[MD] Why the return to literal anti-intellectual religion

[khaled Alkotob]

Arlo

right to the point

The BBC had a special entitled " The century of the self" exploring how
mind manipulation is used to sell soap and war.

www.archive.org

produced by Adam Curtis
the other documentary is "The power of nightmares"
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
here is an expert of the opening:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born
out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both
had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two
groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended.
Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret, organized
evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found
restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with
the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares,
Baby It's Cold Outside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We used to think 1984 was fiction, well the reality is here

Khaled



[Arlo]
What you are witnessing... again... is merely the ongoing deceptive and
distortive dichotization of dialogue (love the alliteration) carried out
by
Party Jesters intent of wielding the Absolute Allegience of Party
Ideology.

DMB's initial point, the rabid villification of the "other party" is the
American political dialogue is not only absurd, but the resultant
fractured
dialogue prevents any real attempt or discussion of solutions. While
"loyal
party member" may stand out on a resume for political office, it stains
philosophical discourse with its perversion of "Good" into "My Party".

The literalization of the dialogue, whether it is in the form of
fundamentalist
religion or nation-state "patriotism", is something that should alarm all
who
read Pirsig, and understand the underlying "analogy" or metaphor that is,
and
must be, at the core of all knowledge. In the "Gnostic" tradition (across
many
spiritual paths, east and west), understood the difference between
exoteric and
esoteric truths, and warned against the interpretation of the exoteric in
the
common tongue. Pirsig understood this too, and although he goes against
his
initial instincts to avoid trying to literalize Quality (which is what a
metaphysics does), he is wise to the fact that it is "never anything
other than
just one person talking from one place in time and space and
circumstance. It’s
never been anything else."

The exo/eso-teric distinction was also one approached with the idea that
in some
way, esoteric (metaphorical) knowledge, which is sought, requires more
effort
to understand than exoteric (literal) knowledge, which is given. The
movement
towards the literaliztion of knowledge is a movement towards "no effort".
Traversing the mountain, as Pirsig said, is not an easy path. But one
which
should be encouraged. Literalization does the reverse, it encourages not
only
passivity in knowledge, but also the reliance on authority to construct
belief.
Why ponder the Great Questions when the Church or the Party is there to
provide
you with ready-made, soundbite answers, which, of course, serve always to
reify
their own power.

Last week I posted a quote from Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda
Minister, about
how the populace can be made to support war. "It is natural for the
common
people to not want war but, after all, it is a country's leaders who
determine
policy and it is an easy matter to convince the people. Whether they have
a
voice or not, the people can always be made to do what their rulers wish.
It's
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are under attack and condemn
the
pacifists for their lack of patriotism and for exposing their country to
danger."

As Platt said, decide for yourself....

Arlo