From Whence, Whither To?

 

Here, on the precipice of the Brave New World, we have reached a nexus in history as seems to happen every 500 years.  The Age of Exploration and the Renaissance was the last moment of choice, and the outcome of our current age will steer history for centuries to come.

There are three contexts which are in flux, as they always are at these nexus points - culture, reason and politics.  Within the context of culture, we find religion, art and education.  Under the topic of reason, we find science, health and philosophy.  The topic of politics encompasses law, social order and economics.

That culture is in turmoil is indisputable by even the most bovine character.  Religion of all flavors has been in decline for the last century.  Art has devolved from ascendant aesthetics to taping bananas to the wall.  Education, particularly in the West, is completely wrecked by any classical standard.

At the last nexus point, the Catholic Church dominated the West, and by extension of the Age of Exploration, much of the world.  In AD 1000, the Church declared dominion over the entire Earth in trust for the return of Christ.  This moment set up the following nexus, where the European powers were subservient to Rome, though in the 1500s, Martin Luther and Johannes Gutenberg were already planting the seeds that would flower in our current nexus. We now see the Church as a faded and corrupt relic of a day long past.  This is only one example, but the ability of religion to dominate and control culture is withering fast.

Art is quite nearly dead, and has been in the throes for a century.  For centuries, art was the elevation of raw materials to sublime beauty.  Canvas, pigment and stone were manipulated to draw out form, balance and harmony to transcend the materials used.  In the last nexus, art exploded in an orgy of creativity and new techniques that reformed the degraded culture in the Great Rebirth.  In our current nexus, we see herds of mindless sycophants applauding piles of garbage, a pair of glasses and regurgitated milk.  Even our newest art form - film/video/photography - has rotted and putrefied in less than a century, to the point it no longer elecates and educates, but dictates and castigates.  Art has crossed the line from the sublime to the propagandistic.  It has become a celebration of the ugly, the profane and the sacrelege. 

When it comes to education, it is nearly impossible to find an example of it anywhere in our nexus.  The very concept of teaching the tools of critical thinking is derided, and people with degrees in "education" are lauded while simultaneously being self-contradictory - how can one be "educated" in education?  Rote recital of doctrine has replaced logical inquiry at every level and in every college  The humanities are little more than ideological clap-trap, and the sciences have devolved to grant chasing.  One no longer learns to question assumptions, but to regurgitate them as Truth and never question them.  This is not education.  Reasoning with letters and numbers is derided as antiquated foolishness, while universities literally offer doctorates in foolishness.

As the culmination of culture, reason is a fundamental quality of civilazation.  That science, health and philosophy are the results of applying art, religion and education to the great questions of existence.  Science is supposed to seek fects in repeatable patterns that are free of bias and assumption.  This leads to greater health and logetivity, providing us with more time to pursue truth, and this, in turn, leads to philosophy, where facts are intrepreted for meaning within the randomness of the Universe.  Sciene, though, has been perverted into providing plausibility to stupidity, which undermines our health, and robs us of the search for meaning by corrupting facts and diverting our time to circular pursuits.

Take for example the scourge of our nexus point - the COVID pandemic.  The most profound assumption of this whole event is that viruses make us sick.  Rather than constantly examining the facts underlying the pandemic, science has been co-opted to uphold the dictates of organizations with agendas, the most crass of which is profit.  This undermines our health, not because we are getting sick from a virus, but because the reactions we are told to have are based on an incorrect assumption.  This culminates in a philosophy of humanity versus nature, rather than us against our selves, and so our search for truth is completely derailed by a simple, inccorect assumption.  How much different would our world be right this moment if we assumed that illness was not caused by the virus, but rather our body's response to its presence was making us sick?

At the apex of the foregoing sits politics.  How we conceive of and institute the legal, ordinal and economic structures of our civilization are completely dependent on our cultural and rational underpinnings.  What we call moral and acceptable is a function of our art, education and science.  Though all of these things may be categorized and typed, they are ultimately and completely dependent on each other to craft moral law, order and exchange.  Art determined harmony.  Harmony crafts fairness.  Fairness informs the law.  The law establishes order.  Order allows for exchange.  Exchange buys us health.  Health delivers philosophy.  Undermine any of these, and our world is thrown out of balance.  Undermine all of them and we arrive at a nexus point of choice.

At the last nexus 500 years ago, we chose the secular nation-state over genetic sovereigns; we chose capitalism and a vibrant middle class over command economies and rigid class systems; we chose free and open inquiry into the nature of the Universe over superstition and magic.  In other words, our species entered its puberty.  It is interesting that a debate now rages over puberty-arrestng drugs and gender fluidity, as a kind of metaphor for our civilization at large.

In our current nexus, we are faced with the ultimate choice - turn back to childhood, or proceed into adulthood.  Do we cling to Santa Claus and the Eater Bunny?  Or do we open our eyes to reality and responsibility?  In AD 1000, our species chose to turn back to childhood, and it was another 500 years before we finally accepted the inevitable.  Once again, we face reversing course and cowering in our myths and legends, or boldly and maturely stepping into our next stage of development.

We don't wake up one day and find that we are adults.  It is a process of develoment in which certain values and realities become inevitable.  In the same way, our species has been making a series of choices over the past century or so that have been leading us to a moment of critical choice.  It is not whether we wear a mask or a certain individual becomes president of a country tha tultimately matters.  It is rather that what we choose now will accelerate or inhibit our journey towards the inevitable.

That we will be forced eventually to mature as a species is inevitable.  When we will accept that reality and the responsibility that goes with it

We all know individuals who were responsible and mature at a young age, and others we generally refer to as "late bloomers".  This is the nature of our current nexus.  It is as simple, yet as complex as that.  Watching an individual mature at the gross scale seems fairly straight forward, but observing the process on the cellular level is mind-numbingly complex.  In either case, the process happens and only our understanding and appreciation of the process differes.

Like all adolescents, there are powerful forces pulling us in different directions.  Part of our species wants to remain in the familiar and carefree world of magic and fantasy, while the inexorable force of Nature herself is dragging us into the realm of adult responsibility and mature wisdom.  We are each a cell in the body politic, a neuron in the collective mind.  Consciously or not, we each are pushing or pulling, advancing or regressing

At some point, though, we must realize as a species that remaining forever children will be hazardous to our health.

This is the true Great Reset.

The Aluminum Beanie Club

As one might imagine, I am often accused of "believing in" and "promoting" conspiracy theories, a label of which I am quite proud, all the more so because the people using that term know absolutely nothing of what they are saying.

The term conspiracy theory, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, originated in 1909.  The full entry is here:

mid-14c., from Anglo-French conspiracie, Old French conspiracie "conspiracy, plot," from Latin conspirationem (nominative conspiratio) "agreement, union, unanimity," noun of action from conspirare (see conspire); earlier in same sense was conspiration (early 14c.), from French conspiration (13c.), from Latin conspirationem. An Old English word for it was facengecwis. As a term in law, from 1863. Conspiracy theory is from 1909.

Combined with the meaning of theory, I stand accused of investigating "conjectures of agreement."  To that, I plead guilty.  It is rather a badge of honor, really.  It means, with all clarity, that I engage in open-minded research into the origins and purposes of 'groups who agree.'  Why and how this term came to have such power over the minds of so many people is itself a conspiracy theory.

A recent experience with a friend of mine brought this issue back to my mind.  I had posted an article by Zero Hedge concerning some topic I've forgotten now.  This friend twisted off on me, saying that Zero Hedge was written by people using pseudonyms and spouting conspiracy theories.  I assume this was an attempt to discredit the source and myself.  I replied that Mark Twain used a pseudonym and Julius Caesar's assassination is a conspiracy theory, and both are taught in institutions of higher learning.  There was no reply.

The fact of the matter is that all groups who engage in unified action where outsiders can only speculate as to the reasons and methods behind said action is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.  In effect, everything the US Congress does leads to conspiracy theories, since no one seems to have a clue as to why they do what they do - quite possibly even the members themselves.

Arthur Schopenhauer famously observed that, "All truth passes through three phases.  First, it is ridiculed.  Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."  This succinctly describes the evolution of conspiracy theories.

Case in point, another friend, who for many years has, at times ridiculed, and at other times angrily castigated me for stating that I left the mass media/news industry because it was full of 'spooks' (CIA operatives).  Recently, I shared an article offering proof that the CIA had, for many years, manipulated the arts and media as a means of engaging in psychological warfare.  This friend laughed it off saying that everyone knew that.  I just sat back in my chair and stared at the screen for a time.

A great many years ago, I and a lot of other people were going off about the use of black helicopters in domestic covert operations without public knowledge.  I had personally seen them and was rabidly trying to tell folks (this was back when I actually thought I could wake people up), but the resistance was formidable.

A dear friend of mine, who happens to be both a lawyer and a pilot, finally threw down the gauntlet and said he was going to talk to his buddy who "pushed tin" for a living.  His contention was that no aircraft, even military, could operate in the US without an N-number/tail number.

About a week later, I got an email from him - the tone was rather subdued - that yes, indeed, there were black helicopters operating within the US and that the N-numbers and other identifying meaks were painted on in infrared paint, so they could only be viewed with night-vision instruments.

Nowadays, everyone knows there are black helicopters.

It is so Orwellian that it spooks me sometimes.  Recall that Winston Smith made the point that Oceania had not always been at war with Eastasia, but that at some point in the past, had been at war with Eurasia, yet everyone among his associates didn't seem to remember that Oceania's mortal enemy changed over time.

So it is with conspiracy theories.  When one tries to discuss them in rational conversations as a means of understanding the motivations behind the news headlines, one is met with angry walls of disregard.  Yet, later when the "authorities" decide to acknowledge these conspiracies, suddenly people don't remember ever having been violently opposed to such "obvious" facts.

Keep in mind that the people I mention here are reasonably intelligent and educated.  They know how to formulate an argument and debate.  Yet, when it comes to things that are commonly labelled "conspiracy theories," their normal mental processes and educational backgrounds seemingly shut down.  Their natural curiosity and inquisitiveness appears to short-circuit and they react, not with reason, but with emotion.

It's rather scary, really.

In the scientific method, one speculates that two events are related by some unknown cause and effect.  The method then proceeds to hypothesis, where a specific set of circumstances creates the supposed relationship.  The hypothesis is tested to establish whether the two events can be recreated using the surmised circumstances. Eventually, the theory is dismissed or accepted, and if accepted, may proceed to the tautology stage.

In all things, even with tautologies, we must be careful and mentally rigorous.  As the physician William James rightly noted, "If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, it is enough if you prove that one single crow is white."

It is important for both sides of the conspiracy theory argument to keep in mind that established beliefs can be upset with a single fact, and we mustn't close our minds to new information if we truly seek truth.  On the other side, we mustn't be so willing to dismiss accepted information that we overlook the obvious.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is too broad and meaningless to be useful in most things.  It is so glib and generalized that it tempts even developed minds to dismiss new information because it seems too fantastic or falls outside our realm of acceptable reality.  The intelligent person must purge themselves of this installed trip wire in order to maintain an open mind.

On the other hand, those who investigate such things must not be too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  In the immortal words of Sigmund Freud, "A cigar is sometimes just a cigar."  In the rush to ascribe nefarious motives to everything in our socio-political world can be a dangerous road, as well.

Many of us are too busy or intellectually slack to follow up the seemingly steady stream of messages coming to us from both sides.  One side wants us to dismiss everything and fall in line with the Standard Model of Life, the Universe and Everything.  The other side wants us to toss it all in favor of a seething, roiling darkness to be found under every stone turned.  Both extremes are most likely wrong, and somewhere in the middle is the correct path - the Golden Mean.

Conspiracy theories do present an opportunity for the intellectually curious, though.  Since so many people dismiss these types of things out of hand, one can add significantly to the conversation, even on a hobbyist basis.  The amateur sleuth can provide valuable information to support or refute conspiracy claims by just using time constructively, rather than turning on the teevee, and so so without emotional outbursts and paranoid rantings.

It is important to distinguish between "believing," "thinking" and "knowing.".  To believe in a conspiracy means that one is acting on faith without proof.  To think a conspiracy exists is to admit a preponderance of evidence.  To know something is to be in possession of clear evidence in fact.

Make it a game.  The next time you hear or read something that you want to file under 'conspiracy theory,' instead make a note to go look it up and put a little time into understanding the reference.  This little game has the potential to completely change your view of the world - your weltanschauung.

But perhaps that is why people are afraid of conspiracy theories.

Mystical Atheism

I really enjoy Christopher Hitchens.  He was one of my favorite commentators and satirists.  He was also a militant and unapologetic atheist.

Vocal atheists include Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, John Lennon, and Penn Jilette (of Penn&Teller fame).  You can find extensive videos on YouTube by and about these folks, and they make compelling and interesting arguments.

To a man, they all say that there is no longer a need for a mystical being called God, because Science has now explained so many of Life's great mysteries, and will likely answer the remaining Great Questions of Life, the Universe and Everything in the near future.  We don't need a Creator, they say, because we have Reason that reveals the Big Bang and Evolution, which demonstrate that Nature herself can take care of making all we see without the need for Celestial Beings.

Only one problem with these arguments: both the Big Bang and Evolution rely on and require miracles.  In other words, the great products of Reason, on which atheists build their systems, are in fact just as mystical and require some Creator being to set the events in motion.

Let's just start with the Big Bang.  On the basis of Reason alone, we must reject this hypothesis outright.  At the very heart of the Big Bang is a miracle: out of nothing, the Universe explodes.  Oh really?  And how does "nothing" explode and create an obviously infinite Universe with unimaginable diversity and volume of content?  And Terence McKenna succinctly put it, "Give us one free miracle, and we'll do the rest."

To place the contraction in stark contrast, an atheist rejects gods as being mystical and irrational, yet they often choose to replace gods with mystical cosmology.  What exactly have they done, if not replace one set of irrationals with another?  If you don't keep up with science and cosmology, you may not realize that there is no proof for the Big Bang, and that observations have repeatedly blown holes in the theory.  To believe in the Big Bang, one must suspend reason as much as to believe in God!

Next, there is Evolution.  Here is another scientific mythology masquerading as fact, and on which atheists depend to construct their arguments.  If you are one of those folks who think Evolution is unquestionable and unassailable, then you have been hoodwinked into looking the other way while the lab-coated magicians pull the wool over your eyes.

Don't get me wrong.  Species are seen to adapt to their environments, even displaying new physical characteristics over time, when the surroundings change.  That humanity exists at all and inhabits so many types of environments is testament to an ability to adapt on the part of the species.

However, Evolution posits that life began as single celled critters that eventually joined together in groups, with some cells specializing in certain functions.  Eventually, these balls of cells become to specialized that they constitute a unique lifeform.  That lifeform splits into different species that are unable to breed with each other.  The splitting of species goes on and on, with species making decisions to inhabit new environments, such as leaving the ocean to live on the land.

Sorry folks, but no one has ever witnessed one species splitting into two.  Oh sure, we see one species adapting to new environments and even manifesting new physical properties to do so, but never has a dog become a cat, as they say.  In fact, the theory that mutations give rise to new species is, in a word, bullshit.  Every mutated individual usually dies, either by natural causes or the parents killing it in one way or another.  Then, the exact same mutation must arise in both genders at roughly the same time, and they must be in close enough physical proximity that they are able to breed.  Nope, sorry, complete rubbish.

There are many examples of interbreeding that create hybrid animals, such as mules.  Mules are created by mating horses and donkeys.  However, mules are sterile and cannot breed amongst themselves.  This is pretty much the case with all forms of hybrids.  And even if mules could breed, they are not a distinct species from the parents.

In other words, Evolution is completely without merit.  The Big Bang is a farce.  And ultimately, we are left with two choices: either there is a God, or we don't yet know how the Universe began and life arose.  And by God, we should be able to admit our ignorance, because to believe we have the answer is to stop looking for it.  When we stop looking, then Reason itself is short-circuited and we are left even worse off that we were with Mysticism.

Atheists are doing a great disservice to civilization by expounding unsubstantiated theories in place of ancient dogmas.  They undermine their arguments by replacing old myths with new ones, rather than truly expressing Reason.

Educated and reasonable people do not accept anything at face value.  They research and formulate their own ideas.  They look for flaws in generally accepted theories and try to find more substantial answers, and in this way, promote Reason.

Aristotelian Reason is founded on the fact that true knowledge can be discovered by anyone who applies himself to the task.  You or I should be able to observe the Universe and come to the same conclusions, based on Reason.  If we are required to grant one free miracle to a theory, then the theory is false and we need to find another answer.

A Cosmology that is based on mythical nothings exploding, invisible "dark" matter and energy, and black holes that should not exist in Big Bang Universes, then it is a fairy tale just like the ones we are trying to replace.

If Evolution is predicated on events that have never been witnessed, then it is not science.  It is nothing more than an updated form of Genesis, or other mystical tales.

Even highly intelligent and eloquent individuals like Christopher Hitchens have been taken in by these modern versions of ancient fairy tales.  They are heard to say over and over again that we don't need God when we have understanding in the form of Big Bangs and Evolution.  In fact, what they are saying is that we don't need to old myths when we have such splendid new ones.

The modern priesthood, called "scientists," a strange sort of new clergy one assumes, is able to hornswaggle the general public because we do not take the time to study, think and reason for ourselves.  We also spend entirely too much time investing "authorities" with powers far beyond what they deserve.  If you have personally witnessed rocks floating, then you should be secure in the knowledge that rocks float, no matter what an "authority" figure tells you.

Miraculous Big Bangs and Evolution do not exist until someone can show us a photo of the explosion or produce a new species that was recorded breaking away from a progenitor.  Until that time, none of us should take these theories for granted.  We do not have the answers yet, and to believe we do means that we have stopped looking.

One of my favorite quotes, and one which I live by, goes,

“If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, you mustn't seek to show that no crows are; it is enough if you prove one single crow to be white," by William James.  Truly words to live by, and a handy tool for destroying myths.