My Bits and Pieces of Satirical Logic About Our Cultural Paradigm
A Perverted Logic Being Fed to Us
"The logic of the world is prior to all truth and falsehood" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
My personal mind-style has from ever gravitated towards logic, knowing, facts, and evidence. Beliefs I only use for reprogramming whatever has been instilled into me at times when I was too young to discriminate real from crap.
Here I am going to spill some of my satirical logic about the belief systems of this era as it's being professed in fields of religion, politics, and psychiatry -- also pointing at incredible discrepancy between who we are, and who we could be.
What I won't go into is that aspect of believing which is synonymous to knowing, and in our everyday use is merely a figure of speech, when we say something like: "I believe when you say that being a parent is a 24/7 job".
Rather, my themes will be about beliefs which we live by and which are merely a deliberate mind's construct based on logic that is pretty much perverted and limiting. And I have no intentions to scare you or something -- you don't need to be additionally scared after our fathers of public thought have already done a good job there -- just try to join me with an attitude of an amused observer.
Much of what we are taking for granted in our life has gained a status of an axiomatic truth which almost nobody bothers challenging. It's hurting us, duping us, making us repeat the same crappy routines that our ancestors did. Then we merely shrug it off as "the only way of life possible for us imperfect humans".
It's this very technology of reasoning, an algorithm in computation of our thoughts, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs, that's "glitchy" and crap-generating. So we keep waltzing proudly around and around through eons of unnoticeable ignorance, while just chasing our tails, clumsily trying to understand ourselves and life. Apparently unable, or unwilling to step back and see how many turns we have done already without producing any results worthy of our gods' applauding.
So, let me start with an aspect of religion, where we are not even trying to go logical, but instead allowing it all to flood our reasoning with a dogmatic "certainty" that's not to be challenged. I promise, I won't touch the question of that very basic belief covering existence of a god.
Since modern science is talking about discovery of "god code" in our genome, I can only say that the image of god looks much more to me like a "universal intelligence" than like a "deity", as "he" is being portrayed in any of the organized religions.
Messiahs = Three Amigos, Followers = a Warring Bunch
"Anyone who thinks that sitting in church can make you a Christian must also think that sitting in a garage can make you a car." -- Garrison Keillor
I like using this simple example of the difference between "knowing" and "religious believing" by saying how people of every religion on earth agree that 2+2=4 -- they are not asserting that their religion is making this equation look different.
But then they disagree about the "true" name of god, and about the rituals their god is prescribing, as well as about anything else pertaining to their belief -- which may somehow mean that their god cares if woman's face is covered, or what we eat on Friday. Hey, fine with me, let those beliefs stay intact, I have other things to make funny and illogical here.
Like, for example, every of the bigger, organized religions has its holy book talking about a different messiah, right? But, what strikes me as an eye-opening fact is that all three of them, namely Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad, are basically talking about the same thing. Think about it for a moment.
In a hypothetical meeting of those three fine teachers of the mankind, they would actually display a warm friendship towards each other. Simply because all three of them are talking about love for all humans, about tolerance, compassion, peace, and harmony.
Now, let's get to their respective followers -- if they are truly believers in those tenets of their messiah's teachings, why do we have words like "heretics", and "infidels"? Isn't it logical that, if the Teachers are friends to each other and believing in the same virtues -- that followers should also behave same way?
So, why do we have intolerance, even wars, between factions of the same religion -- let alone folks of "different gods"?
Last time when I checked my ethical logicalness, it appeared to me that there is no such a thing as "killing in the name of love". Now, let me admit that I never really read any of those holy books -- but don't let it jump me with conclusion "that's why you don't understand what's going on".
Really? Let me put it this way -- if those messiahs were the "only" holy personages that had contacted god, and if they are teaching us to love the whole mankind -- who are we to decide about exceptions?
For, if we are making those exceptions, logically it means that our reasoning is better than the one of our religious idols whom we are claiming to follow. Without being familiar with contents of those holy books, I dare to say it's all that "added" stuff in those books which has created the antagonism between religions.
To me, that's the reason why none of the Holy Three Amigos never claimed their authorship of those holy books -- simply because they didn't have so much material to write about. Rather, they had their messages short and simple, understandable by those contemporary shepherds, peasants, merchants, and fishermen.
Unfortunately, followers from much more educated later centuries are still having problems "decoding" those messages -- studying and studying, and fighting over interpretations of what a heck their gods wanted from them after all.
And that, my friends, is my problem with understanding the whole racket of believing-but-not-following-what-we-believe.
Patriotism, when It's a Lame Political Excuse
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful, and murder respectable" -- George Orwell
When, in my previous theme, I said I wouldn't touch the question of god's existence, I also meant that none of the fine virtues could be a subject to my satirizing -- so it also includes patriotism.
But then it becomes illogical to me that any two, or more, political parties are equally claiming to be inspired by patriotism -- meaning love and respect for the whole nation -- but locking horns over different ideologies.
Namely, my logical assumption would be that all people loving their country will strive towards finding a common ground for that love-for-all to express itself, not passionately seeking disagreements -- if not downright hating one another -- which is tearing the unity of national spirit apart.
The leading body of the nation, called government, represents much of a parental figure to the people -- so how would that look in a metaphor of parents being in a constant war with each other, both explaining "it's only out of a sheer love for their kids"?
I hope you see something illogical in the above, not just something like my personal being pissed with authority "because I had a bad relation with my father, so I am now attacking politicians" -- or something along those "shrinky" lines.
Imagine your parents telling you: "In this family we have freedom to express our differences, so there is no going for a vacation this year, because your mom wants to go to Europe, and I want Bahamas. So blame your mother for not agreeing with me."
Indeed, folks, who are we kidding with all this political charade? We elect them to serve us, and then they treat us as servants, imposing their laws that have nothing to do with the welfare of the whole nation, just a precious few.
"We, the people", can demonstrate all we want against some stupid war -- and there, in war we go -- "for our own good, for our national security, in our national interests"...or alike slogans that are supposed to cover up for our political ambitions of a global hegemony.
Well, I guess, themes like this one need to be ended with a little sigh through a smile that's trying to say: "To each their own, so -- long live patriotism!"
Living in Two Different Worlds on Same Planet
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius." -- Arthur Conan Doyle
Those wizards in the field of artificial intelligence -- ask that super-genius Elon Musk if you don't believe me -- predict a soon-to-come age in which you will talk face to face with a person, unaware that you are talking to a robot. Human flesh and bones and all insides, plus above normal intelligence.
Cloning of human organs is already on the way, so in a near future, any organ that's failing you will be replaced -- not made of some synthetic material, but 100% human flesh. With nanotechnology providing a microscopic chips circulating in your blood stream and reprogramming your body for an optimal health, by stimulating those good genes and deactivating bad ones.
The same breed of scientists are entertaining a speculative theorizing about homo sapiens -- ourselves --, being actually biological robots created by some highly advanced ancestors, whether from this planet, from space, or from another dimension.
The logic behind it being simple -- if we are at this threshold of achieving a creation of a complete human, that could be the second round of bridging that big gap in evolution between primitive tribes and sudden civilizations that created those unrepeatable architectural marvels.
Why didn't we stay that way? Well, through some dark ages of negative brainwashing we have pushed into passivity some crucial genes for super-creativity, health, ridiculously impressive longevity, and superb spirituality of some avatars which we were designed to be. Qualities which only here and there shine in some savants, protruding through layers of a bad paradigm's programming.
Now, what comes as a total lack of logic in our present paradigm is the same idiotic disparity between primitive, animalistic tendencies of global competitiveness, power- hunger, greed, arms race, economic terrorism in forms of sanctions -- on one hand -- and this incredible reach of science which has surpassed the most daring sci-fi imagination.
From the perspective of frequencies, one side seems to operate within the metaphoric band of "AM radio broadcast", and the other within "FM" -- neither much aware of the other. Indeed, as you are listening to someone like mentioned Elon Musk -- the big brain behind "Tesla" industry and space program engineer planning to make Mars livable -- you can't but look at him as one of those beings operating outside the scope of what we "normally" see as life.
What makes the comparison tantalizingly illogical is that in many ways he is "just" another human, "simply" having activated certain genes that all of us possess in our genome.
So, it has to make one wonder -- why is the majority of the mankind still insisting on replaying the crazy drama called history. Like Werner Erhard used to say in est -- "a rat will explore one after another tunnels of a maze until it finds cheese -- and man will repeat going over and over through the same tunnel, just going smart why there is no damn cheese". Pity.
Crawling Progress of Medicine
"It's much more important to know what sort of a patient has a disease than what sort of a disease a patient has". -- William Osler
Imagine a cancer patient in near future stepping into a sound-proof chamber, and with headphones on, and eyes closed, relaxing in a comfortable chair. There is a mild scent of frankincense adding to the ambient of peace to make him even more relaxed.
From frequency generator somewhere in a control room comes a special soothing sound loaded with sound frequencies that now target his cancer cells destroying them quickly. Then, after some minutes the session is over, to be repeated by few more like this to make him completely healed. No chemotherapy, no radiation, no scalpel to dig into his flesh.
Fantasy? Nope. Science of cymatics has already proven beyond doubt that body cells, as well as microbes, are responding to sound frequencies. Learn about Royal Rife and his frequency generator that was a genius invention -- to further be advanced. Instead, he was prosecuted, and even after cleared of all charges -- mysteriously died in hospital after a non-life-threatening problem.
Why isn't medical science pursuing this line of non-invasive, natural treatments, instead of insisting on pharmaceuticals and scalpel? Hey, they are not shying away from use of electronic technology -- judging by much used electroencephalogram, electrocardiogram, ultrasound, MRI, Cat scan.
But, have you noticed that all of them are used for tests, not for treatments. Maybe there is one or two being in use that I am not aware of, but certainly not enough to make a big difference.
Since it became a reliable truism that some 95% of all diseases originate from mind, notably emotions, that new approach could revolutionize medicine.
You might as well imagine how many mental issues could be treated by that kind of technology. Patients could be "positively brainwashed" into new, life-promoting beliefs, attitudes, and automatic responses to life's complex demands that affected their health.
Well, for a bunch of reasons not really mysterious, it's not something that we hear about on our daily news. Big Pharma doesn't want us healthy, and they are powerful enough to pull many strings, including media, where we regularly see diseases advertised with chemicals that may, or may not, take care of symptoms, not their underlying cause.
One day I may get tired of bragging about it, but I haven't seen a doctor in over 13 years, not taking any over-the-counter meds -- no pain-killers, antacids, laxatives, Preparation-H, cold remedies...you name it. I don't believe in diseases, I trust my body, I love it, and I don't tax it with crazy stresses to screw up its defenses.
If it hadn't been for this well refined and cultivated stress management, I would have been just another 75 years old fart frequenting all kinds of doctors and therapists, like all my friends, and even their stressed out pets are doing.
Well, in the past I had my share of dealing with medical profession -- never anything big, but even that little made me realize how they are not really rushing to advance themselves beyond using drugs and scalpel.
There is absolutely no logic in their collecting money for cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease research -- while refusing to explore anything outside of chemical lab and operating table.
A Very Limited Need for Shrinks
"Calling it lunacy makes it easier to explain away things we don't understand." -- Megan Chance
Yes, there are those unfortunate psychiatric cases where shrinks' intervention is still necessary -- due to a lack of better ways -- with psychoactive drugs that at least keep patient within a so-so range of normalcy.
But, just like a need for a surgeon in case of an accident justifies patching us up, while it questions use of antacids and statins -- so treating a paranoid schizophrenia doesn't justify use of chemical mood-lifters to treat our mood swings.
There is nothing logical in the way that fathers of our paradigm are viewing public mental health. Instead of making it their mission to educate people about their power and sole responsibility to proactively manage their stress, they are just trying to professionally fix what only people can fix in themselves.
At their best, psychotherapists and analysts can only act as "paid friends" -- someone who will listen to stories of your intimate perturbations -- sworn not to spread it around the neighborhood for everyone's entertainment.
In front of them you can drop every too tight social mask -- you can cry, scream, swear, blame, play a victim...whatever, and they will just ask what they are supposed to ask: "And how does that make you feel?", only to initiate a new round of your hanging it all out. Then you leave relieved, until the next session, with some "fresh" childhood material to be unloaded and emotionally discharged.
I am not telling you not to have your therapist. What I am saying is that it makes no logical sense that only the top scientists, and those bestselling motivational writers/speakers are yapping about our power to maintain normalcy in ourselves.
Don't you think there should be something like a publicly maintained mental hygiene, something like we have sewers to take away our crap, not letting it flow down the street.
I mean, what is the public care about our mental health if we keep being exposed to all that toxic garbage on the daily news, and which is even worse -- getting actually addicted to it. Yes, our nervous system gets addicted to the same stimuli, no matter positive or negative.
I could never understand the logic of bombarding people with stories of political warfare, crime, natural disasters -- but then telling them how "stress is bad for them".
Well, it's good to have a cultivated sense of humor and its sister satire.
And now, not willing to write another portion of this post just to wrap it all up -- I hope you can understand better why I keep this silly grin on my face while being entertained with this multifaceted dogma that passes for a "modern, sophisticated culture paradigm".
We might as well learn to laugh -- since we are already experts at crying.
© 2020 Vladimir Karas