Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Let me begin with the question about religion and freedom, and start
with a quote from the Politics of Deceit. "Prayer, meditation, chants,
and rituals of all kinds are intended to open the individual mind and
heart to new possibilities for thought and action."

For that to make much sense, I have to explain a bit more about my
concept of freedom. Stay with me, because this brief dip into
neuroscience really will come back to religion. I swear.

Cognitive science has identified how various parts of the brain
synchronize their activity into a coherent thought, perception, or
action. Scans show what they call "phase synchrony," or synchronized
electrical activity in the gamma range, accompanying each discrete
thought.

But they also found an active phase desynchrony between each thought
or action.

Think of the synchronized signals as lines connecting dots. At the
moment of desynchrony, the lines are temporarily relaxed, "allowing for
the possibility that new lines will be connected in the next conscious
moment."

This active phase scattering or desynchrony is not devolution into
chaos. Rather, learning and habits play a role. You might say
desynchrony constrains but does not determine upcoming conscious
moments. I have a paper on this in review at a journal called
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. I worked through the ideas
with Shaun Gallagher and George Lakoff (don't consider this their
endorsement, though, they simply helped keep me reasonable and
focused).

This is one possible solution to the free will dilemma. It meets the
criteria set by philosopher Rober Kane, who wrote that "some of the
mental events or processes involved [in mental acts and perceptions]
must be undetermined, so that the causation by mental events may be
nondeterministic or probablistic as well as deterministic."

We seem to have a natural capacity to expand human choices. Each
thought is not fully determined by the previous thought. The
possibility of freedom, in other words, is built into human nature.

What's this got to do with religion? Well, spiritual practice is a way
of expanding our awareness of these possibilities of freedom, of
opening to new possibilities for thought and action. I suggest we "are
bound together in religious traditions not because we focus upon the
same idols or beliefs, but because we collectively share in the
possibility of freedom."

Spiritual practice is not, or should not be, the contemplation of
pretty pictures or easy solutions to the unknowns of the universe. It
is, or should be, intended to help us understand our actions are not
determined by god, the universe, or yesterday.

You can see I've managed to walk out on two limbs at the same time.
But I think they meet. I think I'm walking toward that point, which is
stronger not weaker than the limbs behind me.

It's undeniable that the brief moments of the awareness of freedom
make us a bit vulnerable to suggestion, intimidation and fear, as well
as to the brightness of an undetermined future. History is, to some
degree, the record of the wreckage of this exploitation.

Many spiritual leaders, Buddha and Jesus for instance, warned us
against this, and urged us to rely upon our own resources. That is
exactly what many church bureaucrats don't want us to do. The always
lingering possibility of exploitation is why we separate church and
state.

An authentic spiritual leader would have or should have insisted upon
the separation if the Founders hadn't thought of it themselves.

One more point You can see one way these ideas dovetail with the
earlier discussion of freedom. At the point I carve the habit in my
brain of focusing upon how I might limit your freedom, I have denied
myself other future possibilities for thought and action. This concept
of freedom is intersubject at its root. And it's why spiritual practice
is a communal practice.
  

    
I have received a few letters and emails like the Buzz Flash
commentary linked by ThatsPaint in #49. I understand her impatience and
anger, but she mistakes resolve for capitulation.

It's annoying to people this angry to use extreme examples of heroism
to counter their impatience, but as I've done elsewhere, I'm going to
do it here as well. Would this writer have walked into Nelson Mandela's
prison cell with the same message?

We should press the issue of the stolen election. We are. But we can
also do more than one thing at a time. The odds are against us turning
the election over through the revelation of stolen votes and suspect
machines. It would be irresponsible to quit planning and working on
other fronts.  We might have to fight this war again with our minds and
hands and not rely upon a single silver bullet.

I don't support the Kerry campaign decision not to pursue a challenge.
I believe the entire nation takes election results upon faith, a
dangerous and destructive tendency in a democracy. If we really cared
about the power of the vote we'd have transparent, verifiable ballots,
same-day registration, extended early voting and an election-day
national holiday.

That we don't betrays our reliance upon a "feeling" about who won, not
about who has the support of most Americans. Kerry should be making
this argument with us.

But we can't limit our action to that front. I'm actually proud and a
bit surprised at the widespread resiliency of progressives. The other
side's power depends upon our demoralization. Don't let our resolve and
morale disappear into Diebold boxes with our votes.
  

    
Somewhere in here it's useful to contemplate the distinction made by
Joseph Campbell between "religion" and "spirituality." He was
contemptuous of the former, which for him was typified by his own
childhood indoctrination at the hands of Jesuits. On the other hand,
his entire life's work was devoted to the latter, which he conceived as
an individualized quest for deeper meanings the exact essence of which
was necessarily unique to every human being. Here as with so much of
today's "divided American" I think we see echoes of the conflict
between what I call "Enlightenment values" and "medieval values." But I
can't presume to say how, or if, these ruminations resonate with your
own thinking on these subjects.

Your book is really quite rich with food for thought on a number of
levels. Forgive me if, in the exigencies of the moment, I keep
careening from the philosophical to the practical. On the latter front,
let me ask this: What one change to the laws affecting our political
process do you think would best advance the interests of democracy in
America right now? (You don't really have to stick to one but I have a
nominee in mind and I'm wondering if I'm right.)
  

    
Can it be an omnibous bill?

Dealing only with reform of our political campaign practices, I would:

Prohibit paid advertising, publicly fund campaigns, limit
expenditures, allow same-day registration, expand early voting, make
election day a national holiday, mandate transparent, verifiable
ballots, and appoint national and local voter "juries" to be drawn from
voter rolls to monitor elections at all levels. Something would have
to be done to ensure the juries are demographically, geographically,
and economically balanced.
  

    
That's a great list. If folks want to sign on, where can they go?
  

    
Drew, what was your candidate for change?
  

    
Ban political advertising, preferably entirely, but at least for some
period preceding an election (say, at least 30 days). This would
encounter some serious constitutional hurdles, and in my earlier days I
might have opposed it on that basis. But I'm convinced that
advertising in general is corrosive of the culture, and political
advertising is pure poison. (Not that it couldn't be detoxified to a
considerable extent by putting strict controls on content, e.g., no
pictorials, head shots only -- but that would create more
constitutional problems than an outright ban, I think.)
  

    


Matt Langley writes:



A dialog is all well and good. We democrats are very good at dialog. The fact
of the matter is, the people that were motivated by the war machine to vote
for their own oppression in this election are beyond dialog. They were
manipulated by a sophisticated propaganda machine that fed them what they
were supposed to say and how they were supposed to react from November 3rd
2000 on. Free Thought got trumped by Fear and Oppression because Free Thought
played by the rules…wait for the election and then present the case. By that
time there was no hope in defending Free Thought. Free Thought’s defense only
confirmed Fear and Oppression’s pre-programmed response – they say our leader
is misrepresenting the truth so he must be telling the truth because He said
this is how the attack would come.

I think the election was call to action for the free thinkers; those with
consciences and the ability to see through the façade of Fear and Oppression.
Here’s why. We busted our butts getting out the facts about or leader’s
deceptions because we thought our exposure of the insincerity of the
leader” would ring true with everyone. The fact of the matter is our attacks
and appeals to reason and logic fell on deaf ears because Fear and Oppression
had programmed the “receivers” well in advance. I refer to the receivers as
those whose ideas are programmed by the input of Fear and Oppression only –
they do not respond to reason. They “believe” and that is good enough for
them. I mistakenly thought of these people as stupid leading up to the
election but through talking to some of them extensively immediately prior to
the election, I found that they are not stupid, they simply identified with
Bush and thought he represented their values. A large majority of these
believers” are victims of extremely calculated manipulation and I now feel no
contempt for them or their decisions.

Fear and Oppression is snowballing right now. They are scheming and planning
to take their “mandate” to the bank, cashing in on the labors of the
oppressed and free thinkers alike. They have successfully silenced critics by
making criticism suspect and they have exploited the faith of the oppressed
to the extent that “We The People” are now divided into Believers and
Blasphemers. Free Thought is now supposed to be regrouping. Free Thought is
now supposed to be thinking about mending our mistaken ways and adopting the
ways of the “receivers” because we lost the “election”.

I SAY FORGET THAT! That is a trap we should NOT fall into. NOW is when the
peace marches need to take place. NOW is when our voice needs to rise over
Fear and Oppression. NOW is when the inner workings of Fear and Oppression
need to be exposed at every level. NOW is when we need to accept the idea
that maybe George Bush IS a good person with good intentions who is being
manipulated be Fear and Oppression for profit and power because the “average
guy” can identify with him. NOW is when we need the solidarity of our 48% (of
those that voted) NOW is when we need to ignore the “red” and “blue” map
shown on TV and in the papers and kick the ass of the 48% - the Free Thinkers
- to get in them motion to defeat Fear and Oppression in any form. NOW is
when we need to reiterate that senseless killing in the name of oil and
colonization is WRONG. NOW is when we need to stress that acceptance of ALL
PEOPLE – Heterosexual American, African American, Native American, Scottish
American, Latin American, Asian American, American American, Homosexual
American, British, French, North Korean – is the only way we will ALL BE
FREE. NOW is when we need to email each other, have meetings, have canvasses,
have concerts, have sit ins, have teas, have round tables, encourage any and
all contact between ALL PEOPLE of all colors, all persuasions, all religions,
all nationalities and all ideologies. NOW is the time when we cannot allow
this nation, or any nation, to be further divided by Fear and Oppression. WE
MUST ACT NOW to silence Fear and Oppression for this and future generations.

Matt Langley
Eliot, Maine
  

    


Patty Horridge writes:

Having read Smith’s Politics of Deceit, I was impressed with his desire to
promote civil dialogue and understanding in order to create a viable “public
sphere”, which he believes is being threatened. Therefore, it is very
disconcerting to me when I read in the press that we are a very deeply
divided nation. I don’t agree. We are a great nation because we have the
freedom to express our views and to vote our conscience. We will never all be
on the same page, thank goodness. Even though our choice was clear in this
election, the division pales in comparison to our Civil War era, the Vietnam
War, or the fight for civil rights. We are a better nation as a result of
coming through difficult times together.

Therefore, I take exception to the media’s attempt to sensationalize and make
it seem that we’ve never had it so bad. As my mother used to say…”That’s
tommyrot!” I realize they must sell news and gain market share. But I don’t
have to let it effect my basic belief system. I am disappointed that Bush
won, so I intend to continue to keep myself better informed (not just during
political campaigns), and share my viewpoints with my friends and family
(who, by the way, do not all agree with my point of view.)  

I agree 100% with Smith’s ideas for political campaign reform. And, as a
former campaign director, he is speaking directly from the horse’s mouth. If
the big money were taken out of politics, and elections were truly “publicly
run”, we would return to the public sphere Smith says we have lost. These
seem like insurmountable goals. The very people we elect are products of this
crazy process. Why would they have any incentive to change? What’s it going
to take?
  
  

    


"JSvj" writes:


Re No. <52>

I completely agree Glenn, there is no reason why multiple angles cannot be
pursued. My purpose for bringing up the vote fraud issue is simply that if we
accept the election results as confirmed the very parameters of the discus-
sion are skewed, likely leading to a great deal of soul searching which at
this point can only be framed within the parameters of not why we lost but
why we did not get more. And of course, no matter what coalition is built is
will come to naught without fair elections. The scope of the evidence is be-
coming vast BTW.

The resolve your spoke of will move to other quarters if this issue is not
spoken of early and often.

With that said and acknowledged I'm content to go on to the other issues.
  

    
#57: that's going to make it a lot rougher to unseat incumbents.
  

    


Craig Barrington writes:



I'm reading in the Glenn Smith conversation about bumper stickers on
cars and trucks and they should be used more by Democrats, Liberals &
Progressives in the Bubba states. The first one we need would allow
people to recognize the narrow and selectiveness of morality in
religion today that focuses on gay and abortion issues and is silent on
equally important issues such as war.

The question that George Bush should be asked is; would Jesus use war
or would he use the opposite approach?

I would like to see more of the following kinds of bumper stickers
across the Bubba Heartland that drives the message home.


"END THE WAR, PRAISE GOD"


Craig Barrington
  

    
Sharon, you say in #61

 > "#57: that's going to make it a lot rougher to unseat incumbents."

How so? Right now money is incumbents' big advantage. Advertising
drives the need for money, at least for a lot of money.

Public finance and spending caps, for challengers and incumbents,
would level the playing field.

Election reforms would make it much easier for people who haven't been
participating to go to the polls (joining the voters who elected the
incumbents). Citizen "juries" would help prohibit incumbents from
rigging the rules or the elections.

The only remaining advantages are pork and constituent services, and I
don't know of anything short of term limits that can diminish those
advantages. 
  

    


Nancy Moynihan writes:



The exit polls in Ohio & Florida showed Kerry ahead, they don't lie. We will
never win an election again till we expose blackbox voting. We were screwed
again.

<http://www.blackboxvoting.com>www.blackboxvoting.com
  

    
The majority of our fellow citizens believes that this country has been
hijacked by an oh-so-cosmopolitan cabal of liberal elitists whose values
and goals have nothing to do with theirs. They believe that their real
concerns and needs are dismissed, and that they themselves are constantly
ridiculed as small-town, redneck, Joe Sixpack, Rotary Club yahoos.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that there is more than a little truth
to their discontent -- just look at how non-urban, non-"cool,"  
Church-going people are portrayed on TV -- the question is, What if
anything can be done to pry this "silent majority" from the deceptive
political embrace of the conservative right?

Much has already been said on that subject in this topic. But I'd just 
like to add two words: "Listening" and "Respect."

I go back a ways, and I remember throughout the entire 1970s and 1980s you
could not get a single Democrat to address in any way two of the issues of
greatest concern to most Americans at the time: crime and welfare. We
progressives considered any talk of how crime was negatively affecting our
lives as a "cover for racism." Same with welfare. This despite the fact
that we ourselves no longer felt safe walking in our neighborhoods at
night, and despite the fact that we knew in our bones that generations of
dependency were being created by our bureauicratic welfare system.

So we ignored these issues, and we became the perennially-losing party.

Duh.

The first Democratic candidate to even dare to address crime and welfare
was Clinton. Not only that, he kept uttering a slogan that, God Forbid,
ordinary people in the heartland could actually relate to -- i.e., "I
believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, then ...  (insert
whatever programmatic solution he was calling for here)."

And what happened? He won.

Duh.

People are worried in this country. They're worried about families falling
apart, kids on drugs, lack of morality, financial pressures, the loss of
community, and now terrorism. Many of them are so desperate they've
embraced a literalist interpretation of the Bible in hopes of finding some
secure morrings in a topsy-turvy world. (And you'd have to be crazy not to
agree that the world is kind of topsy-turvy right now, so have a little
sympathy for those folks.) But one thing's for sure -- the only ones they
think are really speaking to their concerns are the Republicans.

Politics will not change in this country until we start listening to these
people with a little bit of respect and start offering progressive,
instead of reactionary, solutions to their problems and concerns.
  

    
Actually, a little more than 30% of eligible voters think that way.

29% or so don't.

The 40% that remain are the folks we need to convince.
  

    
Why not reach out to all 70% of eligible voters who think we suck?
  

    
OK.

I just think it's important to kill the 51% meme.
  

    
#63: because without advertising, challengers have few avenues to the
media, whereas incumbents can always create 'news.'
  

    
For those wondering how to communicate to the right, check out my blog
"Ritual and Revolution" at Bopnews.com. Read Ian Welsh's as well. And
if you're interested in the economic side of this, and want to follow a
good bit of technical jargon, read Stirling and Oldman as well.

The point is, as in feudalism, authoritarian leaders have captured the
rituals of a significant American subculture, the rural right. Their
rituals, from church to Friday night football, tend to reinforce all
their beliefs. The tough thing is, what holds them together makes them
impervious to lies and to efforts to point out lies from outside their
in-group.

David has a point in #65. But I would suggest an importantly different
approach. The right wing subculture has to be challenged from within
and without, not catered too. A good example: progressive religious
leaders have to speak out, with conviction. Dissonance and disagreement
among ritual leaders is a good way to subvert the supports beneath
misguided beliefs -- and advance new ideas.

We have to speak to some of their concerns, yes. Some of their
concerns are, after all, valid. It was good to have Clinton because he
kept so many awful things at bay. So I'm taking nothing away from him.
But little happened to really challenge a worldview that can be
dangerous. Shrugging off the deceptive justifications for war because
the lie is irrelevent to in-group concerns presents a danger to the
rest of the world.
  

    
Sharon, you have a point. A good one. But wouldn't it be better to
take away as many advantages as we can? Incumbents have the "news"
advantage today, and so many other advantages as well.

But I have to admit this is a significant obstacle.
  

    
Any constituency can be divided into a small hard core and a much broader
middle-of-the-road majority. We can and should try to separate the
majority of Americans legitimately concerned with declining family
stability, for example, from the much smaller hard core who think women
shouldn't work outside the home and that the Bible instructs men to take
absolute charge of their households.

It's not a question of pandering to the right. It's a question of winning
over the vast majority of people who are, in the end, quite capable of
being separated from reactionary politics given the right conditions.

The right is correvt in saying there's a cultural war in this country.  
We've got to win it the same way we've got to win the war on terror -- by
politically separating the "silent majority" (of conservatives in this
case, or in the war on terror, of Muslims) from the die-hard extremists.
  

    
You are making good points, David, especially about respect. But I
grew up among people who were already steeped in right-wing myths about
welfare, crime, big government, and various foreign menaces. 
When somebody starts yammering to me about these things, I honestly
*don't* know how to talk to them, because my honest opinion is that
they're laboring under a set of delusions that are partly attributable
to fear-mongers and partly attributable to their own inner demons.

I think my neighbors have the same obligation I do not only to listen
critically to what they're told, but to examine their own lives and
hearts for prejudices, wishful thinking, and other vulnerabilities to
deception. I honestly *don't* respect them when they disclaim those
obligations. I wish I could get into a place where I did, but I have
yet to succeed -- perhaps in part because these divergences are so
central to my relationship to my own family.

So what is somebody in my situation to do? I'd like to talk
persuasively to my Red neighbors, but I don't know how to overcome my
impulse to tear them a new orifice (speaking figuratively, of course).
  

    
Wow, I just took my first look at bopnews.com. I'm at work, but can't
wait to examine it more closely from home.
  

    
I don't know the answer to that, Druid. For me, I guess, I've gotten 
used to talking to people who are very very different than me.

I used to be a labor organizer. And I remember being amazed at people
who'd say the company would do a better job for them than the unions
would. I later learned, of couse, that sometimes they were right -- there
are a lot of corrupt unions out there. So that taught me something about
listening to people. But mostly, I just tried to show people through
everyday experience that we'd be better off organized. And over time, 
enough people came around that we won a few union votes.

Later, I worked for many years as a foreign correspondent in Islamic
countries like Afghanistan. And man, you really don't appreciate how lucky
we are to grow up in an Enlightenment-based nation until you've spent a
good amount of time talking to people who literally have no idea what
you're talking about when you tell them that back home people of every
religion live in your neighborhood and that, in fact, you don't even know 
what the religious beliefs are of your closest neighbors on either side. 

It's not that they disagreed; they simply could not comprehend what the
hell I was talking about. Like we lived on different planets.

So, for me, talking to people who think Bush respects their values is a
helluva lot easier than talking to people whose cultures and religions
have never gone through an Enlightment or Reformation process.

At least here, though they might not agree with you, they do understand
what the hell you're talking about. Mostly.