The Meaning Of Ignorence

I use the word, «ignorance» (sometimes deliberately misspelled as «ignorence» in order to emphasize the root of the word, i.e. to ignore) a lot. But, I seldom mean anything derogatory by it when I do. For me, ignorance is as natural as gravity, and just as pervasive.

But, to be sure, I should be clear about what I mean by ignorance insofar as it might differ from the common usage of the word. The main difference (and I would say the only significant difference) is mostly connotational. On the surface, the meaning is plain and straight forward; it means simply, the lack of knowledge. But, most people use the word to imply something more sinister than that. They use it to imply that someone is somehow inferior, or faulty because of their ignorance. When I use the word I usually prefer that such implications were not so widely emphasized, which is why I often intentionally misspell the word, «ignorence», in order to (hopefully) rid the word of some of its unwarranted baggage.

The meaning of the word, ignorence, is important to me, because it holds the key to the lack of understanding that causes so much unnecessary suffering and violence in this world. For me, ignorence is a willful act, not a passive state at all. We choose to «ignore» the very knowledge that could otherwise be freely known. But --- and this is the «key» I mentioned a moment ago --- we almost always make that choice unconsciously, or we have at least become unconscious of ever having made it.

Let me give you a simple example. Most of the time we are unconscious of our choice to breathe. So, I would say that we are ignorent of our breathing. Of course, it's a relatively simple matter in this case to become conscious of our choice, and hence, to «breathe consciously». This is a commonly practiced meditation technique. And, it is said that a «master» can (and does) essentially «meditate» continuously, which is to say that they remain conscious of their breathing, and their heart-beating, and their movements, and everything else they are doing, all at the same time. It is this «expanded consciousness» that defies ignorence. And so an enlightened master is someone who literally ignores nothing, and hence is not ignorent unless he consciously chooses to be.

To get a sense for what this might be like, we have only to work at expanding our own consciousness, usually with the help of meditation «exercises». Becoming more «conscious» means simply to become more aware of what we are doing. So, through meditation, for example, we might learn to become aware of the unconscious choices we make that define who we are (or, more precisely, WHAT we are... but that's not real important for this discussion). By doing this, even if we never achieve true «enlightenment» or complete self-awareness, we end up gaining much more control over ourselves, and our lives, as a result, which is the only real control any of us can ever have.

So, that's all ignorance, or ignorence, is to me. It is simply the unconscious choice we make to ignore what we are doing (and hence, who we are). Ignorence is the natural state of non-enlightenment. And as our enlightened teachers have so often tried to teach us, there is no shame in it.

[J.D. April 22, 2015]  

Criminal Minds, We All Have One

The simple fact that there is a popular television series called, "Criminal Minds", is indicative of the depth of ignorance that permeates our culture. It doesn't matter what the program is about; the title alone portrays the ignorance of which I speak. In another age titles such as, "Negro Mentality", or "Jew Psychology" once indicated the same kind of ignorance. It is the ignorance of prejudice and self-righteous superiority. The only purpose such program titles serve is to bespeak a class of people who are deemed inferior and undesirable, so the rest can feel superior and accepted, even though the traits that define the marginalized class are superficial and meaningless.

We know today that Negro's aren't the simple and stupid cretins they were once commonly believed to be. Instead, the culture itself that depicted them as such literally defined and created the circumstances that supported the appearance of the inferior "Negro Mentality". And Jewish people aren't the greedy and single minded herd animals that they were once commonly held to be, not just by Nazis, but by major political factions in the United States, and other countries as well, prior to the so-called holocaust. We know now that the "science" that was used to support both of these prejudicial illusions was itself the cause of so much ignorance. Negro brains are not in fact less functional than Caucasian brains, and Jewish culture does not in fact center around money and wealth. Negroes and Jews are collectively no different than any other people on earth, aside from the color of their skin or religious beliefs. And so "criminals" are no different than anyone else as well, aside from the arbitrary fact that they were caught, and convicted of a crime.

Social studies prove that nearly everyone breaks the law sooner or later. And the so-called "Criminal Mind" is no different than anyone else's mind or mentality, when taken on the average. As a matter of fact, several studies have shown and confirmed that when taken as a group, prison guards and prison inmates share very similar "mentalities" (psychological profiles) and social structures.

While the title of a show like "Criminal Minds" is bad enough, the content of such shows takes cultural ignorance to a whole new level. The producers never hesitate to use fiction while creating characters and scenarios that would and could never exist or happen in the real world. For starters, the real behavior analysis unit in the FBI has never been successful at anything except PR (and "Criminal Minds" is a direct result of this success). Their behavioral analysis have roughly the same predictive success as psychic readings. And before the movie "Silence of the Lambs" came out the only notoriety they received was for their record of failures. But, after "Silence" came out their public image changed radically, all based purely on fictional accounts of their success that involved even more fictitious criminal characters that could no more exist in reality than Count Dracula or Dr. Jekyll.

I personally use the term "criminal" to refer to people in general, not just those who have been caught and convicted. In my book, we are all "criminal" by nature, not by arbitrary "law and circumstance". I believe someday, perhaps even someday soon, I will have a lot of company.

(J.D. January 9, 2015)

The Dumbest Question In The World

Does God exist?

Anyone who sets out to answer that question - or worse, thinks they know the answer one way or the other - is severely deluded. The question itself implies the delusion. To ask if "God" exists presumes some definition of "God" to begin with. And it doesn't matter what that definition is; as soon as you define a word the word itself becomes no more than a symbol for the definition, and hence in itself is meaningless.

To ask if "God" exists is like asking if "Groking" is real. You can argue all you want about the answer, but in the end all you are really doing is arguing over the definition of "God" or "Groking", not whether he/she/it is real or "exists" at all.

So, the question was never if God exists, but rather, what is God? And that has got to be the dumbest question in the world.

God is typically defined as a "being that has, of necessity, all of these attributes: omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, concreteness", and thereby exists (!). I prefer to simply say that God is everything. Or, to put it philosophically: That that is, is God; that that is not, is not God. And if we agree in general with this definition (or something close to it) then the delusional nature of our first question becomes more apparent.

"Does God exist?" All this question really asks is, "Does the Universe exist?" Or, "Do WE exist?"

Do you?

(J.D. February 4, 2015)

Note: Quote from EMPTY IDEAS: A CRITIQUE OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY by Peter Unger

Animal Morality

If you can't put human behavior in terms of animal nature then the terminology you are using is dishonest and deceptive.

I'm not suggesting that it is incorrect tu use such terms as, "morality" when discussing human motives, only that if you do then you must include morality in your discussions of animal motives as well. It is perhaps the greatest vanity and error, in human thinking to presume that humans are generally somehow superior to all other animals; we are not. And, one can easily argue that in many ways we are inferior to other animals, even generally speaking!

(J.D. January 16, 2015)

Remembering The Truth

Any neuroscientist will tell you that we only remember a mere fraction of a percentage of everything we actually experience in life. And, the so-called memories we do have are mostly reconstructed images based on relatively little and notoriously dubious information that is actually retained by our brains. When you "remember" what you had for breakfast this morning you are relying more on your brains ability to fantasize than you are on any actual memory of what you ate. This is all confirmed and frequently studied by neuroscientists all the time, but hasn't yet quite worked its way into our social consciousness, much less our cultural philosophy.

If the direct implications of this scientific knowledge were embraced by our culture then it would undermine many of the basic tenets and principles that our entire social system is based upon. For example, our justice system alone would be forced to abandon all human testimony in court, "expert" or otherwise, as unreliable and arbitrary; which numerous studies directed at such testimony has consistently confirmed. Our current faith in human memory, both other people's and our own, would have to be abandoned along with all the cultural structures that depend on it which are intricately intertwined with all our institutions and belief systems. It would quite literally mean the end of civilization as we know it!

Of course that's not going to happen anytime soon. The power of consensus is still in effect and officially in fully inforced control of what "truths" we are allowed to assimilatein this world. But, as individuals we might be able to break away from the "norm" and think for ourselves once in a while, in private at least. And when we do then we should contemplate the information available to us, and try to understand what it means without being afraid of what that might be.

The "fact" that we only actually remember a very very small fraction of what we experience means something very shocking and important. It means that we are NOT who we think we are, because our thoughts rely on our memories. But, the fact that we can't really remember our experiences doesn't mean that they don't effect us. In fact, our experiences directly shape who, or more correctly, what we are. So there is a clear disconnection between who, or what, we really are (based on our memories) and who, or what, we really are (based on our experiences). This disconnection is the primary source of delusion, misunderstanding, and all prejudice in our world. It separates us from the truth of who, and what, we really are. And if you've been paying attention in life, then you should already have at least an idea of what that "truth" is, and an even clearer idea of what it ISN'T.

(J.D. January 2, 2015)