Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) : “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
Since the beginning of its existence on this planet untold millennia past, life has been a dangerous proposition for all creatures. The big fish eating the little fish has been the model for most interactions between living entities. All living entities have been either predator and/or prey. Evolution needed to develop in each entity methods of recognizing danger and thus trying to ensure that it will be able to replicate itself through procreation. Each species of course has different means of recognizing danger in its environment and various diverse senses for doing so. The importance of these senses varies by species and sometimes varies infra-species. Its own hierarchy of life preserving senses and activities can change in a species as it evolves to meet each new environmental challenge.
As humanity evolved there is no doubt that there were variations in the relative importance of our five senses at different times in our evolutionary history. What many humans believe is our most important attribute is of course the collective of our senses known as intelligence and the ability to reason. We are the singular species of this planet that has developed incredibly complex means of communication leaving us as the seeming masters of our world. Nevertheless, most of what we know of reality is our personal constructs of information that our senses have perceived and then compressed into a usable conception of our world, which despite the breadth of any one individual’s intelligence, is merely an approximation of the whole. However, to continue existence each human must make certain choices based on their personal perception of their environment. Sometimes these choices are successful ad sometimes they are disastrous. Since the arc of human existence has presented an ever-widening range of information, we have learned to edit and approximate much in own personal constructs. An example of this is that behavioral science has determined that we develop pictures in our mind of particular individuals and in our subsequent encounters rely mainly on those original pictures. Anyone who has raised a child knows that it is hard to see them as they grow, as anything more than the infant they were. While it’s true our picture of the child changes with growth, the lasting overlay of impression is usually quite dated. This is at least my conception of human perception.
With this concept in mind let me bring this post to the America of today, illustrated as a microcosm of the difficulty humans have in living with each other. Our politics have become perhaps more polarized and deadlocked than at any point in our history. Many people respond to each new issue that crosses public consciousness based on their personal sense of correctness, informed by a long developed political belief system that structures the nature of their response. The deeper ingrained this belief that there is only one path to political truth, the more mechanical the response becomes, and the less capable becomes the individual’s ability to react to the information from its environment to save itself. Those species unable to evolve to meet each new challenge to their existence became extinct. As humans our evolution has become more than just meeting actual physical challenges, we have evolved to the point that we represent the greatest danger to ourselves. Human existence is now dependent upon collectively being able to comprehend the dangers we face. How can we understand these dangers if our only method of understanding them is filtered through an ideological certainty that categorizes them based rote methodology? This is my attempt to try to make sense of why our political scene today seems so irrationally skewed by the inability to collectively recognize and adapt to dangers.
Can we agree that the information revolution has presented all of us with a dilemma? We are not quite ready or able to absorb all the information about the world that is available and that most of us are bombarded with on a daily basis? All of us, even geniuses, have learned to develop constructs of our environment and of the opinions that inform us. To a greater or lesser degree this allows us to cope with our lives. These human constructs include, but are not limited to, philosophy, religion, politics and economics. Such is the daily assault of information that we perforce need to “pigeonhole” each bit of new data as passes into our consciousness, just so we can seemingly make sense of it. I readily admit to using this shortcut, do you? I’ve come to see though, that this process of fitting prior perceptions into current situations can lead to misunderstanding. Because of that I’ve tried in my life to be self critical of my actions and opinions. As I’ve aged wisdom has taught me how much even a person like me, egotistically awash in intellectual self-esteem, can be completely wrong in any given instance simply because I filter new situations through past perceptions. I believe this is a human trait. Because of that trait, to a greater or lesser degree, our conflicting perceptions handicap our ability to make this world livable for all of us humans. In my own case some here may remember that on numerous occasions I boldly stated I was convinced that Jeb Bush would be this years Republican Presidential Nominee. My wrong conclusion was based on a wealth of information on the Bush family that I’d absorbed, but which kept me from seeing current political reality.
In prehistoric times, in a world of incessant danger the emerging human species had to rely on reacting with quickness and certitude to escaping impending danger. This was true either in the role of being predator and/or prey. Those that equivocated were those whose genetic heritage was not passed on. We are bred to look for patterns of certainty, yet how much of anything in life is really certain? The basis of almost all religion/philosophy is the need to establish a sense of certainty about our lives. Without that certainty, for many of us given our genetic heritage, comes disorientation and fear. This is a fact I believe for all of us, but its primacy of need differs from human to human.
A common complaint of Fundamentalist Religion is that the world is changing too quickly to not only keep up with, but also that change is a downward arc towards human degeneracy. Yet this change and this danger can be mediated if only one would follow the path described by Yahweh, Jesus, Allah or perhaps The Buddha. With that belief firmly rooted those so inclined view all new experience filtered through their pre-conceptions of what life is all about. If you think about it in a political sense you see the same pattern professed by politicians and political partisan from all parts of the political spectrum.
Many Republicans, Conservatives and Right Wingers express their nostalgia for the ”Roaring 20’s”, “Golden 50’s” and/or “The Age of Reagan” as if somehow it was a better world back then. Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Left Wingers too view the world through their own lens of nostalgia as if the “Roosevelt Era” and the “60’s” were times of clarity. The fact is there are no times of “clarity”, no “Golden Era” and no “better” past to emulate nostalgically. We are here now and it is in this “now” that we need to operate. All of us are genetically hard-wired” to abhor uncertainty in our lives, though some can tolerate the anxiety of it better than others. Therefore we seek broad-ranged “certainty” to dull our anxiety and calm our fears. We all know that the main fear of being human is the certain knowledge of our own mortality, but perhaps peculiar to our species is also the fear of not being remembered, of having not contributed anything to life and of having no purpose.
So all of us strive to quell the fear of uncertainty in ourselves, to ameliorate the anxiety it causes us, to fit our preconceptions into each new situation. We develop philosophies; adhere to religions and view the world through the lens of our personal politics. Fritz Perls, the Founder of Gestalt Psychotherapy, in which I am trained and in the philosophy that I use to live my life, once stated: “I see my role as destroying people’s character”. What he meant was that in our interactions with the world each of us develops a rigid “character”. “Character” is our personal construct of how we wish other humans to see us. He believed and I also believe that the danger of “character” was that it limits human choices in dealing with our environment. “Character” is a construct that developed in tandem with and possibly as an assist to, the civilizing of humanity. It possibly is the reason why tragedy has plagued human history. In an uncertain world the “survivor” hopefully is able to react to each new situation of conflict, danger, excitement, and pleasure in terms of their current feelings/information and not based on past pre-conceptions/premises. An example of the possible dysfunction of character might be a man threatened by someone bigger and stronger, who has the ability to run away, yet whose “character” dictates that he must “man up” and face certain pain. Are there times when one must rely on the certainty of their moral/ethical compass? Absolutely, and to one’s death if need be. However, these “life or death” decisions would serve us better if they are a true response to a present situation, rather than a decision filtered through pre-conception. To make that life changing decision, we’d be better served if we viewed each potential threat and/or pleasure in the present, without pre-judgment?
We see today in the political arena the effect of this search for certainty. The deep divisions that exist between people all arise from the fact they so strongly cling to the “certainties” they adopt to stave off the anxiety of uncertainty. Humanity as a whole must learn to live with the uncertainty that life presents, encounter it in the present moment and in essence “be here now”. Until then the “certainties” that we adopt to keep “uncertainty” away, will keep us from evolving into a species at one with our existence and possibly sow the seeds of our species extinction.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Mike Spindell 1, May 20, 2012 at 11:47 am
…
“In Lakoff’s book, “What Orwell Didn’t Know“, he points out that the bulk (~98%) of human cognition goes on in the subconscious, which is why Whitman could not figure out why “his brain was making him” involuntarily murder indiscriminately.”
“The propaganda / advertising industries are further cases in point, revealing that the amygdala is well known enough to be used for controlled reaction purposes.”
Still quite theoretical based o the assumptions of the observer. What if the set of assumptions used to interpret the data is flawed? I’m not saying it is, but then again as you alluded in your comment, today’s scientific establishment has become a money-driven proposition, with grants going to those who adhere more strictly to the research deemed appropriate.
======================================
The American public has been controlled through the amygdala since social Darwinism, near the turn of the century.
Adam Smith, quoted by Chomsky, figured that out long ago:
(The Deceit Business). The chief American propaganda master, who wrote the book “Propaganda”, who was a nephew and follower of Freud, worked for the government to sell WW I through amygdala manipulating techniques.
This mass propaganda shit is a century old:
(A Closer Look At MOMCOM’s DNA). That makes it “gospel” doesn’t it?
Dredd,
Re-read what I said about Gene’s understanding, I think you got it wrong. As far as his discussing your self-promotion, you and I both know that is true. However, many times you write good stuff on your blog and you know I’ve complemented you in the past. Also it is your right here to self-promote, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be pointed out. As for our differing viewpoints on the “brain study” issue that’s just the way it is. Neither of us is going to convince the other of our positions. Which in the end is a sort of an illustrative commentary on the points I made in this blog. 🙂
Mike Spindell 1, May 20, 2012 at 11:47 am
…
“It revealed a tumor near the amygdala, which was putting pressure on one of the twin amygdala entities.”
Interesting, but anecdotal. It describes presumed cause and effect without ruling out other possibilities.
============================
That tumor was the cause of the behavior, according to science.
Mike Spindell 1, May 20, 2012 at 11:47 am
…
Scientific consensus at any given time does not reality make.
=============================
Neither does bullshit.
Neither does clinging to Luddite scientists like bdaman did.
You quoted a whole bunch of Darwinistic bullshit in this post, which I called out.
You have not yet commented on that Darwinism.
Mike Spindell 1, May 20, 2012 at 11:47 am
…
Much “brain” research is based on the premise that the brain is sort of like our organisms control center. I believe this assumption has not been largely proven, since there are other explanations for the data resulting from the experiments.
=========================
Fine.
But not the research I read, understand, and quote.
The only guy that you said understands your post argues that human consciousness is the creator of science and religion, i.e. that both science and religion originated in the human consciousness, an entity that developed in “the last two seconds” in terms of evolutionary time.
Talk about brain central.
I have said the “primitive”, meaning “earliest”, forms of science and religion developed well before the human species evolved.
I suppose you can understand my consternation of your statement that only the Badge Kop can grasp your post exactly, while the rest of us are only “not exactly.”
My writings point out that 2% of cognition is conscious, 98% is subconscious, that ALL data from senses goes FIRST to the amygdala, where it is “processed and packaged” then sent to the conscious portion of our cognition.
You confuse “cognition” with “brain” when you look at research, then flip flop back to certainty vs uncertainty as some form of wash of the mystery.
That does not work for me.
I don’t like fuzzy math, fuzzy logic, or fuzzy science, but I do like fuzzy cats and dogs.
“All I can say is that how long ago a discovery took place is not part of the scientific method.”
Dredd,
No kidding? You miss my point and in truth my use of “gospel” was an unfortunate word choice, when I was meaning to connote that the studies of the amygdala have yielded data, but the interpretation of that data has not as yet proven itself convincing, to me at least. I don’t discount that they have observed differences in size and response to stimuli. I am not convinced though that it is understood what that data means other than some researchers assumptions. Much “brain” research is based on the premise that the brain is sort of like our organisms control center. I believe this assumption has not been largely proven, since there are other explanations for the data resulting from the experiments.
“There is a massive amount of consensus on the amygdala, with respect to the most studied portions (the physical almond shaped twins), but as to the social neural network built around it by our experience, that has less consensus because there is much less research (fear is sexy, so it gets the big dog research money.)”
Scientific consensus at any given time does not reality make. At one time there was scientific consensus that the Neanderthal was a beastly creature, who was an evolutionary failure when Cro-Magnon appeared. Much of that consensus was based on a kind of eugenic racism.
“For your special enjoyment, read about a solid American who detailed, in a diary, how his very bright conscious mind could not figure out what was going on (why he killed his wife and mother, both whom he loved dearly, or why he then killed indiscriminately for hours thereafter)”
This gives me no enjoyment at all since in my life I twice experienced psychotic fugues while tripping on LSD, the last time in 1980 remains vivid to this day. Beyond that, when I underwent my heart transplant surgery one of the medications used commonly induces psychosis. After coming out of anesthesia I was in a paranoid psychotic state for two days and believed that the medical staff that had just saved my life, were trying to kill me. My condition scared hell out of my family and the morphine I was being given only made the problem worse. When I stopped the morphine the psychosis went away, but the feeling of dread took time to wear off. A month later I had complications with my lungs that put me into another semi-psychotic state due to lack of oxygenation and it was only a life-saving lung operation that brought me back. I know first hand the effects of psychosis, a knowledge one can’t understand from reading alone.
“It revealed a tumor near the amygdala, which was putting pressure on one of the twin amygdala entities.”
Interesting, but anecdotal. It describes presumed cause and effect without ruling out other possibilities.
“In Lakoff’s book, “What Orwell Didn’t Know“, he points out that the bulk (~98%) of human cognition goes on in the subconscious, which is why Whitman could not figure out why “his brain was making him” involuntarily murder indiscriminately.”
“The propaganda / advertising industries are further cases in point, revealing that the amygdala is well known enough to be used for controlled reaction purposes.”
Still quite theoretical based o the assumptions of the observer. What if the set of assumptions used to interpret the data is flawed? I’m not saying it is, but then again as you alluded in your comment, today’s scientific establishment has become a money-driven proposition, with grants going to those who adhere more strictly to the research deemed appropriate.
“I value good scientific research, but I would disagree with you supposition that religion has that much impact on scientific research. The military puts much more money into it, 99%, than religion does.”
Again you miss my point, though again it could be my lack of clarity. I wasn’t saying that organized religion impacts scientific research. I was saying that the “mind-body split” adopted for doctrinaire reasons by Christianity about 600 years ago, has permeated people’s thinking by assuming that the brain acts as the body’s controller. The corollary is that our “feelings” represent the baser functions of ourselves. In the Holistic approach, we’re one organism and our intelligence/reason is a function of the whole, not just the brain.
“The term “intelligence” in grandpa’s dictionary is not the same as your definition, because it is defined there as a function of human consciousness at work in the brain (IQ). I happen to disagree with that because of all the papers and books I read concerning current research in microbiology.”
I accept neither the dictionary definition for reasons stated above, nor yours because I don’t think there is an abundance of evidence that prove its assumptions. While I’m a firm believer in both Scientific Study and in the Scientific Method, I think that like much in human endeavor its practice is far from the pristine search for truth it is made out to be. 🙂
Orolee,
Thank you, as usual you have added much to this discussion.
“Much of that accumulation and transmission is found not in books or other data banks, but in traditions, folk tales, oral histories especially among families, and, yes, even religions. These data bases exist even today because they stood the test of time — they got us to where we are.”
I couldn’t agree with you more on this point. In our “intellectual-centric” mindset, the “thinkers” of humanity often discount this wisdom that has stood the test of time. In the Torah for instance the religionists cleave to the parts that reinforce their beliefs, while anti-religionists cleave to the improbabilities.
What’s missed is that in portraying imperfect beings as patriarchs and matriarchs, a commentary is being made on the human tradition in the sense of trying to convey the best way to live ones life. Looking at the all the traditions of humanity that have stood times’ test one can see them not as meta-physical constructs, but an attempt to give guidance on how to live. By
accepting them as either literal truths, or as improbable stories, we miss the attempt being made to transmit wisdom. We discount ancient people as “primitives”, yet they we far better at metaphor than we are today, it’s just that seekers of power have misused the metaphors in service of their own aims.
“It may be that, as a survival mechanism, we have developed a psychology to jealously guard these data bases and have an innate disdain for changing them and a distrust of relying on different or changed data bases.”
This is a point that I hadn’t thought of and seems a reasonable assumption to make. It complements my thoughts.
“we face not only an information overload causing uncertainty but also a choice overload which, because of the information overload, leaves us incapable of making a choice on a rational basis — everything gets reduced to our best guess which is never going to meet our expectation given all the choices.”
This whole comment is so much an expansion of the point I was trying to make that I wish that I had thought of it. You describe the “Fitting Game” which most humans play unconsciously and which I briefly alluded to in my post. I should have made some points clearer, but there are space considerations, thank you for your needed addition. As you aptly put it our consciousness tries to impose a coherent narrative to our lives. The arc of that narrative, composed of cumulative accretions, represents the “truth”
of our lives as we choose to see it. Quite often that “reality” is far from factual.
Mike Spindell 1, May 19, 2012 at 5:53 pm
[quoting me upthread]
[Mike commenting on that quote]
==================================
1) [your statement]:
Gospel? I suppose you are saying, since I don’t know which research you are talking about time wise, that time is a function of scientific truth, i.e., if it isn’t old enough it isn’t
scientificgospel enough.Naturally, then, will come: “how long / old is good enough for
scientific truthgospel?”All I can say is that how long ago a discovery took place is not part of the scientific method. Knowing you, you probably meant consensus does take time, but that is not because time itself has truth that will leak into the spaces between the words of the paper explaining the research, rather, it is because scientific researchers are busy and can’t read all the papers and textbooks at once.
There is a massive amount of consensus on the amygdala, with respect to the most studied portions (the physical almond shaped twins), but as to the social neural network built around it by our experience, that has less consensus because there is much less research (fear is sexy, so it gets the big dog research money.)
For your special enjoyment, read about a solid American who detailed, in a diary, how his very bright conscious mind could not figure out what was going on (why he killed his wife and mother, both whom he loved dearly, or why he then killed indiscriminately for hours thereafter):
(100 Years of Psychotherapy – Take Cover!). His detailed diary indicated that he knew something was amiss, saw a shrink, but nothing surfaced.
After the cops killed him during his mass murder episode, his body was autopsied. It revealed a tumor near the amygdala, which was putting pressure on one of the twin amygdala entities.
In Lakoff’s book, “What Orwell Didn’t Know“, he points out that the bulk (~98%) of human cognition goes on in the subconscious, which is why Whitman could not figure out why “his brain was making him” involuntarily murder indiscriminately.
The propaganda / advertising industries are further cases in point, revealing that the amygdala is well known enough to be used for controlled reaction purposes.
2) [your statement]
I value good scientific research, but I would disagree with you supposition that religion has that much impact on scientific research. The military puts much more money into it, 99%, than religion does.
The term “intelligence” in grandpa’s dictionary is not the same as your definition, because it is defined there as a function of human consciousness at work in the brain (IQ). I happen to disagree with that because of all the papers and books I read concerning current research in microbiology.
3) [your statement]
Uh oh, I feel uncertainty jangling around … scuse me a sec … pop-fizz-oh what a relief it is.
4) [your statement]:
Uh oh, I see that as an attack on grandpa’s dictionary. 😉
Cheers.
Gene —
I received this email from my Dad yesterday. Thought you might appreciate.
“I received a phone call today. As I lifted the phone from it’s cradle I noticed the little square screen indicated that the caller’s number began with my area code. Might be someone I know. I thumbed the Talk button and the message started, “This is Sarah Palin.”
I sprained my thumb hitting the End button.”
Change is the only thing certain which is uncertain……..
Finally (this time I mean it): words like “presumptuousness” — with that “uou” sequence of letters — gives me the heebie-jeebies. Just seems wrong.
Lastly, it appears our brains interface and respond to the world conditions and events via narrative. It appears that the human animal likes a good story. A good story is one that, among other things, is a complete story.
The mind will fill in the blanks — either on its own, as a result of suggestion, or blithely accepting a lie. It’s just gotta make sense, it doesn’t have to be true.
Making sense means fitting in within what has gone before, what already is in place in the mind. That background information doesn’t have to be true, it’s just gotta make sense given the hearer’s psychology, experience, and education including OJT.
I have a feeling the narrative driven brain idea has a role in uncertainty avoidance, but I don’t have a handle on what that might be in a big picture sense. I think it explains the enduring nature of the accumulation and transmission of information/wisdom via “traditions, folk tales, oral histories especially among families, and, yes, even religions.”
I recommend Jonathan Gottschall’s book, “The Storytelling Animal, How Stories Make Us Human” (2012).
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-storytelling-animal-jonathan-gottschall/1110866374?ean=9780547391403
Scroll down and click on “Read An Excerpt”
For present purposes, Santayana’s more important statement may be: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness.”
That accumulated knowledge/wisdom base was not all that easy to accumulate or transmit. Much of that accumulation and transmission is found not in books or other data banks, but in traditions, folk tales, oral histories especially among families, and, yes, even religions. These data bases exist even today because they stood the test of time — they got us to where we are. At a minimum, we survived. According to Santayana, we progressed.
It may be that, as a survival mechanism, we have developed a psychology to jealously guard these data bases and have an innate disdain for changing them and a distrust of relying on different or changed data bases.
That’s my first point, and in support I offer the following:
http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/haidt.pdf
Second, we face not only an information overload causing uncertainty but also a choice overload which, because of the information overload, leaves us incapable of making a choice on a rational basis — everything gets reduced to our best guess which is never going to meet our expectation given all the choices.
For this second point, I offer:
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
I also offer thanks for a college student daughter who thinks enough of her ole man to share with him the foregoing paper and TED talk.
Correction: ” I do NOT think that his conclusion necessarily follows.”
The first sentence of MM’s quote of John Dewey’s “Reconstruction in Philosophy” (1920) put me in mind of the oft-[mis]quoted sentence of George Santayana found in “Reason in Common Sense,” which is Volume I of his “Life or Reason” (1905-1906): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The sentence is a hyperbolic summation of a paragraph dealing with the rather obvious importance of the accumulation and transfer of information (wisdom?) : “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.”
Leaving aside the arrogant slight concerning “savages,” obviously born of an ignorance of tribal means to transmit important information other than by pen and paper, I do think that his conclusion necessarily follows. I believe people are clever enough to screw up innumerable times without there being a repeat.
I think the larger problem with Santayana’s conclusion is his focus on ignorance as the cause of repeated bad outcomes (the “bad” being inferred from the word “condemned”). He didn’t consider bad motives.
Santayana focused on “cannot not,” an inability, rather than “do not,” an act of the will. Forgive my presumptuousness, but I have paraphrased Santayana’s conclusion to explain repeated bad policy decisons —
Those who do not remember the past are free to justify anything.
Gene,
I’m sure you’ve mentioned the book and I missed it. I’ll try and find it. (Maybe gbk will mail it to me 😉 )
“The altruism of embracing uncertainty, the big uncertainties and the little ones, is IMO a luxury brought with very good times or very bad times.” (lotta) (emphasis added)
Whoa …. that’s deep and I’m being seriously sincere. I’m going to give that some thought because I sense there’s a whole lot of truth in those few simple words. Tomorrow is a very busy day but I will want to post an answer, questions, etc. to that statement so please, when you have the time later in the week, check back. Damn, all the good stuff shows up when I’m busy.
Um, after re-reading Mike’s article, and Gene’s rebuttal, I do seem to be making the exact point Mike was trying to convey. Oh well. I probably define the need for certainty. I have written before about my military experience, and that experience does tend to be the event that I relate everything else to, mainly because it was pretty freaking scary and uncertain. I oversimplified the issue, because I didn’t really understand it. I pigeon holed it, in other words. Gosh, aint I a stinker? What I wanted to convey was that fear of uncertainty was not the sole primary motivator, but I really don’t have enough knowledge on the subject to make any kind of convincing argument, but then, Mike never claimed that fear of uncertainty was the sole motivator of destructive behavior, just one that could lead to some horrible decisions. Of course, I then tried to make competition a simplified sole motivator, which as Gene pointed out is a logical fallacy of, well, laziness. I just filtered a few concepts out and used my preconception to speak about that of which I know nothing. Great article and comments, btw.
From “The Scientific Attitude and Fallibalism,” by Charles Sanders Peirce (manuscript, 1897):
From the opening paragraph of John Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy (1920):
Apropos of the plastic human organism’s development of learned habit as its signature response to environmental uncertainty, I recommend one of the best discourses on the subject — a classic by nineteenth century American mathematician/logician/scientist Charles Sanders Peirce entitled The Fixation of Belief.
We humans inculcate in ourselves, though the manipulation of linguistic symbols (audible and visible), the
beliefshabits that guide our responses to the physical and metaphysical (absent in animals) environment. With the conquest of immediate environmental needs, we spend much of the rest of our lives in a metaphysical fantasy of our own linguistic creation and respond more to myth than to anything real — as corporate marketing gurus and their politician clients realize only too well.