The Soul v. Evolved Consciousness

by James Wallace Harris, Saturday, August 19, 2017

I keep trying to understand the core cause of our polarized political conflict that’s pushing us to destroy our current civilization. We have the knowledge and technology needed to solve our problems but we don’t apply them. We choose to viciously fight among ourselves instead. Self-interest is winning over group survival. Decade after decade I keep wondering why. I keep refining my theories, and the current one says this conflict originates in a divide between theology and philosophy.

Most people don’t think in terms of theology or philosophy, so how could cognitive tools be the cause of so much hatred? People act on beliefs without being aware of their beliefs or the origins of their actions. My current theory explores if we’re divided by a fundamental sense of self: either assuming we have an immortal soul or an evolving consciousness.

Because science cannot explain why we’re conscious animals the origins of consciousness remain open to interpretation from theology and philosophy. Of course, even when science can overwhelmingly explain such mechanisms as evolution, many people refuse to accept science because of their innate theology, even when they can’t explain that theology in words or logic. But where does theology come from? Why do some people process reality with a theological perspective and other people with a philosophical or scientific perspective?

Humans are not rational creatures. We are rationalizing animals. Our thoughts are not logical, but seek to reinforce our desires. The perfect lab animal for studying this irrationality of humanness is Donald Trump. From my perspective, humans are the product of billions of years of evolution and we’re currently at a paradigm shift of consciousness, where half of us perceive reality in the old paradigm and half in the new.

The old paradigm assumes God created us, giving us immortal souls with time in this existence being temporary because there’s a greater existence after death. The new paradigm is reality is constantly evolving. I use the word “reality” to mean everything. We used to say, “the universe” to mean everything, but it now appears our universe is part of a multiverse, and even that might not be everything. So, I call everything by the term “reality.” It includes all space, time, dimensions, and everything we’ve yet to discover or imagine.

Humans are bubbles of conscious self-awareness popping into this reality that eventual burst. I believe our consciousness minds evolved out of brain evolution, which evolved out of biology, and biology evolved out chemistry, and chemistry evolved out of physics, and physics evolved out of cosmology. Other people believe a superior being called God using the magical power of the Word created us.

It comes down to the soul v. evolved consciousness. Humans whose thoughts arise out of a belief foundation of the soul perceive reality differently from humans whose thoughts arise out of the belief we’re a product of evolution. I don’t think it’s a matter of conscious choice either. I’m guessing our unconscious minds work based on how each paradigm has wired our brains. Obviously, only one paradigm explains our true existence, but individuals live their lives perceiving reality from one or the other paradigm. That perceptual different makes all the cultural, social and political differences.

The people who act like they have souls want to shape reality based on their beliefs, and the people who act like they are evolved consciousnesses want to shape reality according to their beliefs. This causes our political/social/cultural divide. People with souls don’t care what happens to this planet, people with evolving consciousness think this planet is vital.

We Need More Democracy

by James Wallace Harris, Tuesday, July 25, 2017

The other night I watched Requiem for the American Dream about Noam Chomsky. He said something that surprised me. Chomsky talked about how the amount of democracy was variable. That the history of the United States showed democracy ebbing and flowing. I always thought democracy was an either or situation. Chomsky said the people who rule in a democracy usually wanted less democracy. We can certainly see that happening now.

Requiem for an American Dream

This documentary is currently showing on Netflix and other online sources.

This got me to thinking. How do we get more democracy? This is a rather tough problem because of the people in power controls the amount of democracy. If we want to change things we have to plan end-runs around their power.

This morning a friend sent me an email about 5 Calls. It’s both a website and app for your smartphone. All it does it help you call your representatives. If a bill is coming up, it provides information on that bill. Evidently, our representatives value phone calls over other means of letting them know what we think.

What I find revealing is when Congress votes opposite of what their constituents want. Today the Republicans are trying to ram through a repeal of Obamacare, yet if we look at the polls, Americans don’t want that. Is that democracy?

If we had maximum democracy every registered voter would vote on every bill without using representatives. Since we have a representative democracy, our elected proxies should vote the way we want. Often, this doesn’t happen because they work for a minority rather than the majority. This is called an oligarchy, and since our oligarchs are rich, we call our form of oligarchy a plutocracy. I guess that’s fancier label than Rule by Billionaires.

Interestingly, Chomsky talked about how in ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, the minority rulers also wanted to limit democracy. Recently I read White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America which chronicled the history of various American leaders who wanted to shape the nation and how they dealt with the democracy problem. The ruling elite has always sought ways to marginalize our needs in favor of their wants.

What we need is a shadow democracy that exactly shows our wishes. A system that allows registered voters to vote from their smartphones with perfect validation. The results should be public and separate from the current legal voting system. So for every issue, referendum, bill, law, etc. that comes up, we could have a peoples’ vote. Then we could compare the peoples’ votes to the representatives’ votes. Over time representatives might have to pay more attention to our votes than the plutocrats who currently run the system.

Since smartphones have fingerprint sensors, GPS locators, and other tools for ID validations, it should be possible to develop a system where legally registered voters re-register with the people’s voting system. It should be a system that has near foolproof validation for controlling one vote per qualified voter. Having a voting app on your smartphone should make voting so easy that we’d get very high turnouts.

This system wouldn’t replace the current legal voting system, but be a tool to fight backroom political shenanigans. By comparing the two systems a real time voting record could be made for every representative to show how well they supported the desires of their constituents.

There’s a book version of Requiem for the American Dream. Both the book and film cover ten ways those in power stay in power:

  1. Reduce democracy
  2. Shape ideology
  3. Redesign the economy
  4. Shift the burden
  5. Attack solidarity
  6. Run the regulators
  7. Engineer elections
  8. Keep the rabble in line
  9. Manufacture consent
  10. Marginalize the population

What the population at large needs to do is invent ten ways to control their elected representatives. The trouble is we can’t expect them to change the laws to reduce their own power. The electoral college benefits political parties, not people. Politicians don’t want referendums because it cuts into their power. They don’t want laws on contributions because it cuts into their power. We should have a law against voting on combining bills because that lets them make deals that benefit each other.

The 2016 election seemed to be a vote against Washington, but Donald Trump hasn’t changed the power structure or increased democracy. In fact, he seems hell-bent to give more power to the plutocracy.

Noam Chomsky quote

Our country is facing a wealth inequality crisis. It will probably destroy us before climate change does. In fact, it’s easier to solve climate change than wealth inequality. It’s understandable why the plutocrats are against doing anything about either problem. Fixing wealth inequality and climate change will cost them wealth and power. Of course, we have to live with the poverty and climate change chaos.

Increasing democracy might break the deadlock. But then again, it might not. Among my most cynical friends, there is no hope for the future. I like to think all problems have possible solutions. To solve many of our problems will require more democracy to create a sustainable form of capitalism. Right now capitalism is destroying the environment and distilling the wealth to a very few. My cynical friends will be right if we can’t change that.

JWH

 

I Was Wrong

by James Wallace Harris, Monday, May 8, 2017

Yesterday I wrote, “Are Republicans the Party of Darwin?” accusing conservatives of applying their understanding of Darwin’s observations on nature to justify the laws they were creating. Their laws always seem to back the strong against the weak. But I had a revelation in the middle of the night.

Everyone acts on their instincts, and those instincts are Darwinian by nature. Duh! Darwin’s theory is the most widely accepted explanation for our behavior. I was crediting Republicans for consciously using Darwin’s ideas in the formulation of their political philosophy, and this is where I’m wrong. It wasn’t a conscious decision. My essay was based on the irony that conservatives profess to be Christians but enact laws that reflect Darwin’s theory rather than Jesus’ teachings.

heaven and earth

My point being there’s no compassion in nature or Darwin’s observations about how nature works, and there’s no compassion in the laws Republicans want to support. You’d think people who follow a personal philosophy based on compassion would enact compassionate laws. This conflict of action and belief troubles me and I keep trying to figure out what causes it.

My revelation last night is everyone acts Darwinianly, despite what they profess philosophically. I am an atheist, but I give Christianity credit for inventing many compassionate philosophical concepts. I attribute those ideas to Jesus like we attribute other philosophical ideas to Plato or Aristotle, but I’m not sure they came from the man we historical think of as Jesus. Many of the ideas were developed by his followers and attributed to him in the first few centuries after his death.

Organized compassion for the weak is a relatively new idea in history. Limited forms of compassion have been around in evolutionary terms for a very long time, even in plants and lower animals, but to develop a religion, philosophy, or political system to protect the weak wholesale is relatively new.

I just think it’s ironic that the political party that claims to be the most Christian reflects it least in their laws, and the party that folks general assume is least Christian reflects compassion the most in their laws.

Our political divide really comes down to how much we want to support the common welfare over the freedom of the individual. The more socialistic we are, the more we want everyone to contribute to improving society, the less socialistic we are, the more we want to give the maximum freedom to individuals and ignore the suffering of the masses. Such socialism counters Darwin’s observations on animal behavior.

Thus Christianity is inherently anti-Darwinian. For twenty centuries it seemed like Christianity was catching on, especially in the Western world. But that’s probably an illusion. What really caught on was a belief in life after death via easy salvation. The idea of heaven on Earth hasn’t.

In other words, conservatives are Darwinian on Earth, but Christian in their hopes about an afterlife. Which might explain why liberals are more socialistic. Many of them doubt the afterlife, and thus they’d want to create heaven on Earth. The conservatives are more pragmatically Darwinian, they want all they can get while living, and then assume things will magically go great after they die despite what they do while living. Liberals evidently feel this is all there is so we better make the best of it.

This is a huge problem for liberals. To get more people to vote for social welfare might require convincing people to think less about an afterlife. In other words, the concept of heaven has corrupted people’s attitude towards Earth. This might also explain climate change deniers. They might unconsciously realize to think more about Earth means to think less about an afterlife.

JWH

 

 

Are Republicans the Party of Darwin?

by James Wallace Harris, Sunday, May 7, 2017

As a lifelong atheist, I find most of my political convictions comes from the words printed in red in The New Testament. Shouldn’t unbelievers use Charles Darwin’s scientific insights to model how society should be governed? Yet, as I study Republicans, the party I oppose, I wonder why they act the way the do. I can only conclude they base their philosophy on the survival of the fittest.

Darwin-Jesus

I hate Republicans for not carrying about suffering, whether it’s the suffering of people, animals, plants, or the biosphere. If you study Darwin’s observations you realize that nature ignores suffering too. The Republicans work with all their might to create a political system that helps the strong while ignoring the weak. In fact, Republicans are the strong feeding off the weak. Yet, publically Republicans claim to be Christians. Shouldn’t a Christian political party promote the way of life Jesus taught? And wouldn’t that be anti-Darwinian?

If you study the Sermon on the Mount, you know it’s impossible for a Christian to own an AR-15. The meek will not be carrying Glocks when they inherited the Earth. Darwin’s red tooth and claw philosophy would embrace such weapons. Darwin would be pro-gun, but not Jesus. Yet, typically Republicans express a hatred for Darwin and a love of Christ.

The Democratic party which wants to feed the poor and heal the sick is labeled the Godless party. However, if the beliefs in The New Testament were converted into a political system it would be socialistic, and look much like the political goals of the DNC.

Is it possible to create a political system that reduces suffering while still encouraging all its citizens to become stronger? If Republicans were honest they’d admit they believe far more in Darwin than Christ. Yes, helping people can make them weak, but ignoring their suffering also makes you heartless.

Isn’t there some kind of compromise we could make? Can’t we start the competition for survival on an equal playing ground? Wealth inequality shows the competition isn’t equal like what Darwin saw in nature. Human intelligence allows us to multiply and horde our strengths, which is why we’re destroying all the other species, and why those humans on the receiving end of wealth inequality can so easily destroy those on the losing end.

Republicans appear to totally embrace Darwinism, including ignoring suffering. Democrats want to create a political system that eliminates some sufferings. I would think any political system that ethically allows for some members to become billionaires should allow for universal healthcare. How can any system that allows for some players to have everything and others nothing be Christian?

Isn’t Christianity about compassion? I can understand why conservatives embrace Darwinian actions. Republican ideals are very close to nature. And don’t Christian beliefs defy the natural? Isn’t The New Testament all about protecting the weak?

JWH

Is Trump Founding a Dynasty?

by James Wallace Harris, Thursday, March 30, 2017

Like most liberals who are horrified by Donald Trump, we’re wondering when his reign will be over. Many of us assume even the conservatives will eventually tire of him, looking hopefully to 2020 as the light at the end of the tunnel.

Now that Ivanka Trump will become a federal employee makes me question that hope.  I assumed Trump wanted his family members working with him because he knew he wasn’t always rational and needed his family close by to keep him in check. Most liberals worried about nepotism. I’ve also read powerful, paranoid men trust their families more than outsiders. But what if Trump has bigger plans?

What if Trump hopes to found a Trump political dynasty like the Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons? What if he hopes Ivanka will be the first woman president? Is that any crazier of an idea than Trump becoming president?

We liberals have to admit that the conservatives have us routed. However, Trump isn’t a traditional Republican, so our only hope will be conservatives and independents turning against him. Independents are why Trump succeeded in 2016. Basically our country is roughly one third diehard liberal, one third diehard conservative and one third switch hitters. Trump succeeds as long as he maintains a coalition between conservatives and independents. Liberals can only regain power if they can get independents to embrace our causes. Trump proved most independent voters don’t.

I have to assume with an ego like Donald Trump’s, becoming president is very validating. Having your kids succeed you would be even more ego boosting. Will the independents go along with that? Conservatives follow Trump because they think he’ll get them what they want. How many years can Trump keep his coalition going?

2020 might not be the tunnel exit.

JWH

Running Away to Mars

by James Wallace Harris, Wednesday, February 8, 2017

While reading The Art of Memoir by Mary Karr, a handbook for processing memories, it triggered several vivid revelations about my childhood. Especially the time when I ran away to Mars in 1963. That flashback revealed why I first dropped science fiction. I wanted an antidepressant. Science fiction has proven quite effective at masking reality, because I can’t even remember being depressed. How PKDickian!

Two Mars

A lifetime of contemplating the future has been an excellent mantra for ignoring the present. I am rather disappointed that running away never got me anywhere. I’ve been to Mars many times, but never to the one that exists in reality.

Today I’m plotting my own alternate history timeline. What if I had not run away to Mars back in 1963 and stayed on Earth instead? Wow, that’s more mind-twisting than The Man in the High Castle.

Maybe it wasn’t the Mary Karr book that jarred these insights. Could it have been the election? Have we all run away to imagined worlds? Reality seems so deserted these days.

JWH

Which Came First: Political Personality or News?

by James Wallace Harris, Monday, December 19, 2016

My wife Susan found this infographic on Facebook. It was created by Vanessa Otero and distributed on her Twitter feed. You can click on the image to see a larger version.

Vanessa Otero News Graph 2016

My news sources are NBC, CBS, PBS, The New York Times, NPR, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Slate, Vox, and sometimes The Economist and The Wall Street Journal when I get free links. In other words, I stay close to the center of things, and by Otero’s reckoning, use sources of high standards, that can be analytical and complex.

Do I have the kind of personality that is drawn to those news sources, or did those news sources create my political personality? If you grow up reading news from sources on the lower left or right of the graphic, do you program your personality by them? In recent years I’ve met a number of people who watch Fox News all day long. These people have different personal personalities, but they often feel like they have the same political personality. They are usually paranoid about the government, believe in various kinds of conspiracies, are passionately anti-taxes, and hate when people get money from the government without working.

Do people in childhood develop particular beliefs and then migrate to news outlets that promote those beliefs, or do they get hooked on various news sources and adopt the beliefs of the news programs they watch?

Would people who watch Fox News morph into new political personalities if they switched to watching PBS news programs? If I started watch Fox News all the time, would I become conservative? I remember favoring JFK back in 1960, when I was in the third grade, and that was well before I watched the news. I’ve never liked any Republican candidate – is that because of my innate programming, or because of how I acquired my news?

When I did start watching the news, it was the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, probably around 1962-63. In 1960 when we moved from New Jersey to Mississippi, I learned I didn’t like racists. As a shy kid, I was always afraid of people with strong emotions, and the racists scared the crap out of me with their raging anger. I had no idea what they were talking about. They were for Nixon. Maybe that influenced my political development. I remember getting into a playground fight with a kid who was pro-Nixon. Did that experience lean me towards the left?

When I went to tech school for computers in 1971, they taught us a phrase, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). That implies the news we consume does change us. But then, I’ve read books like The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker that counter that philosophy. I’ve also read books like Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman that explain how our consciousness minds aren’t too swift when it comes to making decisions. I’m almost finished with The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds by Michael Lewis that profiles Daniel Kahneman, and his colleague Amos Tversky. They were two Israeli psychologists that made careers studying how we make poor choices and misunderstand reality because our gut reactions are usually wrong.

JWH