The following are excerpts that I thought were related. I specifically was considering Jung and his views on various ideas. These excerpts give an interesting context to how Jung came to his understanding about the structure and development of the individual. In particular, I found fascinating the connection between trinity as representing hierarchy (including hierarchy as development) and quaternity as representing non-hierarchical structure. By this, it can be shown how the tripartite division of Platonism and Gnosticism relates to Jung’s typology. I was also thinking about Jung’s consideration of Catholic ideas in terms of his relationship with Father Victor White. Jung felt the Trinity was incomplete and conjectured that Catholicism was denying a fourth element in its theological conception of evil.
Quodlibet Journal: Volume 4 Number 2-3, Summer 2002Carl Jung and the Trinitarian SelfMichael J Brabazon
As the alchemists discovered, the spirit Mercurius can be a good friend (as in the Liverpool dream) or the “dark tricephalus”[f], the tempter, deceiver and adversary of the universal hero. By overcoming the chthonic trinity the saviour not only becomes a demi-god but, in bringing the fruits of his victory to the tribe, ensures the spiritual and physical well-being of mankind. One of the stories from Hindu mythology seems to prefigure the struggles of Buddha and Christ with the Evil One. In the case of Hinduism the Christ-like person is the son of a Brahman, Tvashiri, who is eventually killed by the god Indra. Tvashiri, in a bid to outdo Indra, created a three-headed son who possessed wondrous spiritual power which grew at such a rate it promised to absorb the universe. The three heads had the separate functions of reading the Vedas, feeding himself, and observing all that existed: a combination of intellectual, physical and divine sustenance - the totality of life. As in the accounts of the temptations of Christ and the trials of Gautama, the tricephalus Brahman is attacked three times: firstly through seduction by Heavenly maidens; secondly by a thunderbolt thrown by Indra which kills the hero; and lastly by a triple decapitation. The final onslaught, ordered by Indra because the body continued to glow with the light of spirituality, released a great flight of doves and other birds, symbolising the resurrection of the perfected spirit and is analogous to the enlightenment of Buddha and the defeat of Satan in the wilderness. The attacks on Gautama by Mara are variations on the same ideas of seduction, attack by the actual god and attack by the god’s henchman. The Buddha now becomes an enlightened being, losing his old material desires, and brings salvation to mankind.
In the Middle East there existed other notorious examples of the triple heroic test, and cannot be unconnected with the temptations of Christ. In ancient Egypt one of the stories of Se-Osiris (reputedly the greatest Egyptian magician) from the 13th century BC show him in psychic battle with the Ethiopian the Son of Tnahsit who is the agent of Apophis, the Egyptian Devil. As in the other stories, Se-Osiris has to overcome his satanic adversary three times in order to prove himself and gain total victory. Firstly, the Ethiopian manifests a huge serpent in front of the Pharoah, but Se-Osiris picks up this giant cobra, turns it into a small white worm and throws it out of the window. Next the evil protagonist summons a large black cloud which resembles the darkness of the tomb or the dark cloud of smoke from burning bodies. Again, the hero easily decreases the threat to an infinitesimal size and throws it out of the window. The final threat is in the shape of a sheet of flame moving towards Pharaoh, but the good magician reverses its movement back in the direction of his adversary, who is subsequently engulfed and totally defeated.
Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces, writes of the triple life force released by the universal hero upon completion of his struggle with the internal monster; the bestowing of the secret treasure, the Holy Grail:
The effect of the successful adventure of the hero is the unlocking and release again of the flow of life into the body of the world. The miracle of this flow may be represented in physical terms as a circulation of food substance, dynamically as a stream of energy, or spiritually as a manifestation of Grace. Such varieties of image alternate easily, representing three degrees of condensation of the one life force.[37]
The hero’s encounters infer a triality of character, with ramifications for typological classification. Tripartite man is a theme as old as that of the trinity, the two being inextricably linked in the relationship of micro and macrocosmic. The origin of much of the tripartite formulations is to be found in the works of Plato, originator of the archetype theory of Form or Idea. Plato’s own threefold division of the soul is into spirit, reason and desire. It is from these three segments that the layers of society in the utopian Republic are derived: the Guardians, the Auxiliaries and the Plebs. Broadly, the philosophers, the spiritually enlightened, rule over and guide society, the military types carry out the directives of the elite, applying the rules to the governorship of the materialistic majority. This hierarchical view of tripartness is counter-balanced by an egalitarian formulation allegorised in the Phaedrus by a charioteer and two horses. One horse is an expression of honour and modesty whilst the other stands for man’s animal desires, with their unity in the hands of the charioteer, the middle conjoining factor. The Gnostics use this platonic schema in their soteriological explanations - the saved spiritual type, the pneumatic, the damned materialists, the hylic, and those with the possibility of choice, the psychic - described in the Jung codex of the Nag Hammadi library.
The multiplication of tripartite theories has produced an overwhelmingly extensive list of variations on the same theme, including Freud and beyond, but I think it worthy of note to mention that it was part of Carl Gustav Carus’ thinking. I say this because he was one of the old-school of psychologists much admired by Jung. Interestingly, Dostoyevsky was also a great fan and one wonders if the three Karamazov brothers, Dmitri, Ivan and Alyosha, characterising respectively blind social obedience, the human intellect and mystical-propheticism, were not Carus-inspired.
In Toynbee-like fashion, it does not seem unreasonable to look for the external organisations and trends associated with the different types. I had initially made a deduction from studies on the history of religious thought that a threefold division could be made along the lines of fundamentalist, developmentalist and prophetic, when I read with interest the post-Jungian division of schools made by Andrew Samuels in Jung and the Post-Jungians[38]: Classical, Developmentalists and Archetypal. Perhaps a trinitarian view could be taken of the foundation of modern psychology employing the God, Man, Nature schema (or as C S Hall and G Lindzey would have it in Theories of Personality: primordial thought patterns; social interest; and sex) for Jung, Adler and Freud? Jung certainly had no qualms about such a unity; he could be both Adlerian and Freudian as the need arose (see Memories, Dreams, Reflections).
The fourfold typology posited by Jung was an update of the ancient Greek formulation based on the humours of the body, which makes perfect sense seen from an homeostatic point of view. However, just as valid is the Vedic counterpart using three humours which also describe three character types, namely kapha, vata and pitta, and restated by the god Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita when he tells Arjuna, “Each has the duty, ordained by his nature, born of the gunas [the threefold, hierarchical hypostases of prakriti]“. Again, both are inherently logical - and apparently complete - systems, but the latter schema is hierarchical and the former egalitarian.
A real hierosgamos would be if tripartite typologies could be synthesised with the four Jungian types with a resulting twelvefold system[g] satisfying both viewpoints and giving a psychological raison d’etre to the zodiacal system, much beloved by Jung. He himself hints at a desire to unite his quaternity with the astrological method:
Since the earliest times, attempts have repeatedly been made to classify individuals according to types and thus to bring order into what was confusion. The oldest attempt of this sort known to us was made by Oriental astrologers who devised the so-called trigons [sets of three star signs] of the four elements, air, water, earth and fire.[39]
James HillmanEGALITARIAN TYPOLOGIESVERSUS THE PERCEPTION OF THE UNIQUE
20
A closer look at the way Jung speaks of the types, however, suggests that they too are archetypal. For what determines type? Here the a priori element enters: Jung speaks of a “numinal accent” falling on one type or another (§982). This selective factor determining type is unaccounted for it is simply given. A numinal accent selects our bias toward what becomes our superior function which drives the others into the background (§984). We begin to see that the four types are more than mere manners of functioning. There is something more at work in them, something numinal - and “numinal” means “divine”. And surely when in the grips of our typical set, as we cannot help but be when we imagine ourselves typologically, the structuring power of the type is like that of an archetype or mythologem. Especially the experience of the inferior function, also referred to as numinous, brings with it a radical shift of perspective, as if there has been an ontological shift, an initiation into a new cosmos or archetypal seinsweise.
An archetypal background for the four functions has already been intimated by Jung himself. He speaks of a philosophical typology in Gnosticism or Hellenistic syncretism (§§14, 964) by means of which human beings could be called hylikoi, psychikol, or pneumatikoi. Jung does not document this typology but Professor Sambursky considers that these terms were applied less to actual persons than to the imaginal persons of Neoplatonism, especially by Plotinus. These imaginal regions and their beings might thus be the archetypal imagination at work in the functions, giving to them each its nominal accent and each its ontological significance as structuring ground of consciousness.
Then hylikoi, or physis, with its attendant ideas of matter, body, actual physical reality would be the archetypal principle in what Jung called sensation; psychikoi, or soul, with its attendant Jungian description of love, value, experience, relatedness, woman, salt, colour would be the archetype within and behind what Jung called feeling; pneumatikoi, or spirit, with its attendant descriptions in terms of light, vision, swiftness, invisibilities, timelessness, would be what Jung called intuition; and finally, not expressly distinguished in this Hellenistic triad, nous, logos, or intellectus, with its capacity for order and cogni-
21
tive intelligence, would be the archetypal principle that Jung called the thinking function. (Jung himself identifies thinking with pneumatikoi, §14.)
This archetypal background gives a deeper sense to what Jung says about the four functions. For instance, if sensation so often brings with it an uncomfortable inferiority, and intuition, superiority, the reason is not functional, but archetypal - the one being hylitic and bearing all the aspersions put upon physis in our tradition, the other, pneumatic, windy with the idealizations of the spirit. 28 Or, it is hardly a feeling function, as an ego-disposable mode of adaptation through evaluations, which can support such redemptive features that Jung claims for “feeling” (cf. CW 14, §§328-34; CW 16, §488-91; CW 13, §222, and also CW 8, §§668-69 where his discussion of evidence for soul turns on “feelings”), unless we realize that “feeling” has become a secular psychologism for soul. 29
Furthermore, we now can grasp better that connection which Jung makes between the four functions and the wholeness of the “total personality” (CW 14, §261), or Adam (ibid. §§555-57). For now we would be dealing with the root archetypal structures or cosmoi of Western human being, our four “natures” as Jung calls them (CW 14, §§261, 265; cf. CW 11, §§184-85) which as he says there in Mysterium Coniunctionis, are an archetypal prefiguration of “what we today call the schema of functions”. The four types are thus not mere empirical
28. Practitioners’ descriptions of the puer psychology of young men often call them “intuitive” and airy, needing “sensation” and earth. The older language of elemental natures has been unwittingly associated with that of functional types. Actually, the practitioner is discerning young pneumatikoi whose archetypal basis in spirit cannot be reduced to an over-developed empirical ego-function of intuition.
29. Willeford, “The Primacy of Feeling”, J. Analyt. Psychol.. 21, 1976, pp. 115-133 argues for a special place for the feeling function beyond Jung’s polar equalities. Because Willeford takes feeling to be the function of the “subjective sphere” (an idea which brings us again to Jung’s early identification of feeling with introversion) he is suggesting that its relation with soul is different and more important than that of the other functions.
22
functions. They are the physical, spiritual, noetic, and psychic cosmoi in which man moves and imagines. 30
The ancients placed these cosmoi one on top of the other and fantasied the ideal man moving through them from below to above. Jung too imagines the individuating person moving through the functions, not ascensionally in his model, yet still redemptively from one-sidedness to four-foldedness. Although these archetypal powers of the ancients present themselves conceptually, they are nonetheless archetypal persons of the imaginal to begin with.
By this I do not mean to replace intuition with spirit, and feeling with psyche, etc., or to equate them or reduce them. Rather I am maintaining that the functions have been carrying archetypal projections which gives them, and typology, a numinal accent. Types conceal archetypes. The contemporary cult of feeling, for instance, is a disguised psychologistic substitution for cult of soul. The frequent attack on intellect (metaphysics and theology) through Jung’s writings and letters has resulted in poor critical thinking in the Jungian school because the archetypal principle within thinking has been devalued. Unless we recognize the imaginal persons in our personal modes of functioning these modes lose their numinal accent. Only an archetypal appreciation of the functions can take them out of the hands of the ego. Unless the great root principles of Western man’s orientation are seen for what they are, as the modes in which the imaginal operates (functions) in all realms of being, they, and we, are condemned to psychological jargon without numinal accent. Thus we must cling to the types for orientation since they do conceal the archetypal natures of our Western compass.
SPIRITUALITY TODAYAutumn 1988, Vol.40 No. 3, pp. 249-261.James Arraj: Jungian Spirituality: The Question of Victor White
LEVELS OF SPIRITUAL INDIVIDUATION
The first level is the simple discovery of our psychological type and its application in the ways just described as an instrument for understanding human differences within the field of spirituality. Of great value, this is the level at which a significant amount of the present encounter between Jung’s psychology and spirituality is taking place.
The second level can emerge from this acquaintance with typology. We begin to perceive that typology is not only interpersonal, a way we relate to those around us, but also an intrapsychic process that is no different from the process of individuation itself. We begin to feel the pull of the outgoing tide that leads to the fascinating and terrible night sea-journey of psychic transformation. It is only by means of such a journey that we truly begin to grasp what typology really meant to Jung and what are the psychic contents that exist under the names of the shadow, anima, animus, and self. It is this experience that will sensitize us to the psychological dimension that exists and must exist in the whole of the spiritual life. There is literally no place for the spiritual life to take place but in the psyche, and we row grasp this psyche in all its immediacy and in all the continual process which strives for wholeness. Here, too, there can be no objection to the employment of Jungian psychology in the spiritual life, but rather only a sense of gratitude that we can finally deal with the psychological dimension that exists in all our spiritual activities.
There is a third level where this encounter will more and more take place and has taken place in certain individuals like Victor White. The process of individuation as it is found in Jung and many of his followers is wrapped in an epistemological fabric which resists a Catholic understanding of faith. It is abundantly evident. Jung himself comments, for example,
For lack of empirical data I have neither knowledge nor understanding of such forms of being which are commonly called spiritual. From the point of view of science it is immaterial what I may believe on that score, and I must accept my ignorance . . . . All comprehension and all that is comprehended is in itself psychic, and to that extent we are hopelessly cooped up in an exclusively psychic world.(6)Similarly, he indicates that he sees individuation as a more evolved stage of consciousness to which Christianity stands as a deficient stage. If in being guided by Jung to the experience of individuation, we unconsciously imbibe this presentation of it, we will find ourselves in the state in which Victor White found himself — torn on one hand by a living awareness of the reality of the individuation that Jung describes, but sensing that the way it was presented conflicted with his faith.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
MBTI Types and Conventional Religion
This started out as just a post about INFJs, but I have some further thoughts about other types as well.
—
I was just visiting Typology Central (an all type MBTI discussion board). I was looking at threads about religion. I noticed an INFJ in some of those threads who I know from Global Chatter (an INFP discussion board). He is an interesting guy, but it reminded me of an aspect of INFJs that can annoy me at times.
I discussed this in a post titled Darn Apologists! of mine from my Gaia blog. I'm attracted to INFJs because their Ni gives them a unique (idiosyncratic even) perspective and they can be very independent-minded especially if they're strongly Introverted. However, their Fe can also make them very conventional. Unlinke INFPs, I've noticed that many INFJs belong to more traditional forms of forms of religion. They have a love/hate relationship with social groups. However, their desire to feel like they belong to something larger than themselves is surprisingly strong for an Introverted type.
To say the least, my INFP nature balks at this. INFJs can have these crazy ideas but somehow it often leads back to such conventional worldviews. Maybe its because their ideas are so abstract (Ni) that they seek to ground them through a tradition (Fe). At least, INFJs tend to be extremely nice people. An INTJ is much more of a straightforward in their logic, but I'll take the INFJs conventionalism over an immature INTJ's snarkiness. Its interesting that INTJs are very opposite of conventional in that they're the prototypical conspiracy theorist. Still, maybe that is that same Extraverted Judging function (Fe and Te) being focused with the prevailing social order just in a different way.
I should add that my criticisms of INFJs comes from my fondness for them. I seem very attracted to them as I keep befriending INFJs online and my closest friend is an INFJ. Its possible that I am attracted to the very thing I'm criticizing. They're thinking is more grounded than my own, and it can feel to me to be a bit narrow and plodding. However, this groundedness can also lead to a depth of insight and great knowledge about a particular subject. Overall, INFPs and INFJs have enough similarities to make communication easy while having enough differences to make discussion interesting.
—
I was again at Typology Central. I’ve been having a private discussion with an INTP Christian. INTPs as a whole are generally very unreligious even anit-religious. INTPs are clear thinkers though and so its interesting to talk to this guy.
He claims that he has never had an experience of God. God is an idea to him, but an idea that he has been convinced of. He seems to be an Evangelical Christian which is very strange because Evangelism idealizes direct experience. His wife is a more an experiential type. Maybe he trusts the experiences of those close to him.
The reason I bring this up is because its extremely intriguing that an INTP would be attracted to conventional religion. However, it makes more sense now. An INTP has three likely ways of relating to religion. They can outright deny it as irrational. They can accept it as a philosophy and analyze it. Or they can accept the experience of others which might include the collective experience of a tradition.
INFPs swim in subjective experience, but INTPs don’t. An INTP can’t rely on their own experience. Even if they had a potentially spiritual experience, they’d be reluctant to trust it. This would be true of NTs in general.
This relates to my dad who is an ENTJ. His father was a minister and he grew up observing the hypocritical difference between his father at church and his father at home. He became agnostic and stayed that way for much of his life. As he grew older, he was attracted to conventional Christianity because it appealed to his dominant Extraverted Thinking which desires principles of social order.
As he became more involved in his 50s, he had some experiences that felt spiritual to him. He didn’t seem to want to call them God and so defined them as being of the Holy Spirit. I suspect (based on Beebe’s archetype model) this is his aspirational Introverted Feeling finally manifesting. Still, my dad submits his experience to the conventional interpretation. The experience is nice but secondary to him. What he really likes about church is being around people and having an important leadership role to play.
All of this is somewhat of a new insight for me. Typically, conventional religion is described as being mainly attractive to SJ types. My mom is an ISTJ and she definitely isn’t the questioning type and is content to follow an external authority. However, I’m now beginning to realize there are reasons why other types would also be attracted to conventional religion.
INFPs might be one of the types that is least attracted to conventional religion, but I’m not sure. INFPs are more attracted to religon than NTs in general. However, INFPs are extremely independent-minded and extremely self-certain… which could describe INTPs as well.
An INFP has their own direct experience and so they don’t have to rely on other’s experience. An INFP has a solid Introverted Feeling that doesn’t need the external grounding that Introverted Intuition needs. An INFP finds annoying the Extraverted Feeling tendencies of many religious groups. An INFP is unwilling to follow like sheep as SJs like to do.
The only thing that would bring an INFP to conventional religion would be their Introverted Feeling. If their inner experience corresponded with a particular tradition, an INFP could become quite the zealous believer. Nonetheless, even then such an INFP would still tend to keep their religious experience as a personal matter. I doubt INFPs would make good prosyletyzers. An INFP prosyletyzer would probably just annoy people. I’m partly basing this on the one INFP fundamentalist I know who can be very annoying when talking about his beliefs… a total lack of objectivity and logic… pure emotion and defensiveness.
—
I was just visiting Typology Central (an all type MBTI discussion board). I was looking at threads about religion. I noticed an INFJ in some of those threads who I know from Global Chatter (an INFP discussion board). He is an interesting guy, but it reminded me of an aspect of INFJs that can annoy me at times.
I discussed this in a post titled Darn Apologists! of mine from my Gaia blog. I'm attracted to INFJs because their Ni gives them a unique (idiosyncratic even) perspective and they can be very independent-minded especially if they're strongly Introverted. However, their Fe can also make them very conventional. Unlinke INFPs, I've noticed that many INFJs belong to more traditional forms of forms of religion. They have a love/hate relationship with social groups. However, their desire to feel like they belong to something larger than themselves is surprisingly strong for an Introverted type.
To say the least, my INFP nature balks at this. INFJs can have these crazy ideas but somehow it often leads back to such conventional worldviews. Maybe its because their ideas are so abstract (Ni) that they seek to ground them through a tradition (Fe). At least, INFJs tend to be extremely nice people. An INTJ is much more of a straightforward in their logic, but I'll take the INFJs conventionalism over an immature INTJ's snarkiness. Its interesting that INTJs are very opposite of conventional in that they're the prototypical conspiracy theorist. Still, maybe that is that same Extraverted Judging function (Fe and Te) being focused with the prevailing social order just in a different way.
I should add that my criticisms of INFJs comes from my fondness for them. I seem very attracted to them as I keep befriending INFJs online and my closest friend is an INFJ. Its possible that I am attracted to the very thing I'm criticizing. They're thinking is more grounded than my own, and it can feel to me to be a bit narrow and plodding. However, this groundedness can also lead to a depth of insight and great knowledge about a particular subject. Overall, INFPs and INFJs have enough similarities to make communication easy while having enough differences to make discussion interesting.
—
I was again at Typology Central. I’ve been having a private discussion with an INTP Christian. INTPs as a whole are generally very unreligious even anit-religious. INTPs are clear thinkers though and so its interesting to talk to this guy.
He claims that he has never had an experience of God. God is an idea to him, but an idea that he has been convinced of. He seems to be an Evangelical Christian which is very strange because Evangelism idealizes direct experience. His wife is a more an experiential type. Maybe he trusts the experiences of those close to him.
The reason I bring this up is because its extremely intriguing that an INTP would be attracted to conventional religion. However, it makes more sense now. An INTP has three likely ways of relating to religion. They can outright deny it as irrational. They can accept it as a philosophy and analyze it. Or they can accept the experience of others which might include the collective experience of a tradition.
INFPs swim in subjective experience, but INTPs don’t. An INTP can’t rely on their own experience. Even if they had a potentially spiritual experience, they’d be reluctant to trust it. This would be true of NTs in general.
This relates to my dad who is an ENTJ. His father was a minister and he grew up observing the hypocritical difference between his father at church and his father at home. He became agnostic and stayed that way for much of his life. As he grew older, he was attracted to conventional Christianity because it appealed to his dominant Extraverted Thinking which desires principles of social order.
As he became more involved in his 50s, he had some experiences that felt spiritual to him. He didn’t seem to want to call them God and so defined them as being of the Holy Spirit. I suspect (based on Beebe’s archetype model) this is his aspirational Introverted Feeling finally manifesting. Still, my dad submits his experience to the conventional interpretation. The experience is nice but secondary to him. What he really likes about church is being around people and having an important leadership role to play.
All of this is somewhat of a new insight for me. Typically, conventional religion is described as being mainly attractive to SJ types. My mom is an ISTJ and she definitely isn’t the questioning type and is content to follow an external authority. However, I’m now beginning to realize there are reasons why other types would also be attracted to conventional religion.
INFPs might be one of the types that is least attracted to conventional religion, but I’m not sure. INFPs are more attracted to religon than NTs in general. However, INFPs are extremely independent-minded and extremely self-certain… which could describe INTPs as well.
An INFP has their own direct experience and so they don’t have to rely on other’s experience. An INFP has a solid Introverted Feeling that doesn’t need the external grounding that Introverted Intuition needs. An INFP finds annoying the Extraverted Feeling tendencies of many religious groups. An INFP is unwilling to follow like sheep as SJs like to do.
The only thing that would bring an INFP to conventional religion would be their Introverted Feeling. If their inner experience corresponded with a particular tradition, an INFP could become quite the zealous believer. Nonetheless, even then such an INFP would still tend to keep their religious experience as a personal matter. I doubt INFPs would make good prosyletyzers. An INFP prosyletyzer would probably just annoy people. I’m partly basing this on the one INFP fundamentalist I know who can be very annoying when talking about his beliefs… a total lack of objectivity and logic… pure emotion and defensiveness.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Political Party, Morality, Personality, Gender
Here is a very insightful article:
What makes People vote Republican?
Professor Jonathan Haidt’s key article for www.edge.org annotated from a Spiral Dynamics perspective by Dr Bruce L Gibb; September 2008.
The author explores why Liberals don't understand the human motivation behind moral behavior. The specific morals aren't important nor even their inherent 'goodness'. Rather, morality is about the social order it helps create. Or at least that is what morality is about on the level of group behavior. This might be where it is helpful to differentiate ethics from morality.
I learned about this aspect of morality from my morally conservative parents. They argue for abstinence. I've mentioned to them such things as the fact that research shows abstinence programs lead to more pregnancies (and I suspect more venereal diseases as well) and that kids develop sexually about 4 years earlier than when my parents were kids (maybe because hormone in food and estrogen-like compounds in bottles). But these facts didn't matter to my parents sense of morality. Right is right. This could be interpreted as the embracing of ignorance, but my parents are smart and they're very good at rationalizing their views (especially my dad).
This seemingly strange thought process is explained by this paper. The purpose of condemning sexuality isn't about whether people are actually able to follow the rules perfectly. The rules are there to create conformity through guilt and punishment. And they work. They suppress the individual for the sake of social order. The moral rules are red herrings that distract away from the fundamental issue. Maybe that is part of the power of such morality. People obsess over the surface details and the underlying motivating force can work unconsciously.
The article also discusses Spiral Dynamics which is also helpful. In a sense, many liberal elites are more highly developed morally, but only in certain ways. People have the tendency to deny previous vmemes (approxamately equivalent to levels). So, the rational ability to not be controlled by one's emotions is great in being objective and can lead to great understanding. The problem is that isn't where most of society is morally centered. In developing one's morality, one needs to stay grounded in the fundamental moral sense that remains true for all humans. Development transcends and includes. If liberals try to exclude what they deem as irrational, then they won't sway many voters.
Obama probably won because he knew how to rhetorically touch upon the emotional core of an argument. If the Democratic party is smart, it will take heed and learn the lesson well.
I want to bring up one other aspect to all of this that is only briefly mentioned in the article:
"But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer ‘moral clarity’ - a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate."
These traits correlate with MBTI. In particular, Intuition and Sensation correlate with liberalism and conservativism. Relevant to this article are the percentages of the population. I've seen research that shows that Sensation is more common, but I've also seen research that shows that women have a tendency towards Intuition.
This brings to my mind the percentages also of the Judging functions. Thinking and Feeling also show bias respectively to men and women, but I was just reading another statistic that showed that men were fairly split between the two even while women tended strongly toward Feeling. That is interesting as Thinking (specifically Extraverted - TJ) also seem correlated to moral conservativism, and definitely seems like a personality factor that would be favored by the blue vmeme (hierarchical social order). The reason that is interesting is because morally conservative cultures also tend to be patriarchal.
One other personality division I'd bring up is Hartmann's boundary types. Thin boundary types lean towards the liberal, and thick boundary types lean towards the conservative. This may because thin boundary types tend to have a strong sense of empathy meaning that they experience people as individuals rather than as mere social entities. Also, these boundary types correlate to MBTI and most specifically with the Perceiving functions of Inution and Sensation.
For the record, my parents are both TJ types and my mom is an STJ. I, on the other hand, am a liberal NFP raised with a heavy dose of green vmeme (despite my parents conservativism).
What makes People vote Republican?
Professor Jonathan Haidt’s key article for www.edge.org annotated from a Spiral Dynamics perspective by Dr Bruce L Gibb; September 2008.
The author explores why Liberals don't understand the human motivation behind moral behavior. The specific morals aren't important nor even their inherent 'goodness'. Rather, morality is about the social order it helps create. Or at least that is what morality is about on the level of group behavior. This might be where it is helpful to differentiate ethics from morality.
I learned about this aspect of morality from my morally conservative parents. They argue for abstinence. I've mentioned to them such things as the fact that research shows abstinence programs lead to more pregnancies (and I suspect more venereal diseases as well) and that kids develop sexually about 4 years earlier than when my parents were kids (maybe because hormone in food and estrogen-like compounds in bottles). But these facts didn't matter to my parents sense of morality. Right is right. This could be interpreted as the embracing of ignorance, but my parents are smart and they're very good at rationalizing their views (especially my dad).
This seemingly strange thought process is explained by this paper. The purpose of condemning sexuality isn't about whether people are actually able to follow the rules perfectly. The rules are there to create conformity through guilt and punishment. And they work. They suppress the individual for the sake of social order. The moral rules are red herrings that distract away from the fundamental issue. Maybe that is part of the power of such morality. People obsess over the surface details and the underlying motivating force can work unconsciously.
The article also discusses Spiral Dynamics which is also helpful. In a sense, many liberal elites are more highly developed morally, but only in certain ways. People have the tendency to deny previous vmemes (approxamately equivalent to levels). So, the rational ability to not be controlled by one's emotions is great in being objective and can lead to great understanding. The problem is that isn't where most of society is morally centered. In developing one's morality, one needs to stay grounded in the fundamental moral sense that remains true for all humans. Development transcends and includes. If liberals try to exclude what they deem as irrational, then they won't sway many voters.
Obama probably won because he knew how to rhetorically touch upon the emotional core of an argument. If the Democratic party is smart, it will take heed and learn the lesson well.
I want to bring up one other aspect to all of this that is only briefly mentioned in the article:
"But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer ‘moral clarity’ - a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate."
These traits correlate with MBTI. In particular, Intuition and Sensation correlate with liberalism and conservativism. Relevant to this article are the percentages of the population. I've seen research that shows that Sensation is more common, but I've also seen research that shows that women have a tendency towards Intuition.
This brings to my mind the percentages also of the Judging functions. Thinking and Feeling also show bias respectively to men and women, but I was just reading another statistic that showed that men were fairly split between the two even while women tended strongly toward Feeling. That is interesting as Thinking (specifically Extraverted - TJ) also seem correlated to moral conservativism, and definitely seems like a personality factor that would be favored by the blue vmeme (hierarchical social order). The reason that is interesting is because morally conservative cultures also tend to be patriarchal.
One other personality division I'd bring up is Hartmann's boundary types. Thin boundary types lean towards the liberal, and thick boundary types lean towards the conservative. This may because thin boundary types tend to have a strong sense of empathy meaning that they experience people as individuals rather than as mere social entities. Also, these boundary types correlate to MBTI and most specifically with the Perceiving functions of Inution and Sensation.
For the record, my parents are both TJ types and my mom is an STJ. I, on the other hand, am a liberal NFP raised with a heavy dose of green vmeme (despite my parents conservativism).
Sunday, February 1, 2009
G.I.s and Millennials
In the theory of Strauss and Howe, the Millennial generation is the same archetype in the cycle as were the G.I. generation.
They are supposedly similar in that they're both optimistic and civic-oriented generations, and similar in that they both have high expectations of society and themselves. The other similarity is that they both dealt with a major war (started by an attack on American soil) and financial crisis early in their lives.
However, the world is very different now. For the G.I.s, the Depression came before the war and so they returned to a country that was better off than when they left. The G.I.s were given tons of opportunities by society: cheap education, cheap housing, plentiful job openings, high wages, etc. Society actually lived up to their high expectations. Quite differently, the Millennials are fighting a war that can't be won and they're not treated as heroes on their return. What they get offered is expensive education, expensive housing, fewer job openings, and lower wages. To say the least, society isn't living up to their high expectations.
Twenge claim that the Millennials are narcissistic and unrealistically demanding. As I see it, they may or may not be narcissistic in some ways, but certainly not in others. They are actually a very group-oriented generation, not that narcissism can't include a focus on others because research has shown that it can. Strauss and Howe have written that Twenge was only looking at research that used self-reports. As such, Millennials speak in terms that sound narcissistic, but that is because they're simply parroting back what they were taught by Boomers. However, Strauss and Howe claim that other evidence shows that their actual behavior is the opposite of narcissistic. For example, they volunteer more than the generations that came right before them.
Anyways, my point is that they're no more narcissistic than the Great Generation of the G.I.s. The G.I.s were just as demanding of society and just as much wanted a good life right away. The G.I.s came back from the war and they felt they deserved a good life and not that they had to "earn" it. They wanted a good job, a nice house, and a perfect family; and they wanted it immediately. They got what they wanted, but we blame Millennials for the same expectation. The Millennials have also fought for America's freedom. Why don't they also deserve the good life that the G.I.s received? Why don't they deserve to be treated as heroes for all of their sacrifices? Why do many people glorify the G.I.s who represent our past all the while criticizing the Millennials that represent our future?
According to the theory, Millennials have the potential to become another Great Generation. The Boomers, for good or ill, have dominated society for the last half century. When we speak of the present American culture we are speaking of Boomer culture. Boomers are at the start of the cycle. They disturbed the previous order and jumpstarted the digital age, but they've also been a brake on continued progress. They haven't embraced technology and instead they've become known for their Neo-conservativism as represented by Bush Jr.
Interestingly, the G.I. generation is known for its many great presidents. But, despite their size, Boomers have had only two presidents (neither of which will probably be remembered as great... certainly not as inspiring speakers) before the smaller in number Gen Xers managed to get a president in. That is even more interesting because Boomers are known for their dominance of mainstream culture and Gen Xers have mostly played a lesser role in the background.
The generations following have been very different from the Boomers Neo-conservativism,. Gen Xers (because of?) their alternative tendencies and certainly because of their small numbers have been more conservative (in the traditional Libertarian sense). Millennials are supposedly more Progressive. As the theory goes, we are hitting the crises point of the Fourth Turning. Gen Xers role is to be the realist leaders that guide the civic-minded Millennials, and thus create a new social order. However, credit must really be given to the Millennials because it will only be their numbers that can counteract the numbers of the Boomers (and other previous generations).
Not to put the Boomers down, but I think America is ready for some real change. I know I'm excited to see where the world will go. Strauss and Howe predicted that if the Silent generation (the one following the G.I. generation) McCain was elected it would slow down the change that is happening and if the Gen Xer Obama was elected it would speed it up. They've been right about their predictions of the last couple of decades (e.g. school dress codes and school security in the '90s, and major crises in the first decade of the new century) and so I hope they're right about this one. However, they also predict that the following 20 years will be challenging and I wouldn't mind them being wrong about that.
As a cynical Gen Xer, I'm not always the most optimistic about society. Gen Xers grew up as latchkey kids and because of this have some issues with abandonment and need for security. Gen Xers are actually more stable and family-oriented than the Boomers who had lives that revolved around their careers.
So, I'm cynical about the groupthink conformity of Millennials and their bland mainstream pop culture. I do fear that since they've grown up in schools that resemble something out of a police state that they might go too far in their acceptance of letting their civic rights be taken away for "the greater good". To them, walking through metal detectors and having cameras watch them is normal. They're used to having no privacy and so they don't value it.
On the other hand, they have the potential of creating social institutions that actually benefit society as a whole. They will revolutionize society and I look forward in particular to the massive technological shift that will most likely happen in the near future. The world they will create will be a very connected culture. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more change in the next few decades than we've seen in a century or two.
They are supposedly similar in that they're both optimistic and civic-oriented generations, and similar in that they both have high expectations of society and themselves. The other similarity is that they both dealt with a major war (started by an attack on American soil) and financial crisis early in their lives.
However, the world is very different now. For the G.I.s, the Depression came before the war and so they returned to a country that was better off than when they left. The G.I.s were given tons of opportunities by society: cheap education, cheap housing, plentiful job openings, high wages, etc. Society actually lived up to their high expectations. Quite differently, the Millennials are fighting a war that can't be won and they're not treated as heroes on their return. What they get offered is expensive education, expensive housing, fewer job openings, and lower wages. To say the least, society isn't living up to their high expectations.
Twenge claim that the Millennials are narcissistic and unrealistically demanding. As I see it, they may or may not be narcissistic in some ways, but certainly not in others. They are actually a very group-oriented generation, not that narcissism can't include a focus on others because research has shown that it can. Strauss and Howe have written that Twenge was only looking at research that used self-reports. As such, Millennials speak in terms that sound narcissistic, but that is because they're simply parroting back what they were taught by Boomers. However, Strauss and Howe claim that other evidence shows that their actual behavior is the opposite of narcissistic. For example, they volunteer more than the generations that came right before them.
Anyways, my point is that they're no more narcissistic than the Great Generation of the G.I.s. The G.I.s were just as demanding of society and just as much wanted a good life right away. The G.I.s came back from the war and they felt they deserved a good life and not that they had to "earn" it. They wanted a good job, a nice house, and a perfect family; and they wanted it immediately. They got what they wanted, but we blame Millennials for the same expectation. The Millennials have also fought for America's freedom. Why don't they also deserve the good life that the G.I.s received? Why don't they deserve to be treated as heroes for all of their sacrifices? Why do many people glorify the G.I.s who represent our past all the while criticizing the Millennials that represent our future?
According to the theory, Millennials have the potential to become another Great Generation. The Boomers, for good or ill, have dominated society for the last half century. When we speak of the present American culture we are speaking of Boomer culture. Boomers are at the start of the cycle. They disturbed the previous order and jumpstarted the digital age, but they've also been a brake on continued progress. They haven't embraced technology and instead they've become known for their Neo-conservativism as represented by Bush Jr.
Interestingly, the G.I. generation is known for its many great presidents. But, despite their size, Boomers have had only two presidents (neither of which will probably be remembered as great... certainly not as inspiring speakers) before the smaller in number Gen Xers managed to get a president in. That is even more interesting because Boomers are known for their dominance of mainstream culture and Gen Xers have mostly played a lesser role in the background.
The generations following have been very different from the Boomers Neo-conservativism,. Gen Xers (because of?) their alternative tendencies and certainly because of their small numbers have been more conservative (in the traditional Libertarian sense). Millennials are supposedly more Progressive. As the theory goes, we are hitting the crises point of the Fourth Turning. Gen Xers role is to be the realist leaders that guide the civic-minded Millennials, and thus create a new social order. However, credit must really be given to the Millennials because it will only be their numbers that can counteract the numbers of the Boomers (and other previous generations).
Not to put the Boomers down, but I think America is ready for some real change. I know I'm excited to see where the world will go. Strauss and Howe predicted that if the Silent generation (the one following the G.I. generation) McCain was elected it would slow down the change that is happening and if the Gen Xer Obama was elected it would speed it up. They've been right about their predictions of the last couple of decades (e.g. school dress codes and school security in the '90s, and major crises in the first decade of the new century) and so I hope they're right about this one. However, they also predict that the following 20 years will be challenging and I wouldn't mind them being wrong about that.
As a cynical Gen Xer, I'm not always the most optimistic about society. Gen Xers grew up as latchkey kids and because of this have some issues with abandonment and need for security. Gen Xers are actually more stable and family-oriented than the Boomers who had lives that revolved around their careers.
So, I'm cynical about the groupthink conformity of Millennials and their bland mainstream pop culture. I do fear that since they've grown up in schools that resemble something out of a police state that they might go too far in their acceptance of letting their civic rights be taken away for "the greater good". To them, walking through metal detectors and having cameras watch them is normal. They're used to having no privacy and so they don't value it.
On the other hand, they have the potential of creating social institutions that actually benefit society as a whole. They will revolutionize society and I look forward in particular to the massive technological shift that will most likely happen in the near future. The world they will create will be a very connected culture. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more change in the next few decades than we've seen in a century or two.
Dream: My Friend and My Brother; or The Store That Is A Mall That Is A Home
A shopping store/mall. At first, I might've been with my friend Mike. Then I was outside... looking for Mike's car? There weren't many cars. There was a weird looking dog in an open top car that was parked by itself. I think the dog might'be come over and the owner might've come out. I was cautious because it was a large dog, but I felt safer once the owner came over. It looked something like a husky golden labrador.
Later on... a different dream? I'm wandering around a place that is sort of like a mall, but also has parts of it that feel like a home... my home? I'm trying to contact my brother Nate. I try different numbers and I talk to my dad about it. Apparently, my brother has different phone numbers for different jobs. I say that I couldn't keep track of all those numbers and schedules. I finally figure out his personal phone number.
Later on... a different dream? I'm wandering around a place that is sort of like a mall, but also has parts of it that feel like a home... my home? I'm trying to contact my brother Nate. I try different numbers and I talk to my dad about it. Apparently, my brother has different phone numbers for different jobs. I say that I couldn't keep track of all those numbers and schedules. I finally figure out his personal phone number.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Conspiracy: Experience and Reality
There is something on my mind that I'm reluctant to try to write about. It's a complex subject that would take a book to provide the necessary cited data and analysis. Besides, it's a topic that I feel few are inclined (able? willing?) to understand. I'm not even sure what to call the subject. The term "conspiracy" may be the closest I can come to describe it.
Within human nature, there is an inherent naivete that blinds and blinders us. It takes some combination of certain personality tendencies (in particular a questioning mindset), life experiences (of the strange variety is probably helpful), suffering (to a significant degree and length), a contemplative attitude (with or without an accompanying contemplative practice), and critical thinking skills (not limited to conventional logic) - along with any number of other factors - to even begin to take this subject seriously. I sense that it may be similar to what Ligotti writes about. His pessimistic philosophy is based on his own direct experience... either you've had similar experiences or not, and no amount of logic or data will be convincing otherwise.
I'm tempted to theorize that this gut-level sense of "conspiracy" is something beyond the political to which its normally applied. Is it metaphysical in terms of reality being illusory, deceptive even? Is it the insight of the Gnostics? Most definitely, the pessimistic views on suffering and freewill play a part in this, and along with all of this the noir vision of life. Of course, there are various psychological and socio-political explanations one can give for this experience (subjective or objective) of conspiracy, but to me any mundane explanation can't touch upon the mystery at the heart of the matter. I could bring up many aspects, but I'm not in the mood to philosophically analyze.
If I'm interested in the mystery more than the explanations, then why did I choose to use the term "conspiracy"? There are two reasons. I am interested in the real world correlations of this experience which would include the topics normally placed in this category. The other reason is because Ligotti uses this word in the title of his book about pessimism. Ligotti's views are in the background of my thinking even though this blog isn't about his ideas.
Okay, let me now get at my main point. Conspiracies in the real world are only possible because the human psyche has a natural inclination towards conspiracies. Just consider the young of our species. Children are often conspiring with their siblings against their parents or with their friends against various authority figures or even with other children against other children. Children are no innocents. Conniving little beasts is what they are. Of course, parents and authority figures likewise conspire to control and mould children towards their own nefarious ends such as making them into law-abiding citizens and obedient workers.
Conspiracies are found in all aspects of life. A conspiracy is simply anything covertly shared between two or more people toward some end. I suspect that many people dismiss conspiracy theories because they wish to deny their own secretiveness. We all have many secrets. We all withhold information and distort the truth in trying to gain advantage in our relationships and our everyday activities. In fact, it's normal and considered acceptable (expected even) for individuals to present their best face/persona.
As for the more common definition of "conspiracy", one could spend (and many have spent) their whole life investigating and compiling the complex webs of covert (and often illegal) activities of various people and organizations: government officials, alphabet soup agencies, military, owners and CEOs of corporations, those involved in the stock market, special interest groups, scientists, unions, mafia, etc.). The close connections between old wealth families, royal blood, political position, and corporation ownership (such as media and oil) is intriguing to say the least. In terms of the US, some other interesting details that rarely make it into the mainstream media and are rarely investigated deeply even when they do get brief media attention: election discrepancies, history of government experimentation on citizens, missing federal money and black budget, illegal activities in other countries implemented or supported by this government, large number of people who disappear every year, and on and on.
Conspiracies (and other unexplained phenomena) are happening all of the time. One just hopes that they either benefit one or at least don't cause harm. Most people simply trust (or maybe just never think to question) the government (and other powerful organizations including the mainstream media) even though there is no clear justification for such blind faith.
I'm not recommending mistrust and suspiciousness. I'm not actually recommending anything, but I am a proponent of curiosity and critical thinking... which I perceive as fairly rare attributes. It's understandable. Few if any would willingly choose to think about conspiracies... only those who are insane or have too much time on their hands waste their lives on conspiracy theories. Its just that, once this view has been deeply considered (however that comes about), it's extremely hard to forget. This isn't to imply that it is somehow important. It seems to me that it doesn't necessarily have much significance from a practical perspective. It certainly hasn't helped me in my life.
Conspiracies always have existed and always will; and there have always been those obsessed about uncovering them and there always will. But who cares? I'm sure most people don't care (bread and circus I suppose). Besides, if you're one of the lucky few in the world to live well off in a powerful country, then most conspiracies probably work in your favor. And if not, then you're just f*cked and you might as well resign yourself to your fate. Ha! How about that for cynicism!?!
Its true that all of this is a moral issue, but morality on this scale is practically invisible to the average person. Most people are just too busy trying to get by to worry about these seemingly pointless speculations. Even if someone becomes aware of various morally questionable covert activities, it is easy to rationalize them away. Morality only matters on the personal level and it's hard to connect to conspiracies as being a part of one's personal reality.
I only think about this kind of thing because I don't know how to not think about it. I'm genuinely bewildered that more people aren't bothered by it. Despite my cynical attitude, I don't see conspiracies as specifically negative. That conspiracies exist is simply a fact. That the world is very strange (stranger than science will ever comprehend) is simply the way the world is. To speculate any further would be to enter the realm of philosophy and religion, and that could be a very very long discussion.
Within human nature, there is an inherent naivete that blinds and blinders us. It takes some combination of certain personality tendencies (in particular a questioning mindset), life experiences (of the strange variety is probably helpful), suffering (to a significant degree and length), a contemplative attitude (with or without an accompanying contemplative practice), and critical thinking skills (not limited to conventional logic) - along with any number of other factors - to even begin to take this subject seriously. I sense that it may be similar to what Ligotti writes about. His pessimistic philosophy is based on his own direct experience... either you've had similar experiences or not, and no amount of logic or data will be convincing otherwise.
I'm tempted to theorize that this gut-level sense of "conspiracy" is something beyond the political to which its normally applied. Is it metaphysical in terms of reality being illusory, deceptive even? Is it the insight of the Gnostics? Most definitely, the pessimistic views on suffering and freewill play a part in this, and along with all of this the noir vision of life. Of course, there are various psychological and socio-political explanations one can give for this experience (subjective or objective) of conspiracy, but to me any mundane explanation can't touch upon the mystery at the heart of the matter. I could bring up many aspects, but I'm not in the mood to philosophically analyze.
If I'm interested in the mystery more than the explanations, then why did I choose to use the term "conspiracy"? There are two reasons. I am interested in the real world correlations of this experience which would include the topics normally placed in this category. The other reason is because Ligotti uses this word in the title of his book about pessimism. Ligotti's views are in the background of my thinking even though this blog isn't about his ideas.
Okay, let me now get at my main point. Conspiracies in the real world are only possible because the human psyche has a natural inclination towards conspiracies. Just consider the young of our species. Children are often conspiring with their siblings against their parents or with their friends against various authority figures or even with other children against other children. Children are no innocents. Conniving little beasts is what they are. Of course, parents and authority figures likewise conspire to control and mould children towards their own nefarious ends such as making them into law-abiding citizens and obedient workers.
Conspiracies are found in all aspects of life. A conspiracy is simply anything covertly shared between two or more people toward some end. I suspect that many people dismiss conspiracy theories because they wish to deny their own secretiveness. We all have many secrets. We all withhold information and distort the truth in trying to gain advantage in our relationships and our everyday activities. In fact, it's normal and considered acceptable (expected even) for individuals to present their best face/persona.
As for the more common definition of "conspiracy", one could spend (and many have spent) their whole life investigating and compiling the complex webs of covert (and often illegal) activities of various people and organizations: government officials, alphabet soup agencies, military, owners and CEOs of corporations, those involved in the stock market, special interest groups, scientists, unions, mafia, etc.). The close connections between old wealth families, royal blood, political position, and corporation ownership (such as media and oil) is intriguing to say the least. In terms of the US, some other interesting details that rarely make it into the mainstream media and are rarely investigated deeply even when they do get brief media attention: election discrepancies, history of government experimentation on citizens, missing federal money and black budget, illegal activities in other countries implemented or supported by this government, large number of people who disappear every year, and on and on.
Conspiracies (and other unexplained phenomena) are happening all of the time. One just hopes that they either benefit one or at least don't cause harm. Most people simply trust (or maybe just never think to question) the government (and other powerful organizations including the mainstream media) even though there is no clear justification for such blind faith.
I'm not recommending mistrust and suspiciousness. I'm not actually recommending anything, but I am a proponent of curiosity and critical thinking... which I perceive as fairly rare attributes. It's understandable. Few if any would willingly choose to think about conspiracies... only those who are insane or have too much time on their hands waste their lives on conspiracy theories. Its just that, once this view has been deeply considered (however that comes about), it's extremely hard to forget. This isn't to imply that it is somehow important. It seems to me that it doesn't necessarily have much significance from a practical perspective. It certainly hasn't helped me in my life.
Conspiracies always have existed and always will; and there have always been those obsessed about uncovering them and there always will. But who cares? I'm sure most people don't care (bread and circus I suppose). Besides, if you're one of the lucky few in the world to live well off in a powerful country, then most conspiracies probably work in your favor. And if not, then you're just f*cked and you might as well resign yourself to your fate. Ha! How about that for cynicism!?!
Its true that all of this is a moral issue, but morality on this scale is practically invisible to the average person. Most people are just too busy trying to get by to worry about these seemingly pointless speculations. Even if someone becomes aware of various morally questionable covert activities, it is easy to rationalize them away. Morality only matters on the personal level and it's hard to connect to conspiracies as being a part of one's personal reality.
I only think about this kind of thing because I don't know how to not think about it. I'm genuinely bewildered that more people aren't bothered by it. Despite my cynical attitude, I don't see conspiracies as specifically negative. That conspiracies exist is simply a fact. That the world is very strange (stranger than science will ever comprehend) is simply the way the world is. To speculate any further would be to enter the realm of philosophy and religion, and that could be a very very long discussion.
Dream: Escaping Into and Out of the Woods
I'm walking into a park (somewhat seems like Hickory Hill) with another person... I almost think this person was a chimp. There is something (a person? a dog?) who is going to try to hunt us down, but we have a head start. That other dog-person is in the building at the edge of the park. We're on a trail that is just a few feet into the woods and runs along the edge before turning in. I have the plan of moving fast while zig-zagging and staying on the trail so that we won't leave any signs of our passing. I want to get to the far side of the park just beyond the boundary and hide out in some woods there.
We (which includes other people now... brothers?) have entered an abandoned school (seems like Longfellow Elementary with elements of Robert Lee Hall at Blue Ridge YMCA). I'm leading the way and I just want to pass through, but its confusing. I figure it will be quicker to go up in order to get back down to an exit. We get to the very top and its an open large room. At some point, I become aware of ghosts everywhere. I have papers that I'm clutching which are very important to me (my own writings?). We get to the far end of the upstairs which is a space separated from the other section but with an open door way and in this section is the stairs.
The ghosts are unavoidable. I start interacting with them. Some are irritable but not mean. It seems if you don't disturb them they mostly leave you alone. And if you're nice to them, they're mostly nice in return. I keep telling the irritable ghosts that I'm sorry and its feels like I mean it. I am still slightly afraid but starting to relax. I pet a ghost dog.
We were starting to go down stairs when I realized I'd dropped some of my papers. I say to the others that I have to go back. I pick up the papers that are scattered and some of them seem to be chewed or ripped.
We start to go down again, but suddenly there are reporters. The reporters are speaking with the ghosts. I don't want the reporters to see me and I try to blend in with the ghosts as I make my escape. I go back the way we came to the other side of the top floor. There is a female reporter close behind me, but I don't think she has noticed me. I run down the stairs and manage to elude her as I make my way outside. I go to the side of the building so it won't be obvious that I came out the door in case she comes out that way as well. I walk back towards the building at the edge of the park. There are people there and I try to blend in.
We (which includes other people now... brothers?) have entered an abandoned school (seems like Longfellow Elementary with elements of Robert Lee Hall at Blue Ridge YMCA). I'm leading the way and I just want to pass through, but its confusing. I figure it will be quicker to go up in order to get back down to an exit. We get to the very top and its an open large room. At some point, I become aware of ghosts everywhere. I have papers that I'm clutching which are very important to me (my own writings?). We get to the far end of the upstairs which is a space separated from the other section but with an open door way and in this section is the stairs.
The ghosts are unavoidable. I start interacting with them. Some are irritable but not mean. It seems if you don't disturb them they mostly leave you alone. And if you're nice to them, they're mostly nice in return. I keep telling the irritable ghosts that I'm sorry and its feels like I mean it. I am still slightly afraid but starting to relax. I pet a ghost dog.
We were starting to go down stairs when I realized I'd dropped some of my papers. I say to the others that I have to go back. I pick up the papers that are scattered and some of them seem to be chewed or ripped.
We start to go down again, but suddenly there are reporters. The reporters are speaking with the ghosts. I don't want the reporters to see me and I try to blend in with the ghosts as I make my escape. I go back the way we came to the other side of the top floor. There is a female reporter close behind me, but I don't think she has noticed me. I run down the stairs and manage to elude her as I make my way outside. I go to the side of the building so it won't be obvious that I came out the door in case she comes out that way as well. I walk back towards the building at the edge of the park. There are people there and I try to blend in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
