Saturday, January 08, 2011

Reality Is About to Explode

I thought I would write a fun article about subjective reality, even though groups of us sort of agree on just enough to be thinking reality is 'objective'... its just a temporal agreement.


Up until very recently our view of reality was defined by others, so others got to say and define what we look at as 'real'. I think this could be about to explode into many pieces.

Today this 'reality' is presented to us via the main stream media (MSM).

The interesting thing about the MSMis that it is consistent (this not what you would expect from a true accurate but diverse information source), MSM provides a 'consensus' view that pretty much agrees with itself. So even if objective reality were real, a true communications media would and should not operate in consensus mode.

The MSM 'news' as a consensus presentation fits into a doctrine, it presents a painted picture of the reality we reside in. These days in the west that doctrine is built around the ideal of a liberal consumerist world. This doctrine has an invisible deity I like to call consumer God or Con God. As most of the major media organizations report to owners within the same financial establishment, the Con God mantra is based around constant GDP growth based on  'Keep borrowing, Keep buying, everything will be ok'.

It just so happens that this doctrine and its associated behavior pattern destroys the ecosystem we live in. It increases consumer reliance on centralized power to provide food and shelter as the ecosystem degrades. Look at the financial drivers of health-care to better understand this process closeup.

Our Gods

For a few thousand years we had the Judeao Christian 'One God' or JC God as the arbiter of consensus. The JC God media establishment was run by churches. If you challenged this you were taken out. Some did and it was nasty, but we managed to get as far as expanding our thought to realizing that the earth was round and it was not in the center of the universe.

Since the two great world wars we have been in a mythology transition from the JC God to Con God.

With the rise of the western system of democracy, the thinkers of the day working for the owning class of society realized that a system of managing these 'free thinking democratic populations' was required otherwise 'who knows what the plebs would vote for'.

(a more recent term for this used by Noam Chomsky is 'The engineering of consent')

The solution to this was designed in the form of the consumer society, to make that work a dogma was devised to make the worker who delivered components into the machine a willing participant.

It was realized that both the media and educational establishments were required to be reformed to effectively support this new consensus dogma and both the funds and execution teams for this were put in place early in the 19th century.  (to better understand how this was done, this is an enlightening interview with the man who was chosen by congress to explore a part of this process)

The religion of Con God worked, it was superior to JC god and JC God now takes a small back seat in the mainstream reality that people live within.  (I wrote a post 'Why Consumerism wins' to play with why Con God works so well as superior viral myth to JC God).

Many today worship Con God. They operate as minions and components of the establishment that pays those that created and manage this system today, whilst the MSM plays the front man whose job it is to keep the myth intact and making sense.

One God

A few thousand years of JC God administration did a great job of fixing the ideas of a one god world into our collective brains.

It lynches on this thing 'consensus'.

One God, or monotheism is a powerful idea and I hope I can convey the impact it has on our present views, in respect to 'reality'.

One God is essentially the same idea as saying 'one world view' or 'reality is only this way',  just said in different words. It is also the same concept as 'consensus'

The idea of consensus then links in with 'this is how things are' or 'our way is right'.

The concept of anything at all 'being right' stems from this.

When you have many many myths/religions existing at once or you would realize that reality can not be 'consensus' the concept of 'being right' itself dissolves, right and wrong are simply relative concepts. But live in a world where everyone agrees with you and you may drop back into the thinking of being 'right' when you see something that challenges you.

I hope its obvious that nothing can truly be right or wrong in the abstract, only relativism's like 'Is this the *right* way to the chemist?'. can be answered truly in that 'yes that is the right way to the chemist'.

Nothing else is right or wrong, its just there, it just exists. And because it exists it is. Of course you can try to pretend its wrong in the absolute sense, but the moment you do this, you have entered a delusional state about reality. This is very common, especially around things we disagree with or that disturb us.

When one is right, another has to be wrong and a new entity is created, the one who decides.

Traditionally the one who decides was the priest in the church. You could go and ask them and get their opinion. Today in the Con God system, this process operates via the MSM, supported by the State, which in turn is validated and enabled by the noble establishment we call Science.

Science, Objective Reality and One God

Science is a product of our one god religions. Science and the scientific method itself could not exist with out the backdrop of one god.

How so ?

Our concept of Science relies on 'objective reality' to work, it is a fundamental requirement of the scientific method. Objective reality is the belief that everything 'out there' is consistent and the same for all beings that can experience it. Only then can an experiment reveal a result that can be tested and verified.

Science is built on consensus, that consensus can only form if there is already a consensus that objective reality is what forms the world we exist in.

Science has a pre supposition built in.

The scientific method (the way you take measurements and replicate these measurements to prove or disprove any given theory) could only emerge after a few thousand years of one god consensus being drilled into our collective brains. Only once there was enough bedrock of collective agreement on the nature of external reality (being the same for all under god) could something like Science take root.

If different parts of society believed in different realities then forget the scientific method, at least in terms of one based on an objective reality.

So contrary to what many believe, Science itself is another belief system. It has its own dogmatic requirements for it to hold. It just so happens that many years of religious indoctrination prepared society appropriately for a method of though like Science to work.

It is the inability of a person or scientist to see this obvious fact that makes science itself a dogma.

The Dogma of Science

The dogmatic root of science is the belief in objective reality. We must stress the world 'belief' here as this is all that it is. It forms a religious view that is so deep that many have a hard time going there and challenging it in their minds. Just like the heresies against JC God, even the consideration that objective reality is a fantasy concept is a heresy to the dogmatic view in science.

In a very practical example this the issue of has been glaring scientists in the face for nearly 100 years and most are still too scared to call a spade a spade.

Quantum Mechanics (QM), well known as the most successful scientific theory ever, makes a complete mess of the notion of objective reality. Simply put, QM maps out reality as a statistical time function, Ie what happens at any point in space-time is a probability. There are a few options for theories to get scientists out of this mess. Simplifying the debate somewhat, one is called 'wave function collapse' the other is called 'many worlds'. Wave function collapse says that the world is made real when the observer looks at it, while many worlds says that every world that can be created will be created. 

Neither of these really work to make our results of QM fit what we have pre programmed our minds for regarding the existence of an objective reality. 

It is not my understanding of true science to try and come up with something that fits a pre determined idea, this is normally called massaging the data.  The true scientist is one who challenges the old consensus and comes up with something that better describes what is being seen.

Right Wrong and The Dyadic Myth

So the concepts of One God, Science, Objective Reality and what I will call 'being right' are simply all different facets of the same thing.

These ideas are all really the same style of mythology. I will call that mythology the 'dyadic myth' its based on duals (relations of twos) :

- One God: One God creates the world: I experience it
- Science: One Reality exists: the Observer measures it
- Objective Reality: One Reality exists: observers of Reality experience it
- Being Right: Reality exists: My explanation of reality is correct.

(In my early blog posts, i called this dyadic myth 'the great divide')

The Dyadic Myth and Violence

Once you understand how all these facets are really the same core dyadic mythology. You can move to the next step of understanding how this dyadic myth is inherently violent.

Within any dyadic world view, be it Science, Politics or Religion. Who gets to decide who is right ?

Often it is the more powerful, who is the 'right', then 'rightness' is inflicted upon another who doesn't agree...

The journey to the one God was a bloody and violent affair at every step, from its inception to where we are today. The bible charts some of the early days of the dyadic story in its gory detail, tribes had to be mashed together by bloodshed to force one god 'consensus' view upon them. It then took the military might of Rome to force this 'rightness' or what was becoming called 'righteousness' on the entire empire under Rome.

There is only one way out of dyadic violence and that is to understand and accept reality as it is. As I said earlier, the moment you try to make anything that exists wrong in anything other than a true relative sense, you have entered a delusional state.

Since much of politics and Science is presented in this way. You can now better understand these all as forms of collective delusion. They have little to do with anything that is real.

Instead the dyadic myth whether you call it 'us and them' or 'might is right' or 'I know and you don’t' is simply an effective way to impose ones will upon another.

Dyadic mythology, any facet of it, is a justification for violence.

Where we are today

Our present Con God religio, administered by the State via government, operates very much under a dyadic delusion.

Dyadic myths are inherently violent and our state is no different.  One of the legal definitions of the State is 'The Monopoly On Violence'

This violence will always need a forum to play out in. Often this will take the from of wars, racism or more small scale family relational violence.

To see the delusion you just look it in the face. The religion of the state is thought of as if its some free choice, but there is no choice at all. Voting systems provide a unrealistic sense of freedom. There is no freedom, you can't say no to the state itself, whichever 'party act' is voted in and playing its game in government. If you don't pay taxes you get treated violently, and everyone involved will support this violence.

The claim we are a secular state (ie the state doesn’t care what religion you follow) is a lie. You are forced into state religion from birth and its illegal not to pay the religious donations in the form taxes. You can't in truth follow another mythology within the state, there is no secularism in this model. You can only follow religions that clearly are no threat to the State religio.

Reality Explodes

But State and dyadic dogmas aside, I want to get onto the matter at hand, namely the explosion of reality.

We have been living blind within a dyadic mythology for a long time now and the myth has been taken as real along with all its ramifications about there being one solid 'objective reality'.

As we are stretching and blinking in new sunlight, I want to touch on some ideas about what this could mean.

It all starts with meaninglessness, of the main stream media, and actually of everything else too.

  • As the one reality Con God and MSM doctrine crumble, the MSM will dissolve and be relegated to its rightful place within the the media multi verse of Internet information (see media continuum article).
  • The lines of everything will continue to get more and more blurred and I seriously expect some sort of psychological shock to hit us all. The truth of no objective reality and that of multiversal reality sinking home could be difficult for some to integrate themselves with.
  • Those that still trust the MSM and think it somehow 'forms the world' will be the most challenged. What happens when this MSM view is repeatedly proven false ? This is well on the way. Those that have engaged and found multiple info sources on the net to discover their Mistrust the MSM are safe (luckily Mistrust in the MSM is now at record high). Those that do still trust the MSM will become more and more divorced from reality, at the same time they will still need to project the violence of their dyadic views somewhere. There will be a lot of desperate attempts to blame other groups and much devision for these people. 

We are hooked on a dyadic world view of a solid external reality. There is comfort in one right thing to believe in 'out there'. Consensus gives a very cosy sense of security. But this is an avoidance of our own inner fears. In order to maintain this feeling of security, any contrary view has to be looked at as a joke, a 'conspiracy theory'. Otherwise the solid and secure 'objective' 'one' reality msm doctrine explodes and takes the believer with it.

Well it is all exploding, and I think the only sane way to go is inward. Look at the violence inside and then it no longer needs to be projected via some dyadic myth onto another group, person or thing.

Reaching out into the mutiverse holding onto Con God will shatter you into fragments of other peoples ideas... Given enough time, at least you would find out you are not anyone else’s ideas.

Reality is a subjective experience, there is nothing 'out there'. You can decide what 'it' or anything means for you and it can work, because there is nothing out there except what you say is there.

"The only reality is that there is no reality".

I would say that anyone who 'tells' you 'its' something else is trying to have you.

So, am I ?

As the connectivity between  individuals across the planet increases exponentially, the dyadic control structures fall away, drowned by other facets of reality that minify ancient centralized one god objectivity into the multi-verse.

A huge amount of psychic and physical energy is being released that normally would move to a violent projection onto the 'other' in the dyad.

Ride the explosion inwards, I wonder if I will meet you there one day.

1 comment:

Jonathan said...

OK, lots to get into here:

You raise a lot of issues, some very general and some quite specific.

Let’s start with consensus. At its simplest reaching consensus is a process where people compare feelings and experiences and see if they can arrive at a common understanding of ‘what is’ or a common position on what to do.

It’s been suggested that our ability to do this is an evolutionary development; that in order to leverage our individual abilities and individual goals through cooperation we’ve developed a tendency to want to work socially. There’s some evidence that belief structures mirror physical developments within the brain – so left wing people with a belief in cooperatism and right wing people who tend towards individualism are to some extent born rather than made and that this phenomenon has evolved over time.

A lot of arriving at a consensus position of ‘what is’ is about comparing notes and experiences. We ask one another what each sees when looking at a particular object and we find that most of us describe much the same thing (when a substance is introduced like LSD some describe those substances as mind altering because they tend to blow away the consensus on what is there, while others, and probably a minority, describe them as reality altering suggesting that they subscribe to the view that reality is what we experience individually rather than collectively.)

When the news media (let’s call it MSN for a laugh) approach a story they’ll take the available information and try to make sense of it. There’s a source hierarchy normally founded on their reliability and objectivity. Thus the BBC will want to see that a news story has been covered by at least two of the three big wire agencies (Reuters, AP, AFP) and that their facts tally (Reuters is generally seen as the most reliable because it is accuracy obsessed whereas AFP puts more weight on being first).

That’s pretty good when the agencies act as primary sources, such as when reporters are witness to simple events; a speech, a demonstration, a disaster, and more complex when they’re reporting third party views of an event (ie the view of a government) and while they make a point of attributing (ie ‘a White House spokesman said…’) sometimes those views or versions acquire a life of their own. In the age of Twitter and Youtube sources multiply, you can crowd-source your reality but the big players are trying to master manipulating myriadsourced accounts just as they have single sourced accounts in the past.

As for the religious consensus (and if you want to include Islam you might think of labelling the JC God the Abrahamic God because Muslims are not Judaeo Christian but do refer back to the patriarch Abraham – Ibrahim) that presumably involved a degree of consensus too however it’s one that broke down with the Enlightenment and is unlikely to re-emerge. It was more about filling holes in our understanding of our experiences than describing them objectively and science has moved into some of those gaps.

None of this really challenges the bigger point you make which is that a lot of people feel they need to see ‘the emperors new clothes’ – because it’s very easy to feel isolated in a small community if you dissent from the consensus. With the advent of the net and its long tail you can find belief systems as well as books in that long tail so people who see major conspiracies or have what would have been labelled fringe views if they were one in a thousand now discover that they’re a million in a billion – which is quite different.

The end of Western Civilisation? Who knows, but its certainly more difficult to divide and conquer than it was now such powerful tools exist to counter the fear of singularity and isolation…