The Weirding Way: From the science fiction novel
Dune, by Frank Herbert
The basic principle behind the weirding way is that, as
Farad'n Corrino says, "My mind affects my reality." A user
of the weirding way has to know that the action he or she
"wants" to perform has already been performed. For example,
to imagine oneself behind an opponent at the current moment
in time; when trained well, this knowledge will place you at
the spot desired.
—
From Wikipedia
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away.
—
Science Fiction Author, Philip K. Dick
Whether held consciously or implicitly, everyone operates from an
underlying set of ideas — a philosophy — that has
practical consequences. Each person's philosophic system rests upon a
foundation which presumes a position about the fundamental nature of
reality, and throughout human history there have been two dominant
and opposing schools of thought:
The Primacy of Existence: This holds that reality is
an absolute, existing independent of conscious thought, and
therefore it is the function of the human mind to acquire
knowledge by discovering and identifying the nature of this
external reality in order to be able to then manipulate it
towards productive ends — or as Francis Bacon put it,
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."† Here,
existence precedes consciousness.
The Primacy of Consciousness: This is the belief that
the "reality" that is perceived with one's senses is not
external and independent, but is instead actually the creation of
consciousness. This view implies that knowledge is acquired
through introspection and that the nature of existence can be
shaped by thoughts and beliefs, or as John Lennon put it,
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." Here,
consciousness precedes existence.
Many people live their lives, failing to reflect upon this issue and
stake out an explicit metaphysical stance on the nature of reality.
Nevertheless, the daily choices that they make are dependent upon
one or the other of these positions. Often people
compartmentalize various aspects of their lives, allowing
themselves to inconsistently apply one methodology to certain areas
while adopting the opposite method for others. However, every choice
to act still rests upon some implicit belief in reality's fundamental
nature.
Those who consistently subscribe to the primacy of existence
hold the scientific method inviolable, recognizing it as one of
the principal tools for the exploration of the world and a means of
ascertaining truth, while those who adopt a primacy of
consciousness viewpoint believe that by altering the content of
their mind, they can alter (or avoid) the nature of reality. For
them, the scientific method is not merely useless, but utterly wrong
in its approach.
Now, consider the following two examples:
The
Citicorp Center Tower Crisis:
The renowned engineer, William J. LeMessurier, was hired to provide
an innovative structural design for the NYC Citicorp Center
building which was completed in 1977. In 1978, prompted by a
student's inquiry pertaining to aspects of the design, LeMessurier
took another look at his calculations and at that time a new
thought came to him to check a unique wind loading pattern that had
not been required by the applicable codes. To his surprise, he
discover that under these new conditions the structure was
underdesigned! Now this, in itself, did not pose a serious
problem as structural components are typically designed with a
2:1 safety factor which would have dealt with this new condition.
But LeMessurier had also recently learned that, without his
knowledge at the time, the steel subcontractor, in order to
reduce costs, had redesigned the frame using bolts rather than
welds, and these two factors now placed the building in danger.
He immediately began further investigations which resulted in the
discovery that his design team had also treated certain critical
components not as columns, but as trusses which did not require
the normal safety factor. Taken together, he realized that the
building faced a very real risk of collapse in a high wind
condition.
Despite his reputation being on the line, LeMessurier immediately
contacted the architect, a consulting engineer, and the building
owners, fully informed them of the situation, and set into motion
a plan to rectify the crisis. The story of how this was
accomplished is a fascinating tale that can be read in detail at
the link above. But what is most interesting is that all parties
recognized the serious nature of what needed to be done and worked
cooperatively, without recrimination, in order to insure a positive
outcome. And as the article's author commented, "The crisis at
Citicorp Center was noteworthy in another respect. It produced
heroes, but no villains; everyone connected with the repairs
behaved in exemplary fashion ."
This is an example of the primacy of existence in action,
where reality is recognizes as an absolute, to be faced head on,
not avoided. Each party maintained a clear focus on the facts as
they were uncovered, and as new knowledge was ascertained,
actively acknowledged and pursued the consequences. Emotions of
fear or anger were suppressed as being unproductive to the goal
of averting a disaster and saving lives. Without a doubt, this
is a story about heros.
On January 28, 1986 the Challenger Space Shuttle was launched
and a little over a minute later, exploded. Subsequently, the
Rogers Commission was formed by President Reagan, and charged
with investigating the circumstances of this disaster. Richard
Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, was one of the
commission members, and the tale of his involvement in determining
the cause of the accident is recounted in the fascinating story,
"Mr.
Feynman Goes to Washington: Investigating the Space Shuttle
Challenger Disaster."
As Feynman describes it, while the other commission members were
being led around as a herd and presented with information that
NASA management wished them to see and hear, he was off conducting
his own independent investigation and acquiring a unique
perspective on what had occurred. When it came time for the
commission to submit a final report, Feynman refused to sign off
on it unless his own findings were included, which subsequently
made it in as a ten page
appendix.
It was Feynman who discovered that the direct cause of the
explosion was due to joint rotation in the rocket booster
sections that were deforming the O-ring seals and allowing hot gas
to escape, coupled with a seal resiliency failure due to improper
launch under abnormally cold conditions. However, of greater
importance was the revelation that the joint and seal problems had
been identified early during the Shuttle's design, and yet had never
been adequately addressed. Forensic studies conducted after each
mission had revealed many cases of charred O-rings, where partial
failure of the seals had occurred, and yet the missions continued.
As Feynman determined, NASA management treated each case of partial
O-ring failure which did not end up compromising the mission as
evidence that the problem was of less concern than design specs.
indicated, and therefore, "certification criteria used in Flight
Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing
strictness." When O-ring erosion was observed one-third the
radius, NASA management determined that this indicated the rings
had "a safety factor of three." But as Feynman so obviously
pointed out, "The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not
designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong.
Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred."
When asked to estimate the Shuttle's probability of vehicle
failure and loss of life, engineers responded with values in the
neighborhood of 1 in 100, while management reported 1 in 100,000.
Feynman asked: "Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that
one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to
lose only one, we could properly ask 'What is the cause of
management's fantastic faith in the machinery?'" As Feynman
pointed out in his book, the answer was that while the engineers
were applying standard statistical metrics to arrive at their
estimates, NASA management was working backwards in their models
to arrive at the predetermined number required by political
necessity to appease Congress and keep funding flowing.
This highlights only some of the fantastic rationalizing that was
being done by NASA management, demonstrating a clear case of the
primacy of consciousness in action. While the engineers
were grounded in science and had a clear grasp of the nature of
the problems and the risks they were dealing with, program managers
were completely disconnected from reality, having replaced respect
for facts with their internal wishes for desired outcomes —
an approach which inevitably led to truly disastrous results.
The Age of Aquarius:
These two examples dramatize the consequences of adopting different
philosophies with respect to reality which is, in fact,
independent of our hope, dreams, wishes, desires, or intentions.
Comprehend and incorporate the laws of nature, along with the relevant
facts, into one's actions, and goals are achievable. Ignore them at
your peril. And while most of our personal day-to-day decisions do not
rise to the level of life or death, the success or failure of the
outcomes remains very much a product of those underlying premises.
The sad truth is that the primacy of consciousness world view
has been adopted by a majority of people and drives actions in many
areas towards sub-optimal, and sometimes extremely harmful outcomes.
In the conduct of their lives, many individuals mindlessly adopt all
sorts of misguided fantasies that, to any thinking person, are
obviously disconnected from reality. Some read horoscopes based upon the alignment
of planets at the moment of their birth and then adjust their daily
activity to avoid hinted-at pitfalls or to achieve a hazily-defined
positive outcome. Some pay fortune tellers to advise them about
life-altering decisions that should be adopted based upon the
creases
in their hand, the position of
tea leaves in a cup,
the order of a set of playing
cards, the orientation of falling wooden sticks,
and by many
other methods. Beliefs of this type, when applied consistently,
result in a holistic approach towards life as embodied in the
New Age movement,
resting squarely upon a foundation of astrology (the
Aquarian
Age), and incorporating mystical aspects from many cultures.
Consider the following quote:
There is no objective morality in the New Age philosophy.
We should have tolerance for all systems of truth, meaning
and purpose. We should create a world of pure relativism,
where morality and religion are strictly relative to each
person's individual notion of reality itself.
— All
About Spirituality
There could be no clearer and more explicit statement demonstrating the
primacy of consciousness in action. But wait, where have we
heard this before? Moral Relativism? Arguments for tolerance of all
systems of belief, regardless of their content? These are the very
bedrock principles of "political correctness" that drive the
policies of the far-left, progressive collectivists.
Now, when an individual decides to diverge from reality, they primarily
harm themselves, and possibly those with whom they directly interact.
But when the government, which implements and imposes its actions by
force upon all of its citizens, evades reality, then the collateral
damage becomes massive. So do we see evidence of the primacy of
consciousness in play on the political scene? In spades!
A Confidence Game:
Consider the devastating economic crisis that we currently face. Are
these problems existential, being the inevitable consequence of
specific actions that have been taken, or are our difficulties
social, being merely the byproduct of our thinking? In the
first case, a solution would clearly call for the abandonment of those
policies causing the harm and their replacement with others based upon
an awareness of the actual facts of the situation. In the latter case,
all that would be required to turn the economy around is a change in
our collective mental attitude. Which view guides our politicians?
Let's see.
From an article in the New York Times,
by Robert Pear
"Republicans blame Mr. Obama for the slump, saying he has
issued a blizzard of regulations and promised future tax
increases that have hurt business and consumer
confidence."
From an article in Bloomberg,
by Steven Matthews
"Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said last week the U.S. is
facing "a national crisis" with the jobless rate at around
9 percent since April 2009. The European debt crisis, political
haggling in the U.S. and a plunge in stock prices have prompted
a drop in consumer and business confidence that may hurt
spending and hiring. "
From President Obama's October 6, 2011 Press Conference Transcript
"[T]here is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it
was at the beginning of the year. And every independent
economist who has looked at this question carefully believes
that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance
policy against a possible double-dip recession, it is
important for us to make sure that we are boosting consumer
confidence, putting money into their pockets, cutting
taxes where we can for small businesses, and that it makes
sense for us to put people back to work doing the work that
needs to be done.""
[All emphasis added]
That's quite a preoccupation with people's confidence! In fact, it
is so important to the decision-making of our government officials
that we have an entire organization, The Conference Board, devoted to
producing the
Consumer
Confidence Index, a major indicator used by the Federal Reserve
when setting interest rates. According to Wikipedia,
"The Index is calculated each month on the basis of a household
survey of consumers' opinions on current conditions and future
expectations of the economy."
Over and over we hear from the media, as well as from Republicans, to
Bernanke, to Obama, just how important "confidence" is, and how
it is the "lack of confidence" that is keeping the economy down.
The problem is not that past economic policies have failed. They all
believe that it has nothing to do with business regulations that
destroy the ability to plan, compete and innovate. It's not the
burden of increased taxes and expanding liabilities promised by the
full implementation of Obamacare that throttles business growth, nor
is it the legislation that instigates overbuilding, spending and
lending in the housing market. And it's not vast entitlement
incentives that encourage people to freeload rather than work. These
are merely concrete issues which have no important economic impact.
Instead, they know that the real problem is that people don't
believe that everything is just fine. If the public would just
change its stinkin' thinkin' and stop worrying about underwater
mortgages, outstanding debt, lack of savings, evaporating retirement
funds, and future job prospects, then they could get back to the
business of carefree spending and the economy would be back on the
tracks! Why? Because our politicians know exactly what the New Agers
know, that reality is nothing more than the notion that we each
hold of it. If we can only come to believe that good times are just
around the corner, then reality will conform to those desires and
there will be no need for government to back down from any of it's
wonderful totalitarian programs and policies. So look no further in
an attempt to understand why, after two failed rounds of stimulus,
Obama doesn't hesitate to propose a third. What's important is that
he wants you to know that he's got your back, so cheer up.
Please!
Yes, people and businesses are indeed very uncertain about the future,
and that uncertainty is having a profound effect upon their actions.
However, it is not their "state of mind" that is creating the woes we
all face — just the opposite. It is an awareness of the very
real problems we face that is justifiably creating our uncertainty.
Our economic and social problems are the direct result of very
specific actions which have, and continue to be implemented by
interventionist politicians in their attempt to centrally plan not
only our economy, but every other aspect of our lives. And until those
policies are reversed, no manipulation of the public's mind is going
to have any effect on the predictable and inevitable consequences of
those policies. There's no escaping it. Nature, to be commanded,
must be obeyed, and Greece is the poster child for this inescapable
fact.
Tell Me a Bedtime Story:
If there is one thing that our politicians do accurately understand,
it is that after generations of indoctrination in our public school
system, the ability for critical thinking has been significantly
eroded in a large percentage of the population. As a consequence,
they do not worry that their own lack of knowledge, their own
inability to reason critically, or their many contradictions, failed
promises and the bad consequences resulting from their acts will have
much lasting impact on a culture possessing an extremely short
attention span. The public can effectively be treated as though it
were a child.
Today, most voters are unable or unwilling to parse what politicians
say in order to tease apart the salient facts from the fluff —
a task requiring far too much time and energy. And the general level
of illiteracy in history, geography, science, logic and current events
insures that most people are incapable of assembling for themselves
an accurate understanding of any reasonably complex issue, leaving
them open to having that void filled with prepackaged conclusions
supplied by others.
Politicians and the media also know that most people react badly if
they feel that they are being brainwashed or forced to accept someone
elses opinions or analysis. However, the public does like to be
entertained, and this has led to a transformation away from what was
once the simple presentation of facts and positions (news), to the
telling of stories which contain an implied conclusion that is received
more through osmosis than by conscious thought. Obama clearly
understands the power of this approach.
From an article in the Wall Street Journal,
by Peggy Noonan
"Throughout the [Suskind] interview the president seems
preoccupied with 'shaping a story for the American people.'
He says: 'The irony is, the reason I was in this office is
because I told a story to the American people.' But, he
confesses, 'that narrative thread we just lost' in his first
years.
"Then [Suskind] asks, 'What's the particular requirement of
the president that no one else can do?' [Obama] answers:
'What the president can do, that nobody else can do, is tell
a story to the American people' about where we are as a
nation and should be."
Noonan then comments:
"Tell a story to the American people? That's your job?
Not adopting good policies? Not defending the nation?
Storytelling?"
[Emphasis added]
But not everyone is as disturbed by this as Noonan. Take, for example
this comment by Ezra Klein while discussing Obama's State of the Union
speech:
From an article in the Washington Post,
by Ezra Klein
"All in all, it was a good speech. But it was a good speech
because it told the story of a good presidency and an
able president."
[Emphasis added]
For Klein, what makes Obama's speech a success has nothing to do
with it's actual content, which must be depreciated to the level of
pointless facts. What is important is its storytelling,
and the emotional impressions that it conveys to the public. Is
Obama actually a good and able president based upon the
record of his administration? Irrelevant. What's important is that
he make the public feel that he is. And here we have another
example of the primacy of consciousness in action. There is
no objective truth regarding anything, including the very nature of
of the man himself! All that matters for Obama is what his perception
is in the eyes of others. When Obama faces an adoring crowd, he basks
in the glory and radiates a sense of content condescension as he
senses his own greatness. But as has been reported on numerous
occasions, when challenged, his self-image evaporates, revealing
the nasty reality that lies within.
Others on the left understand how critically important the story
is for maintaining their particular notion of reality. If the
public forms another image in their head, then the jig is up. Here
is Maureen Dowd expressing those concerns:
From an article in the New
York Times, by Maureen Dowd
"It's not a good narrative arc: The man who walked
on water is now ensnared by a crisis under water.
"But unless he wants his story to be marred ... he'd better
seize control of the story line of his White House years.
Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative."
[Emphasis added]
And here is Jason Horowitz, discussing the Obama administration's
handling of the BP oil spill, and pointing out that the emperor
really is missing his clothes:
Excerpts from an article in the Washington Post,
by Jason Horowitz
"The Obama 'narrative' is overshadowing this presidency's
real stories."
"Sing to me of the Obama narrative, Muse, the narrative of
twists and turns driven time and again off course."
"Journalists and politicians know that voters, like everyone
else, are hard-wired to understand the world through stories."
"But now his narrative has taken on a life of its own."
"'So much of the coverage and commentary has to do with the
narrative, stagecraft, the political implications of what he
[Obama] is doing,' said David Axelrod, Obama's special adviser
for narrative, stagecraft and the political implications of
what the president is doing. 'When you are president of the
United States, the most important thing is that you cope with
the disaster.'"
To which, Jason Horowitz adds:
"Not, that is, the story line of the disaster."
[Emphasis added]
Despite their best intentions to the contrary, that pesky old reality
continues to rear its head, dashing the ship of consciousness on the
shoals of the primacy of existence.
It's All About the Narrative:
Today's politics is just one good story after another, and when you
wrap them all together with a pretty bow, what you end up with is the
narrative that Dowd mentioned above. Here is what one reporter
has to say about the Obama narrative:
From an article in the Huffington Post,
by Dan Carol
"This is not to give Team Obama an A-plus across the board
on communications or implementation, but the notion that the
President doesn't have a core philosophy is simply ridiculous.
The problem is Obama's governing narrative does not fit
neatly into traditional boxes."
[Emphasis added]
Now that's funny! Much like the health care bill that Nancy Pelosi
informed us we would have to pass before we could find out what was
in it, Carol is just sure that Obama has a core philosophy, but his
narrative is unfortunately too complex to let us discover
exactly what it might be. Wait, I though that the whole purpose of
the narrative was to feed simplified stories to the public in place
of the complicated facts that are beyond our comprehension. Instead,
this once domesticated narrative has broken free from its corral
and returned to the wild. Giddy up!
The concept of the narrative has now trickled down to the masses
— a tool to be used by even self anointed "working-class"
Wall Street protesters such as Jesse LaGreca, who was recently
interviews on the Sunday panel discussion show, Roundtable.
From an article in the Wall Street Journal,
by James Taranto
"At one point, [panel member Peggy] Noonan posed a question:
'What is your plan? You going to spend the next six months
blocking the Brooklyn Bridge? Or are you going to harness a
movement into political action?'
"LaGreca's response: 'What I find amusing is that now people
are looking to us to solve the political problems, and they
should. But I'm not going to support one party or the other.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. But I will
encourage you to be a voter. I think we have succeeded
tremendously in pushing the narrative."
To which Taranto remarks:
"And we all know what backbreaking work it is to push
narratives!"
[Emphasis added]
But seriously, exactly what narrative? LaGreca doesn't
have the faintest idea. So, let's turn to the man in the street and
see what sort of story he has to tell:
And here we have reached the end of the line, to witness the
narrative of the primacy of consciousness in all its glory.
Fully detached from the last vestiges of reality, the mind soars
towards new heights and new possibilities, fueled only by those two
magic phrases, "It's what I want" and "That's
what I think."
Reality, I command thee to bend to my will!
After all, if it's good enough for my president, then it's good
enough for me!
The Choice:
Today, on many fronts we are engaged in an epic battle for our
future. At the most fundamental level, it is a fight for the
metaphysical underpinning of our most precious resource —
our minds. The outcome of this struggle will determine whether
we survive as a civilized culture to pursue the glory represented
by the Citicorp Tower, or are relegated to suffering the Challenger's
fate. Choose you side and then fight for your future as if your
life depends upon it — because it does!
You know, wishing won't make it so
Hoping won't do it, praying won't do it
Religion won't do it, philosophy won't do it
The supreme court won't do it,
the president and the congress won't do it
The UN won't do it, the H-bomb won't do it,
the sun and the moon won't do it
And God won't do it,
and I certainly won't do it
That leaves you, you'll have to do it
Todd Rundgren, "Fair Warning"
† Note: In the original version of this article I
misattributed the quote, "Nature, to be commanded, must be
obeyed", to Ayn Rand, who often quoted it herself, rather than to
Francis Bacon. My thanks to Garret Seinen for pointing out my error.
Please add me to the list to be notified of updates to this site.
