bluegreen17 | onto the next circuit

i don't agree entirely with this quote,but i do find it very,very interesting. and i just want to note that it is from a book that was published in 1992.

Democracy has been less than a total success -- and the intellectual's half-shamed cynicism about democracy is justified -- to the extent that traditional society did not need, could not use, and in many ways discouraged the development of high verbal ("rational") skills in the majority of the population. That is, concretely, most people are not encouraged to be very smart, and are rather heavily programmed to be comparatively stupid. Such programming is what is needed to fit them into most traditional jobs. Their bio-survival circuitry works as well as that of most animals, their emotional-territorial circuitry is typically primate, and they have little third-circuit "mind" to verbalize (rationalize) with. Naturally, they usually vote for the charlatan who can activate primitive bio-survival fears and territorial ("patriotic") pugnacity. The intellectual looks at the dismal results and continues to believe in "democracy" only by an act of Blind Faith similar to the way beliefs in Catholicism or Communism or snake-worship are maintained.

Robert Anton Wilson,Prometheus Rising

i'm not feeling anti-anything in highlighting that part of the quote. i see it as more of an observation than a judgement,from my viewpoint,in which case i wouldn't have chosen the words that wilson did,i.e. 'charlatan'. and though i suspect many would find this quote cynical,my viewpoint is that probably more than half of the population of the USA has gone beyond that. well,'beyond' could certainly be construed as a judgement on my part. so be it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Wilson is a great writer, can get rambling at times, like even the best of us however... I much liked his cosmic trigger and takes on quantum psych myself. His political views, while interesting, still seem pale behind the likes of chomsky and others... I like Bob for his applicibale personal ideas, and for reminding us never to belive a word we read unless we really want to.

for reminding us never to belive a word we read unless we really want to.

i really like the way you put that! i think i like him more for his ideas than his views...that is,his psychological ideas,but not necessarily all his political views,if that makes sense.

I believe that American Democracy is in shambles. While we are, technically, a democracy, it is, in my opinion, that we are more of a anarchy - society run by gangs. And those gangs are large corporations and government agencies. I honestly believe that national politics will follow a given course, regardless of who is in office. While I do believe hat most Americans are, in fact, smart, I do, however, believe that, as a nation, we are generally uninformed and spoon-fed by big media. And that is where I think the tragedy has occured. There is an extreme view who actually exercise their right to vote. And of those, only a fraction seem to look beyond what ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, and other big media tell them. And that is dangerous. I believe that we, as a nation, are smart - just apathetic and uninformed......

on an unrelated note, Have you checked out Jeffrey Thompson's Awakened Mind CD?

this is just a bit of an aside,but i'm dismayed that the term 'anarchy' has taken on a different meaning than it had originally. the word means 'without authority' which i take to mean without any outside authority other than oneself. i think self-rule would be wonderful if people were at a stage to be able to do that,but most aren't. now people use the word 'anarchy' to mean total chaos and violence. 'without authority' doesn't have to mean that,but i guess in practice it probably has been,which is why the second definition developed.

here's what i looked up and found:

an-ar-chy

1.absence of any form of authority.

2.political disorder and confusion.

3.absence of any cohesive principle,such as a common standard or purpose.

[new latin anarchia,from greek anarchi,from anarkhos,without a ruler: an-,without; arkhos-ruler.]

i hope you don't mind this detour,but i am very interested in anarchy as an ideal (though as i said,as things are now,i don't think it would work!) as well as being fond of the origin of words.

the quote is a mixed bag. i don't disagree with your comments on democracy,but that's the part of the quote i don't resonate with...i'm more interested in his comments on the psychological. anyway,of course,both were included,and i don't mean offense to not go further on the political stuff,but i'm just more interested in the psychological/sociological stuff and am not very knowledgable at this time in the political realm.

i'm not familiar with jeffrey thompson's 'awakened mind' but i did find this which you may find interesting as there are some opinions and discussions of it there.

With the anarchy thing, thats exactly what I meant. There is no real authority. We have rule by corporations.. Meaning that while the government operates under the guise of authority, they are really controlled by big money.
To be honest, I got the gangs thing from a capitolism website (Ayn Rand style capitolism...not econimic capitolism)
Anarchy as an ideal is intersting. To be honest, I think Self-Rule is more like the Individual Rights view of Capitlism - Where the government has a monopoly or the use of force- and the only use of force is to protect the rights of the individual.

Eloborate on your socio/psychological views of the quote a little more.

;)
And I coud never be offended by you
:)

I say go ahead and judge... ;-)

So which part do you disagree with exactly? Having worked in and around education most of my adult life and having survived most of my pre-college education...though quite damaged...I tend to believe that most societies do not encourage the development of sophisticated linguistic/symbolic skills in most participants in the society. More smart means more trouble for the culture controllers.

As for the idea of fear drivers as psychological primitives, and oral circuit overriding other circuits, I think this can be demonstrated experimentally. And nationalism is primate politics en masse. But the idea of fear as control is my trip, so I give it undue emphasis.

From my point of view Wilson is wrong not about democracy so much as he does not detach the two concepts of democracy and the other cultural structure. I think a lot of his comments are more cultural rather than specifically about democracy. :-) Cultures do not want educated people, abstract democracies require them, and real democracies tend to be run by people who know the second thing but prefer the first for reasons of control.

But I am curious which part you don't agree with... :-)

onto the next circuit

no subject

no subject

no subject

anarchy and awakened mind

Re: anarchy and awakened mind

no subject

no subject