That we should yet be privileging religion is something at which I often wonder. Though atheism is quite a conceited POV, it does by no means curtail spiritualism and awe in the scintillating universe. As an atheist, I choose to operate outside of theistic explanation. God is a useful parameter, perhaps, but is still too much of a human caprice. The closest I can come to belief of such an idea is within the notion that we are instead becoming god. Our communication networks emulate our own neurology, and as we spread across the planet, we are learning to unify under certain laws. But who is writing these laws?
The 3 central occidental religions were born pastoral. That is to say, they apply techniques of animal husbandry to human governance. The one-to-many rule of shepherd to sheep is recapitulated by their edicts. "One god and he likes it this way - and so will you" worked then, and has been used to frame nearly everything since - so much so that we can barely glimpse outside the framework. Even now it's embedded in our language and social currencies. Guilt, sin, soul, 'chosenness', obeisance, monopoly etc. are all signature tropes that are still very much in play today.
But still, these gods, though each the 'sole' Being for their adherents, must still line up next to each other in the Pantheon. Applying the idea that we are entwining our nervous systems around the globe, thus creating the one collective consciousness (as a sort of meta-human), could not these religions be akin to the squabbling designers of competing Operating Systems? Would that make Steve Jobs the new messiah? Poppycock.
Though this could hypothetically be allowed as the reflexive case, the dogmatism of each religion will likely not permit this as a visible possibility. As far as information theory goes, religion tends to shut down viable alternative realities that run in parallel. However, one such power coursing within them all is MONEY.
Money, or more specifically, debt, has supplanted guilt. Original sin is now national deficit. Historically, money was invented for imperialism and trade. Otherwise, all tariffs, taxes and tributes were collateralized in the form of bartered goods. Food, animals, skills and labour - this last category a euphemism for varying degrees of slavery - all could be represented by money. And representation begets reality.
Again, mechanically, much as it worked with guilt and mortal sin, those in debt are rendered pliable to those they have to pay. They will take fewer risks, find their rights more precarious, be more obliging to their shitty bosses, and tow the party lines.
Another big thing: people are very unlikely to admit that they are mistaken. I know I have a tough time doing so, and I've seen this in every single human I have ever met. We will experience the entire gamut of emotions before volunteering that our reality was skewed. Probably this is because it radicalizes every other meaning in our life. Armed with this information, you can get people to do the most ridiculous things (through argumentum ad populum, emotional appeal, patriotism, hysteria, terror) you can commit them to the wrong premise and then overdub their reality with yours.
This confirmation bias is an avarice responsible for untold amounts of problems, and also forces us to dance to the drums of others. Those who best benefit from this, know this, and use it to write the rules of their authority.
Again, I'm jumping around the topics, a sign I must pause. Anyone know the Latin for 'There is no cow too sacred'?
No comments:
Post a Comment