnect?

Our a-historical humans are eyeing each other cautiously, trying out various facial expressions to look for the alleviation of anxiety in the mirroring of threatening and powerful others. Some are pretending curiosity at the food, suggesting a group behavior (eating) to ease these same concerns. No one is comfortable because each experiences within them the simultaneous urge to do violence to the more threatening others, and the concurrent fear of receiving the same. If nobody gets through the barrier soon, the gathering will dissipate. Each will sneak back to feed when the hunger begins to outweigh the caution. They eat alone.

To be free of concept and history. To be truly alien to the human race and look upon our choices and chattering, and the sinewy and complex relationship between what we say and what we mean, what we claim and what we covet. Would we see anything then? Would we see the Moral arrow piercing our nature, pointing and dragging us to the lair of our unconcern?

-GF

Whoops psychology!

If anyone has good tech-consulting websites to refer to, send me a link. I’m aiming to give my consulting business a face by June. A face, forums, articles, etc.., for the tech newb.

Political predictions? Major slump and shakeout of economics will be accelerated by problems in the transportation industry, leading to a new global economic form that will revalue goods over currency and capital. Regressive, but more stable. Politically, the US federal government will spend our future even further, well past the breaking point, and will suffer an implosion of some sort, though not fatal. We have one more cycle within the current framework before……what? Federalization? : IE, states taking more autonomy? I don’t know, but the change in ~15 years will be fairly dramatic. How much longer can a binging pauper stagger on?

Stefan Molyneux writes:

“I certainly do believe that we should put as much effort as possible into helping people to rationally understand the evils of statism, and the violence it requires.

However, after you have stated and proved your position, there does come a point when someone you know may look you in the eye and say: “I still support the use of violence against you.”

If you consider somebody a friend who is willing to advocate the use of violence against you, then I would seriously question that definition of “friendship.””

My reply:

“Thanks for your comment Stef.

And I totally agree with your statement here. We each must take the measure of each other in our own way, and some are more willing than others to spend time or energy connecting even with those who would do us harm (out of ignorance or corruption or malevolence). Whether or not this is worthwhile or irrational is another question.

There certainly is an irrational or self-destructive element to claiming friendship with someone who would do us harm. However, a distinction can and must be made between friendship and connection in general. Like yourself, I would not call a statist a friend in the true sense, for I could not trust that he would not betray me for poor reasons. However, I would not exclude myself from attempting rapport and mutual empathy or compassion because I cannot at the moment claim true friendship.

I accept and respect your position on the matter. It is logical. But for myself I do think that beyond building our base of like-minded free-thinkers we will have to stretch our ability to connect even with those who would do us harm. You’ve demonstrated a great ability to get inside the minds of the corrupt, but often leave off at the level of condemnation. True, some persons may be beyond any of our individual abilities to build bridges away from violence and coercion and other soul-destroying habits towards freedom and mental health. And also true that condemnation or avoidance is often the healthy response to what would otherwise be personally destructive relationships. But I do not think it is true that we can extract and apply general rules to everyone such that we can assert: “Statists are irrecoverably corrupt. Avoid at all costs”.

To do so is to universalize a personal rule of thumb that works in keeping one (you in this case) safe and productive. But it is not universally true, and heavily conflicts with the idea of personal growth and change. Many of those at FDR, including you, were once statists of one sort or another, and to throw out the baby with the bathwater here looks and seems overly defensive, naive, and myopic. I do believe we can weave our mutual support for freethinkers and ancaps without this kind of isolationism. Indeed, I think it will only be possible to grow the freedom movement to the extent to which we can remain border-less, but not boundary-less.”

PS: Apparently I am banned at FDR. I tried to check the top referrer to the thread: http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/115192.aspx and I cannot log in. Maybe my account just expired? I never recieved a notice about being banned.