Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Last night Ann Coulter, a person I loathe, appeared on the Bill Maher Show. She was pushing her new book “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America.” Cringing as I watched her the thought nevertheless occurred to me that “She really believes this crap she sells.” This minor epiphany led me on to other thoughts. The battle in American politics has essentially devolved into a two sided affair between opponents convinced of the “demonic,” to use Ann’s term, nature of their ideological opposites. In this ongoing struggle one can’t merely disagree with us on a given political/societal issue, without our believing them to be hateful and worthy of being despised. Their motivation must undoubtedly be sociopathy and/or undemocratic. I must admit that I myself often feel that way about those who disagree with me and I say this with the rueful knowledge that when I do I am allowing myself to engage in stereotypical behavior.
This has been the American condition almost since its inception and was implicit in Ben Franklin’s question about our ability to maintain our Constitution and the freedoms it provides. In order to begin to find solutions for bridging the gaps between us all in the attempt to govern the body politic, we must first understand the fact that much of this division is the result of conflicting mythologies of what we are as a society. If we can identify the underlying mythologies that guide us, perhaps we can see beyond the constraints that limit our ability to see beyond them and discover basis for true negotiation between apparently irreconcilable differences.
In 1988, I watched a many part conversation Bill Moyers had with a Columbia Professor Joseph Campbell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell and_the_Power_of_Myth I was fascinated by the man and by the concepts he was teaching. I found it so compelling that I ran out, purchased, and read most of his books. The books that were the most informative to me were “The Masks of God” series and “The Hero With a Thousand Faces”. What Campbell showed was human history was influenced greatly by the mythologies of various political states and ethnicities. These myths indeed reflected not only religious belief but also social and political philosophies. I don’t pretend great expertise in this area to explain it to you cohesively and the topic is one that has produced untold volumes of throughout thousands of years. Suffice it to say that the mythology of a people is a strong influence of not only its behavior, but of its interactions with other believing different myths. I’m sure as a general concept this idea is not a new one to readers here, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.
Stemming from Campbell reading I embarked on rediscovering the books on mythology I had previous read, but with the new perspective of Campbell’s insights. I later discovered: “TheGunfighter Nation: Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America” by Richard Slotkin. Using literature, history and even the movies, Slotkin persuasively posited that much of America’s domestic and foreign policy was dictated by the false mythology created of our frontier expansion, “Wild West” and rugged individualism. This myth was portrayed in the newspapers, literature, “Dime Westerns”, Wild West Shows and later on in the Movies.
The nature of myth is such that it’s ingested not only intellectually, but also viscerally. Seeing Gary Cooper in “High Noon” when I was seven in 1951 influenced my own life greatly and actually dictated some actions years later. John Wayne, a college football star spent WWII making innumerable, heroic war movies, while others such as James Stewart actually fought in action. Yet Wayne remains an iconic American Hero and that is pure, though deeply believed mythology. I would be safe to say that many who consider themselves conservative’s today look up to John Wayne as a role model and a hero. That myth becomes meme and that meme becomes point of view.
We of the left are no different in our choice of heroic figures to follow, mythologizing their activities and persona’s into something heroic. JFK, a man I admire on many levels and who I idolized in his time, was a serial philanderer of such epic proportions as to be pathological. Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Seale, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman were people who my generation followed with veneration and yet in retrospect, given their future lives, were hardly heroic.
We absorb both past and current myths and allow them to cloud our judgment, limiting our ability to make informed political choices, by shutting down our options of reacting to our environment based on the facts at hand and not the reality we perceive colored by the blanket of our mythology. We see people applying “What Would Jesus Do?” to a broad spectrum of possible decisions and yet isn’t even the concept of WWJD, different based upon ones particular Christian denomination. This is true conceptually for most other religions, all of which have subsets of varying belief.
We need to individually work to understand just what myths guide our own actions in order to be able to react appropriately to the to the decisions we need to make in reacting to the environment of life around us. If we can do that honestly perhaps, we can then comprehend what motivates those with which we disagree. Maybe then, in understanding the other’s mythological viewpoints we can find ways to bridge our differences. This is most probably an over optimistic view from the perspective of possibility.
So let me end on a less positive, but perhaps more practical note. We ignore the influence of our surrounding mythologies at our own peril. The human organism has a need to interact with its environment in such a way that it draws the sustenance it needs from that environment. If our perception of that environment is skewed by preconceptions of reality, we are unable to benefit fully from the interactions, to our detriment.
The country today is engaged in a deadly battle with itself. The rage and hostility on each side seems to be growing. There is a conflict of fundamental mythologies, neither of which holds all the answers, yet blinded by its own preconceptions. These types of battles can end in a total victory and concomitant harsh defeat for the loser; a continuing stalemate and ongoing struggle; a total collapse of our society; and/or perhaps understanding and cooperation by the parties leading to a synergy of ideas. I’d much prefer the latter, but I am sanguine about it’s’ possibility.
kderosa,
First, that you don’t like my terminology means nothing to me as you regularly make up the definitions of words. The statement “I never said there were no other causative factors” was crystal clear if you speak English. There are other unknown causative factors to determining ideology. They will be found by building other experiments to test variables key to proving or disproving a hypotheses relating to a specific experiment designed to test variables related to that hypothesis. Not every variable tested will be a causative factor just as not every hypothesis tested will be affirmed. A variable is not a causative factor. A variable is a variable. A causative factor is a variable that has been proven to a degree of statistical certainty to have a causal connection to the object or phenomena being studied. All of the causative factors determining political ideology are not yet known.
Second, that you assume “[t]hat you failed to recognize any of this basic information relating to correlative studies shows that you don’t know how to evaluate a scientific study of this sort” would be a bad assumption on your part. I can do confidence interval calculations in my sleep. Just as it is your bad assumption that because I stated there was a correlation (as did Dr. Kanai) that this was the equivalent of saying that the nature of the correlation was fully understood. That you don’t like the possible implications of the correlation is not my problem. That you don’t like that people will discuss the possible implications of the correlation is also not my problem. Also, feel free to insert premises into the statements of others all you like. It’s just one of the reasons not to take anything you say seriously. If you want to try that with me some more, I’ll simply keep pointing out that you’re doing it every time you do it, just like you are now. If you’d learn to understand what words mean instead of making up the definitions of words to be what you want them to mean, maybe then the sentences could start to make sense to you provided the grammar didn’t scare you first. Maybe someday you too could experience the wonderful gift of understanding language and communication wouldn’t all sound like gibberish to you. Maybe.
Lastly, I’ll repeat this: I didn’t answer your questions because I’m not your servant. Give me a command again and watch me ignore it again. The list of people who can tell me what to do is very small. You’re not on it.
“… much of this division is the result of conflicting mythologies of what we are as a society… ” (Mike Spindell)
Excellent and thought provoking post. I would suggest a great deal of the anger seen and felt on all sides is due to the fact that the myths are dissolving. We are in a time of great change and there is a rudderlessness to society that is causing deep anxiety and fear that manifests as anger.
AY, you have to consider the source of those insults. All those insults are just expressions of frustration with being unable to adequately defend one’s opinions and arguments. I collect them like ears.
Kd,
Do you get your Jolly’s being insulting….Just asking….seems
you can be very obtuse….
@OS, I think you mean “couldn’t care less,” unless you really do care about this very much.
My comments are no more insulting than yours, big guy. And, you started in with the insults as I have already pointed out to you. This is a childish statement I realize, but not quite as childish as your starting with the insulting comments.
Also, your last sentence, logical fallacy boy, is a false dilemma.
@Mespo, is it even possible to be subdued by dopy quotes? I think you meant bored.
@ GeneH
You again demonstrate your misunderstanding.
First of all, it’s very sloppy terminology to call the variables being tested “causative factor[s].”
Second, by using the terminology, you are assuming a direction of causation, namely that structural differences in the brain cause political ideology. The study by it’s nature cannot show this causation regardless of the coefficent of correlation. Furthermore, it is just as likely that “causation” runs the other way, namely, that political ideology “causes” the difference in the structural differences in the brain. Moreover, the study by its nature cannot discount the possibility that there is a third unknown factor that “causes” both the difference in brain structure and also the political ideologies.
That you failed to recognize any of this basic information relating to correlative studies shows that you don’t know how to evaluate a scientific study of this sort.
Thus, the rest of what you wrote is thus pure gibberish. Now you know it.
And, we didn’t even have to get into the weakness of the correlation which is not the same thing as the “sigma of uncertainty.”
““He came, he saw, he made a fool of himself citing dopey quotes
.–caderosa”
***************
[caderosa] est pacata.
~Caesar
K, I could care less what you think. You are just a faceless character on the internet whose opinions have no impact or weight in my life whatsoever. Obviously, since you are putting so much energy into this blog, it appears you feel compelled to respond, insultingly, to every comment. That tells me that either you are being paid by the word, or that you care deeply what others think.
kderosa,
The fact that correlation was found is without dispute. You think it’s not dispositive as causation. I said, again:
“To what degree they adopt those ideologies and what if any other factors contribute to that process is a matter for further study. The fact is that unless a study falsifies the work of Kanai instead of confirming it as has happened, the correlation stands.”
You’re the one trying to say that I said it was causation when clearly what I said was that it was correlation which means it may be a causation. How many times do you have to read those sentences before they register? More than three times apparently. The fact that I don’t care to answer your questions because I don’t take you seriously apparently doesn’t register either.
Another fact of the matter is that I know exactly what sigma of certainty was assigned to the values found and while it’s not certainty it’s better than a coin flip. Had it been certainty, I would have said that the structural differences were causation, not a correlation (which just very well might be a causation as all the data isn’t in yet).
I didn’t answer your questions because I’m not your servant. Give me a command again and watch me ignore it again. It will happen just that way. I promise. The list of people who can tell me what to do is very small. You’re not on it.
Isn’t it about time for you to insert a premise into the arguments of another or make up a definition of something?
@OS
I included the “won’t part” above, you need to read the whole before jumping to hasty conclusions. For your ready reference: “You could not have formed an informed opinion on this matter unless you first answered the three questions I listed. If you did, then it would take you about 30 seconds to explain your answers. That you cannot or are unwilling to do that tells me, and anyone else who knows anything about science, that you’ve been lying all along.”
Bet you felt proud of yourself there for a second because you found a nit to pick. Small victories and all that.
“…you can’t address the questions I raised…”
****************************
‘Can’t’ is quite different than ‘won’t.’ To conflate the two concepts runs afoul of the false equivalence fallacy. And also assumes the speaker knows the underlying motives of another person, which is still another fallacy of reasoning.
@GeneH
This is a study that attempts to show a correlation between brain volumes and political orientation. As such, it is incapable of showing causation. It is not a study that is capable of showing causal connections. The more you talk of causation, the more you demonstrate you don’t know what you are talking about. Also, the fact that you can’t address the questions I raised demonstarte that you don’t know how to evaluate a scientific study on its merits.
kderosa,
Then your accusations of lying are by your own admission unfounded.
I never said there were no other causative factors. I said the structural differences were A causative factor and that until other factors are identified and quantified it will remain the leading causative factor as the others have not been identified and/or quantified yet. You must not have been reading let alone understanding my previous posts. Because these sentences:
“To what degree they adopt those ideologies and what if any other factors contribute to that process is a matter for further study. The fact is that unless a study falsifies the work of Kanai instead of confirming it as has happened, the correlation stands.”
must not have registered. In time, I’m sure other even more dispositive causal factors will emerge. The brain is one of if not the most complex system known to modern science. The final answer will certainly be more complex than just structural differences. However, the causal correlation still stands. If you have a problem with that, contact Dr. Kanai at the University College London.
As to the fascism issue. No, actually it wasn’t just my opinion that Buddha had the better definition. It’s a fact. He invited readers to compare your definition to the Wikipedia definition by saying that your definition wasn’t even close to it, much less his. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism I’ll even go one better for the readers of this blog and let them compare Nazi fascism for themselves so they too can decide who had the better definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Relation_with_fascism But if you want to continue that argument, I suggest you take it up with Buddha upon his return. The problem for you is that Buddha had the best facts regarding the nature of fascism and that’s not just an opinion. It’s an opinion informed by fact. I don’t have a dog in that fight, so I’m perfectly content to let others decide for themselves. Saying that I agreed with Buddha was not the point of linking to that thread.
Why I linked to that thread was to provide an example to showing what I wanted to show which is that you have a tendency to make up your own definitions. Which you did. It’s also a wrong definition even if one does not totally agree with Buddha’s definition (which I don’t in part but do in whole).
That you make up definitions is but one item on the ever growing list of reasons you should not be taken seriously.
I just noticed this littel gem of Mespo’s on another thread:
“I’d take you on a point by point refutation but why bother with a guy with a mean streak.”
Notice a pattern.
Always an excuse not to form an argument. And he’s a lawyer to boot. Forming arguments is second nature. And they know how dopey they come off when they claim they can, and then don’t.
Evem Buddha, with all his tinfoil hat tomfoolery, would still occasionally attempt to make a substantive point. Mespo, not so much.
kderosa:
I would not be so hard on ole Mespo, he has gone from quoting Caesar to the guy who makes white bread and maybe whole wheat.
Oh what heights we scale to so far fall
ignoble snicker doodle
parrot be thy name.
AY:
I really dont know very much about the man. I have read only a few of his plays.
There we go, our boy Mespo just admitted to being a troll. He’s not here to make substantive points just to “post[] inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum… with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
Roco:
“I think in this case it just means that the multiple poster wants to make sure they dont overload you with more than you can process in a single viewing.”
*******************
I gotta hand it to you. Now that — in reference to caderosa — is funny!
As to caderosa’s incessant query that I don’t addresses his “substantive points,” he probably should be told that I don’t argue with children. You kindly “taught” me their minds are not yet fully formed. I will get around to it eventually.
Now look I mean it. You guys need a manager. Lewis and Martin have nothing on you two. There’s all manner of seedy hotel bars in the Catskills dying for your shtik!
“He came, he saw, he made a fool of himself citing dopey quotes.”