We don’t know nothing

by Oscar de Clavier - October 17th, 2006
why read this?!fairly good.interesting...GREAT READ!oh give us MORE of this!!! ( no ratings yet )
Loading ... Loading ...

Here’s a post from the comments on the “Hey Delusion” post below. Its better than anything that any of the Neocrats have posted in a long time, so I thought it deserved a wider readership. Neocrats 2.0 is coming (right PhilBY?) and will allow us to do this more elegantly, but until then, enjoy Misagh.

- Oscar 

This phenomenon of delusional faith in one’s own grey matter is something that i have pondered on since being a wee lad. Why, I’d ask myself whilst musing over Roald Dahl or body slamming one G.I. Joe into another, is it that everyone believes in whatever it is that they think?

The world was flat, definitely flat. And no doubt of its physical centrality in the scheme of all created and no-created things, for why else would Christ grace it with His presence? Those with a hint of melanin in their skin were savages, primitives, sure they were and no buts about it. A woman with a stance was a witch and fit for naught but the infinite abyss of hell (which of course, was and is, a very very hot place), for why else would she display intellect or an opinion? It’s a war we had to have, for sure. And no, no way is poison bad for the earth or for our children. Of course it isn’t. Computers are for NASA, no one will find a use for one nor fit one in a normally proportioned house. And this internet mumbo jumbo will never come to any use.

And yet, with a whole history of ludicrous “definites� behind us, we persist: My god is better than yours, and when he comes back it will be in a pyramid led by white horses on the backdrop of a melting sun, and then you’ll be sorry. This molecule is what causes disease, and that’s that. And I’m sad and that’s why God doesn’t exist, for why would a white man live in a cloud anyhow? Objects travel in straight lines, and why would you be stupid enough to challenge that?

This is why my virtue of patience is challenged when someone says “I don’t believe in that, fullstop.� “If everyone just thought as I do there would be no wars.� Or “I believe in science.� As if I don’t - Science believes in its expanding frontiers, not only in its current self.

Friends and fellow humans, let’s learn from history and hold our horses on closed conclusions. Let’s admit that the 10% of a brain that we might use, with our own limited experience and sub-universal perception, cannot know all. This is why I agree with Mogogo, that a common code beyond our own selves gives us something to work towards.

But on the question of whether we all act according to what our conscience dictates as good, I’m not so sure about that. Sometimes grave evils and injustices are committed by minds that either pretend that it’s good, or get a kick out of harming others, feeding their own insecurity. In the corporate world it’s a daily occurence for people to deceive to get ahead of others. Competition driven by jealousy or want cannot be driven by conscience, rather desire.

Hurting others inadverdently whilst we mean to do good is another matter. It is not just that one person commits the act, but that another finds offence. Life is too short and our taking offence a waste of precious time. As it has been said, “Life is a dwarf, don’t be offended.� Okay, so nobody said that.

18 Responses to “We don’t know nothing”

  1. Madame Bovary says:

    “What is beautiful is moral, that is all there is to it.”
    Gustave Flaubert

  2. Mogogo says:

    I prefer to think that what is moral is beautiful.

  3. Humane Owl says:

    ”But on the question of whether we all act according to what our conscience dictates as good, I’m not so sure about that. Sometimes grave evils and injustices are committed by minds that either pretend that it’s good, or get a kick out of harming others, feeding their own insecurity”

    I still consider that an example of a person acting under the delusion that what they do is right. Even if someone does intentionally hurt or even destroy another life the human mind can not only intellectualise it but justify it to the point that it truly convinces the perpetrator themselves.

    Consider serial killers, I mention these guys (they are invariably guys with some exceptions) because reading of serial killers and researching specific cases is something I do…out of interest. Probably the most fascinating aspect of digesting that stuff is observing your own efforts to remain objective and watching your own rigid code of morality soften a little and start bending (think spaghetti).

    It’s at the point where you find yourself emotionally resonating with the killer, when your heart actually aches for him not because you were seduced by his own justification but because you could imagine yourself arriving to a similar place if you were him…it’s at that point you have to be a little suprised at how malleable morality is.

    The standard example I would apply that to would be a child whose virtuous nature was not nurtured but actually destroyed and through persistant abuse/neglect/exposure to depravity the child has all the materials to construct a big ugly, confused and conflicted monster inside of him.

    The good nature can still prevail for many years as weak and frail as it is but when the balance is tipped and when the child is an adult with no prospects but with that sense of injustice (which can only come from a good place) even more heightened….they could quite feasibly reason ”I feel unfairly treated….this isn’t life….seeing others live hurts…I want to kill my source of hurt….but that’s wrong…..I wouldn’t want to offend or hurt people….but I’ve been offended and hurt all my life….I qualified as scum since I could talk….where’s the justice in that?….I am owed something surely…it’s only just….It’s only just that I kill if it relieves this hurt”.

    Afterall what alternative would someone in that situation see? Holding in the bitter and painful sense of injustice soley for the benefit of others?….others who did nothing to extend the thinnest strand of justice to him when he was most vulnerable? That’s not just.

    Don’t get me wrong….clearly the conclusion to kill isn’t right. I only know that though as someone who believes in something greater than me ( back to the original post) and I agree if your source of morality is yourself (as unstable, shortsighted and volatile as we can all be) it’s a safe bet it’ll end in tears.

    By commiting to something and striving to uphold to something higher than you even when you are torn by injustice and anger you might fall short but you certainly won’t ever decide to kill people….

    The only instances where I think the idea that all people are convinced they are right in their actions does not apply would be those who are addicted. Drugs, sex, gambling etc….there is a vicious cycle of guilt that goes hand in hand with addiction and we all know guilt is the brain’s way of saying ‘you twat’. And when challenged those who are slaves to extreme addiction wouldn’t even try and justify their perpetual behaviour.

  4. Sanisha says:

    i see what you mean Owl, but we are still living in the 4th dimension …in time and space …and if we go back to Mogogo’s original questions about how do we know what is right…its usually true that in hindsight, as time passes, we can see that some action was ‘wrong’ or right, just as an addict was not always an addict…at the beginning of the habit he/she could even justify their actions.

    I suggest that God must have built us with us a mechanism to determine what is right and wrong in the absence of space and time because the results of our actions transcend those limits.In the other worlds of God is when we see the consequences of what we do, wrong and right (i believe) so

    in other words, there must be somthing within all of us that can determine what is wrong, in an absolute sense, because the Creator is independant of space and time, and then the purpose of this life is to use our ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and to practise doing the right thing.I think even serial killers knew they were doing wrong, like addicts, but the severity of their acts were maybe not as clear in their minds as it would be in a non-killer, just tolerance levels and pain thresholds differ.

  5. Misagh says:

    Thanks for the posting promotion, Oscar! I’ll link this back to my blog.

    I think Humane Owle’s comments definitely do apply. There are those who from nurture (or lack thereof) develop either psychologic or psychiatric issues which they do not have full control of. But except in the extreme circumstance, is “full” the operative word? Do we still all have the ability to break the chain of destructive behaviour or tendencies, or to seek assistance?

    But there are also those who commit serial crimes and in retrospect, do admit that “what I did was wrong.” Remorse is certainly not uncommon in such crimes - whether they be one off or serial crimes. Right Humane Owl?

    One way of looking at this is that sometimes, such behaviours are partly a symptom of society’s wider malady. If we are all linked, we feed off each other. We create the society that creates us, we provide the conditions for each other’s choices and behaviour. Therefore, sometimes horrible things happen as a result of our collective action, or inaction. But this is not to suggest that the perpetrator of the action is off scotch-free, because he is also a player in that wider scheme of things as well as Captain of his own ship.

  6. Humble Owl says:

    “I suggest that God must have built us with us a mechanism to determine what is right and wrong in the absence of space and time because the results of our actions transcend those limits”

    In my example this very mechanism was damaged at a very young age hindering his ability to make the distinctions you’re talking about.

    My point in essense was that in the war of nature v nurture in some instances nurture can impose itself on nature and that fundamentally good nature can find itself trying adapt for survival. Powerless to do anything other than reconcile itself with this new monster taking the driver’s seat. A true process of self destruction.

    Powerless that is unless we are plugged in and committed to the higher source we are referring to. Something that informs our decisions instead of having our decisions inform out morality.

    John 15:5 - “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful… Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. ”

    It’s this hazard of existing independent of the ‘vine’ I was trying to expose. Being our own guide for moral and righteous action is a path riddled with traps.

    So whilst I agree there is such a thing as an inate ability to distinguish right and wrong I disagree that therefore we need only consult ourselves to clarify the moral weight of what we are doing. And I was trying to highlight how pear shaped that course of action could become.

    Like any other attribute unless it is nurtured it will die, nothing survives without taking in what is out. And in the spiritual sense what is out is the very source of it all and to develop this moral clarity in the face of the most ugly of circumstances I believe we alone (without the vine) are not enough.

  7. Humble Owl says:

    I agree Misagh absolutely that issues of serial criminals/ mentally unstable who are so far gone does very much point to the wider issue of societal ills.

    In a discussion where we recognise the value of taking responsibility for your actions and where we seem to appreciate the truth of unity and oneness of everything. Surely it would be a little contradictory to not assert that this sense of responsibility should not exist on a collective level and it would be a little inconsistant in deciding that some people have nothing to do with us.

    So should the perpetrator of these most destructive of acts be let off ’scotch-free’? no. But I think we should all be clear on the fundamental and single mistake that such a person would have made. In my mind it’s that they didn’t exhaust all possibilities of resistance before submitting to this inner demon. For if they had they would have surely prevailed.

    I believe their crime is that they turned away (be it due to ego or blind rage) from the truth. I personally am just not always comfortable in assuming how difficult or not difficult that may have been for them.

    You also right Misagh in mentioning the many instances when regret and remorse are shown by the person who committed the acts. Another thing I find so fascinating about these cases is the variety of ways people manage arrive at such a dark place. It can be momentary moments of madness, plain arrogance or years of agony. I suppose my example would only speak for the latter.

  8. Saleem says:

    Misagh’s original comments are well-written and on the mark. Commendations.

    Humble Owl’s citing of Scripture, saying the same, was well done.

  9. Saleem says:

    It transpires that Misagh is a fan of the Bard. Promising. This is more than can be said about Mogogo.

  10. Mogogo says:

    The quotation from John sheds much light, HO. So He cuts off the fruitless branches but that doesnt mean the rest of us get away scot free. The rest he prunes - so we are still cut back, still restricted, in order to grow more true.

    So perhaps one way to know if we are doing the right thing is to ask whether we are doing the difficult thing. the serial killer is the aberation, so the rule doesnt apply to him. But perhaps even there it applies - the easiest thing to do is to let the monster grab the wheel. Much harder to exercise discipline and control.

  11. Misagh says:

    Tis true Saleem. In fact I’m currently working on a suburban Aussie interpretation of Hamlet:

    From the Producers of Danny Deckchair comes a story of a culturally conflicted bloke – (VO: Get stuffed Ophie, get thee to a pub) – who seeks revenge after swearing he could see his old man Fred’s ghost at the RSL on Friday Arvo. (Add reverb) HAMMO: The Tasmano-Danish Prince – (VO: Strewth, these dacks are tight!)

  12. Misagh says:

    fyi,

    The origin of the phrase “scott free” lies in the original wording, “scotch free”. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/18/messages/159.html

    Sometimes my medieval alter ego takes over, no idea why…

  13. Sanisha says:

    this conversation got me thinking …there was alot in it, i thought.
    i was inspired to read more Holy writings, but its Sat night and I’ m reading Siddhartha, it is very good and it also made me think…

    if the average person is able to be moderate in all things without having to go through some extreme experience.There are many examples of people whose delusions lead them into darkness but in doing so, they see the light and appreciate it more, and then they say it was all a part of the process !? i wonder if that (extreme) is really necessary, or better, for true growth & happiness ?

  14. Singa says:

    This site is very good. i think the way to growing a conscience is through paying attention. maybe it is innate, maybe it is learned. we can’t always trust ourselves. we need to pay attention and examine the result of our actions and history. we need a benchmark. I like the vine analogy from the Bible. What is a vine for each person? What vine to do grow from. Is our vine good? Is there only one source of vine? I like to think of thoughts that bear fruit like this.

  15. Mandel Cola says:

    LOL Singa rocks. I think there is more to him (or her?) than meets the eye.

    Is our vine good?

  16. Mandel Cola says:

    Well, is it?

  17. Hey Delusion! « Moving Form says:

    […] Yesterday on a blog I frequent, a certain Neocrat named Mogogo posted commentary about a pet topic of mine (ask my wife, I get quite animated by it): Why it is that everyone thinks what they think is right? Called Hey Delusion! it has sparked some interesting discussion. We don’t know nothing […]

  18. Hey Delusion! « Moving Form says:

    […] You can join discussion on this topic here. […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

all content
© by The Neocrats .
design & code
© by nemoDreaming.com.

The Neocrats is proudly powered by WordPress.

Feeds:
Entries (RSS), Comments (RSS)

. 2009 Medical Weblog adult downloads