GENIUS FORUMS

Here's the story about Yancy.

Religions evolved as governmental systems. They provided metaphysical principles, and therefore guidelines in regards how to live. With enough clashes between different cultures' religions, people realised that these metaphysical principles were not necessary; since the cultures all managed to organise themselves fine regardless.

So, politics "evolved" as governmental systems free of metaphysical principles. But the whole thing is wrapped in a lie: "absolutist worldviews are not necessary to life" - which is an absolutist worldview.

How did we get to this state of affairs?

I think a lot of it has to do with Yancy. But it's no use looking for Yancy, because you'll never find him. He never stands out.

"Don't confuse a totalitarian society with a dictatorship," Kellman said dryly. "A totalitarian state reaches into every sphere of its citizens' lives, forms their opinions on every subject. The government can be a dictatorship, or a parliament, or an elected president, or a council of priests. That doesn't matter."

In America - and other places, I'm sure - the current enemy is what is called "smiley face fascism." It is totalitarian control, but presented softly - for your own good. It has goals that on the surface are very admirable - protecting the environment, ending sexism and racism, promoting health. But the means are always the same - pass a law. Edicts from the government. A new agency arises to enforce it.

There has been a constant movement, for decades, in this direction. The government slowly expands its power in every direction, and never contracts. New laws, new bureaucracies, come in to being constantly. They never go away.

I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, I see it as evil. There is the constant encroachment on civil liberties. In the end, everything not permitted is forbidden. This is no way for free men to live. "Live free or die."

On the other hand, with a population on the Earth of seven, eight, nine billion people, perhaps there is no other way to prevent various sorts of destruction than strict centralized control. In a world of nine, ten, eleven billion people, is there room for a free man? No. The Last Man arises, and he is a socialist. The last man is not a free man in any sense; he can't be. All choices, all responsibilities are transferred to the state. Perhaps it can not be any other way. There is no room for people to be too different, too out of control, on such a crowded planet.


Is a revolution even possible any more? Are there free men who do not recognize the moral authority of another to run their life for them? Are these people too dangerous to the state, to the population as a whole - will they be stamped out for the greater good?

This article by Sam Harris points to Yancy at work.

(Interesting that Harris is clearly stating his views on ability vs gender equity).

Sam Harris wrote:And it might. Palin's nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.

Yes, this is the level that American politics operates on.

Thinking over your response to the Yancy story, Dave. I'll write those thoughts in the following post.


Harris has sent an open e-letter over criticism on his attack on Palin. I'll include it here, because it was emailed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam Harris: Sexist Pig and Liberal Shill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've received more than the usual amount of criticism for my recent opinion piece [linked above] on Sarah Palin, most of it alleging sexism and/or an unseemly infatuation with Barack Obama. For those who care, I'd like to briefly respond:

My alleged sexism: It is true that I used some hackneyed, gender-slanted language in the piece ("get sassy," "girl-next-door," etc.). This was deliberate. Clearly, I played this game at my peril. I can say that if Sarah Palin were a man of similar qualifications, I would have used equally slanted language to describe him. I might have called Mr. Palin a "frat-boy" or a "lumberjack." I would have invoked some silly macho phrasing like,"Watch Cousin Jim flip Putin the bird." My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko). For what it's worth, the article was vetted by the two women closest to me (wife and mother) and by two female editors at the LA Times. If anything, the editing at the Times made the piece even more "sexist."

My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama's religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama's religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.

So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House. And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction. Hence my latest opinion piece.



Best,

Sam

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: author@samharris.orgweb: http://www.samharris.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam Harris | New York | NY | 10021

The best way to respond to your statement that, in an overcrowded earth, with a global government that values unification for efficiency, and from dislike of the inefficiency of war wipes out all resistance, no man will be free, I'd like to refer to concepts raised in two of Dan's videos: 'Architects and Builders of Self-Deceit' and 'What it means to be a real man'. The allegory in the former is excellent, in my opinion. Those transcripts are here for convenience. (Other transcripts incomplete.)

In your view, what makes the real man, and necessarily also the solitary humble builder who advises on how to address the problem of ego, not a free man in such a political environment? Do you think wiping out political resistance also wipes out freedom of thought ?

On the Daily show they were referring to Palin as a Vagina-American. She is on the ticket to attract other Vagina-Americans - and of course, those who value vaginas very highly.


(Also breasts.)

Kelly Jones wrote:I'd like to refer to concepts raised in two of Dan's videos: 'Architects and Builders of Self-Deceit' and 'What it means to be a real man'. The allegory in the former is excellent, in my opinion. Those transcripts are here for convenience. (Other transcripts incomplete.)

Yes, those are very good, and pretty much reflect what I was thinking.

In your view, what makes the real man, and necessarily also the solitary humble builder who advises on how to address the problem of ego, not a free man in such a political environment?

I keep returning to the idea that one must withdraw from regular society to the extent possible. One can not be free when one is dependant.

Do you think wiping out political resistance also wipes out freedom of thought ?

It is much the same thing - political control tends toward controlling everything it can. Consent - or submission - is manufactured or obtained one way or another.

One can not be free when one is dependant.

How - dependent?

Consent - or submission - is manufactured or obtained one way or another.

I can see your point to some degree. For instance, I'm on a disability pension for aspiring to be a Buddha, meaning virtually everyone I meet is unlikely to have any time for (and usually therefore, interest) in wisdom. So my wisdom is literally limited in reality, although it is still wisdom (being what it is). (see next)

I keep returning to the idea that one must withdraw from regular society to the extent possible.

I bolded that statement to look at two ways to counter your idea. 1, true freedom is not when it is limited to me alone, because what I am is ultimately including all else. 2, true freedom comes from an individual's understanding, which is by the very nature of rationality independent from society.

So the conclusion is that one uses the intellect wherever one is, and in whatever political environment, and does what one can to shine for others.

There's a popular idea going round that the earth would be a better place if the humans suddenly disappeared. But this is fantasy-land fatalism. One cannot wish away a totalitarian state. Alexandr Solzenitzyn advised, on reflection regarding the Gulag Archipelago, that if only they had put up a resistance at the first, and not been so complacent.

So, while I agree that a totalitarian society (the government is made by people) can make things very difficult, the real problem is in allowing it to happen.

I like Christopher Hitchens' witty sayings in 'Letters to a Young Contrarian'.

Interesting quotes you lifted,I must read 'letters to contrarian.'I like this one Kelly,reflects my views acutely.

I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. .... I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case. Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque.(p. 55)

DHodges wrote:

Sam Harris wrote:And it might. Palin's nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.

Yes, this is the level that American politics operates on.

Saw a clip of Palin this morning answering a panned question with an even-more dumb response. Sarah said, 'Yeah, if Americans are harmed, we're gonna get em wherever they hide.'

Obviously, we're not gonna get em in Russia, China etc...

Hillary would've answered it with the same style of shoulder-raising, eyebrow-lifting that Sarah exhibited so glaringly obvious even for a flunky like me, to see. (The vast, right-wing is out to get me) See Hillary's shoulder-raising, facial contortions when saying this all those years ago.

Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin .. sounds like the only one who's had a real job outside of government (and a DUI to boot), is Palin's husband :-/


Poli tics

Many blood-sucking creatures


PS - Christopher Hitchens - If the dude would back off (quit after two drinks) a power lunch of several martini's, he'd be a bit more objective. Only saw (met) him sober once, out of maybe, seven face-to-face political affairs/events. The town drunk.




Peace Up





.

Yes, it's always difficult for an intelligent person to become directly involved in correcting politicians. Other politicians assume he's politicking, meaning: telling lies to get people to favour him and then let him make most of their decisions for them. So they slather him with lies, willy-nilly, trying to get rid of him.

I'm surprised that Sam Harris is getting so involved with political change, because it is so demanding. It's a sleazy scene, full of malicious and unthinking slander. There will always be enemies, by the very nature of politics, who want to destroy any contenders. So if Sam Harris isn't wise, and he doesn't appear to be, then the ego in him will roar for power in order to destroy those threatening him, just in the natural course of politics. This will corrupt his aim to tell the truth about religious dogmatism, and he'll start using ad hominems the way ordinary politicians do.

But there's a possibility that he's so disgusted with politicking, that the very presence of it will firm his resolve to be strong-minded. The more he is slandered, the more cool he will be.

I wonder what he will do with politicians who know that he still wants to be liked, and who pretend to be rational and atheistic, just to be on good terms with him. Will he prefer conflict or peace (truth or happiness)?

One wonders what sort of wife he has: one who likes giving dinners for their set of friends, or one who isn't interested in having children?