So now, I'm presenting this in the spirit of a phenomenological psychology research report. I've been developing this most recently in the comments of Glenn Greenwald's blog, Unclaimed Territory, on Salon.com, with one of my universal usernames, knowbuddhau2. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
THROWING DODD UNDER THE BUS
Is there a manual on this somewhere? Or do manipulators of public opinion, like artists of other types, simply work their magic intuitively?
The fact that Campbell lectured at State's Foreign Service Institute, followed by a dramatic change in our foreign affairs, which just so happens to express his themes masterfully, leads me to conclude: this is how we do it.
The history of my science, psychology, can't be told without its twin, "public relations." I trust this community is sufficiently aware of that sordid tale for me not to repeat it.
This is what happens when we reduce being human to point instances-- quantum singularities--of egocentric pain in a mechanical, lifeless, dare I say god-forsaken cosmos where kinetic power determines the order of our day.
The on-going effort, to reduce us to machines the better "to predict and control" (Our Motto) human behavior, by conceiving of psychology as being of the type of natural science modeled after physics, has been among the worst ideas ever. Sure, we've learned a lot. But at what cost, and who benefits?
One of the best things I've learned from that type of psychology is this: brains function on the basis of neuronal models of stimuli. Stimuli are re-presented to awareness by virtue of the activity in distributed networks of neurons: our internal theater of the mind is a sort of holographic projection of these networks.
Neuronal models of stimuli are the kenotic (self-emptying) vessels of mind, into which experience is pouring; from which awareness is arising like steam; and out of which we are flowing water. That is, they function just like these words are functioning right now.
Humbled by the Genome's Mysteries, by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/opinion/19GOUL.html?ex=1226466000&en=f7655ce4049eba50&ei=5070&pagewanted=all
The implications of this finding cascade across several realms. The commercial effects will be obvious, as so much biotechnology, including the rush to patent genes, has assumed the old view that "fixing" an aberrant gene would cure a specific human ailment. The social meaning may finally liberate us from the simplistic and harmful idea, false for many other reasons as well, that each aspect of our being, either physical or behavioral, may be ascribed to the action of a particular gene "for" the trait in question.
But the deepest ramifications will be scientific or philosophical in the largest sense. From its late 17th century inception in modern form, science has strongly privileged the reductionist mode of thought that breaks overt complexity into constituent parts and then tries to explain the totality by the properties of these parts and simple interactions fully predictable from the parts. ("Analysis" literally means to dissolve into basic parts). The reductionist method works triumphantly for simple systems — predicting eclipses or the motion of planets (but not the histories of their complex surfaces), for example. But once again — and when will we ever learn? — we fell victim to hubris, as we imagined that, in discovering how to unlock some systems, we had found the key for the conquest of all natural phenomena. Will Parsifal ever learn that only humility (and a plurality of strategies for explanation) can locate the Holy Grail?
The collapse of the doctrine of one gene for one protein, and one direction of causal flow from basic codes to elaborate totality, marks the failure of reductionism for the complex system that we call biology — and for two major reasons.
First, the key to complexity is not more genes, but more combinations and interactions generated by fewer units of code — and many of these interactions (as emergent properties, to use the technical jargon) must be explained at the level of their appearance, for they cannot be predicted from the separate underlying parts alone. So organisms must be explained as organisms, and not as a summation of genes.
Second, the unique contingencies of history, not the laws of physics, set many properties of complex biological systems. Our 30,000 genes make up only 1 percent or so of our total genome. The rest — including bacterial immigrants and other pieces that can replicate and move — originate more as accidents of history than as predictable necessities of physical laws. Moreover, these noncoding regions, disrespectfully called "junk DNA," also build a pool of potential for future use that, more than any other factor, may establish any lineage's capacity for further evolutionary increase in complexity.
The deflation of hubris is blessedly positive, not cynically disabling. The failure of reductionism doesn't mark the failure of science, but only the replacement of an ultimately unworkable set of assumptions by more appropriate styles of explanation that study complexity at its own level and respect the influences of unique histories. Yes, the task will be much harder than reductionistic science imagined. But our 30,000 genes — in the glorious ramifications of their irreducible interactions — have made us sufficiently complex and at least potentially adequate for the task ahead.
We may best succeed in this effort if we can heed some memorable words spoken by that other great historical figure born on Feb. 12 — on the very same day as Darwin, in 1809. Abraham Lincoln, in his first Inaugural Address, urged us to heal division and seek unity by marshaling the "better angels of our nature" — yet another irreducible and emergent property of our historically unique mentality, but inherent and invokable all the same, even though not resident within, say, gene 26 on chromosome number 12. [Bold added.]
Reductive Mechanism is a failed method for approaching psyches. And yet that's what we do, we FORCE people to do as we say, or we ratchet up the pain until they do. And then what? Are they supposed to disregard being machined to death, like Rachel Corrie, for example?
Mythic symbols and narratives function as the icons on the Control Panels of our minds.. By now, American mythology has been analyzed and weaponized. Propagandists know how to push our buttons and leverage that powerful knowledge to great advantage.
* [[[Full-Spectrum Dominance / Our Common Weal///[[[{{{DISSENT}}}]]]]]]
"Full spectrum dominance over our Commonweal powered by suppression of dissent"
* [[[Full-Spectrum Dominance / Our Common Weal///[[[{{{Chris Dodd}}}]]]]]]
See the bus?
* [[[Full-Spectrum Dominance / Our Common Weal///[[[{{{Rachel Corrie}}}]]]]]]
Now the brackets are Caterpillar tractor treads.
It's our updated, upgraded, nuclear-powered Goering Method: declare an attack and denounce opponents on psycho-spiritual grounds, e.g., he’s a Muslim! No, he’s The One! (ie, McCain’s campaign.) Shazam! A skinny guy from Illinois now looks like a Messiah or Anti-Christ. That's how we power social-engineering projects. Between those poles flows the power of myth.
Mechanists make the fundamental mistake of trying to use mechanical tools on a mythosociopsychical problem: Justice. You can't machine Justice. But that's what Rove tried to do with our Justice Department.
Scott Horton tells us, Rove “calls himself ‘Grendel,’ ‘Moby Dick,’ and ‘Lord Voldemort.’ He is the man ever behind the scenes, manipulating and driving the events on the surface without being seen." [Italics original, bold added; http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002498]
Coincidence?
Who’s using the power of myth to power weapons-grade domestic propaganda for Dems?
Lao-Tzu: "When right Way is used by Wrong-headed, Way still works, now for wrong reasons."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Original version)
Is there a manual on this somewhere? Or do manipulators of public opinion, like artists of other types, simply work their magic intuitively?
The fact that Campbell lectured at State's Foreign Service Institute, followed by a dramatic change in our foreign affairs, which just so happens to express his themes masterfully, leads me to conclude: this is how we do it.
The history of my science, psychology, can't be told without its twin, "public relations." I trust this community is sufficiently aware of that sordid tale for me not to repeat it.
This is what happens when we reduce being human to point instances-- quantum singularities--of egocentric pain in a mechanical, lifeless, dare I say god-forsaken cosmos where kinetic power determines the order of our day.
The on-going effort, to reduce us to machines the better "to predict and control" (Our Motto) human behavior, by conceiving of psychology as being of the type of natural science modeled after physics, has been among the worst ideas ever. Sure, we've learned a lot. But at what cost, and who benefits?
One of the best things I've learned from that type of psychology is this: brains function on the basis of neuronal models of stimuli. Stimuli are re-presented to awareness by virtue of the activity in distributed networks of neurons: our internal theater of the mind is a sort of holographic projection of these networks.
Neuronal models of stimuli are the kenotic (self-emptying) vessels of mind, into which experience is pouring; from which awareness is arising like steam; and out of which we are flowing water. That is, they function just like these words are functioning right now.
Reductive Mechanism is a failed method for approaching psyches. And yet that's what we do, we FORCE people to do as we say, or we ratchet up the pain until they do. And then what? Are they supposed to disregard being machined to death, like Rachel Corrie, for example?
Now the brackets are Caterpillar tractor treads.
This is an illustration of what we mean when we say, "The White House threw Dodd under the bus."
In our world, god doesn't just come from a machine, god IS the machine! Listen to the way we talk about our military: as if it were the weather. We treat our military leaders like priests of the temple of almighty god.
Myth-jackers know this very well. By now, a thorough study has been made of American mythology, and how to leverage that powerful knowledge to their advantage.
It's our updated, upgraded, nuclear-powered Goering Method:
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: My hands tremble, but my heart still throbs. I read this quote: “Naturally, the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” Hermann Goering, president of Reichstag, Nazi Parliament, 1934. [http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/25/body_of_war_new_doc_tells]
Dress it up in the right costumes on the right characters and Shazam! A skinny guy from Illinois now looks like a Messiah or Anti-Christ. That's how we power social engineering projects. Between those poles flows the power of myth.
Mechanists make the fundamental mistake of trying to use mechanical tools on a mythosociopsychical problem: Justice. You can't machine Justice. But that's what Rove tried to do with our Justice Department.
Rove's Monday Whoppers
Scott Horton
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002498
He calls himself “Grendel,” “Moby Dick,” and “Lord Voldemort.” He is the man ever behind the scenes, manipulating and driving the events on the surface without being seen. His hand is behind the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and his manipulations were a conscious effort to put federal prosecutors to work for partisan political purposes.[Italics original, bold added.]
Sadly, I see the Democratic Party doing the same thing, only different.
No comments:
Post a Comment