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)

Criminal Entitlement

I have insisted since my arrest that the reason I did what I did (kidnappings, raping and murdering children) was mostly in order to get revenge, or "poetic justice", for what society in general did to me as a child. I realize how pathetic this sounds as an excuse. But, I'm not saying it to make an excuse for what I did. In fact, I have also said over and over, and even in court on several occasions, that there is no excuse for what I did. The only reason I insist that I was "punishing society" for what it did to me when I was vulnerable and asking for help is because it represents a critical element in my crimes that I could have easily been defused long before I ever became violent.

In fact, I believe it underscores a critical element of all crimes that is almost always completely ignored even though it could effectively stop crime, all crime, in its tracks. I'm talking about the element of entitlement.

The one thing that all so-called "bad guys" have in common is an immediate sense of entitlement to hurt, take from, or otherwise violate another person. In fact, this sense of entitlement is so prevalent in crime that it could be used to define wrong doing in general. I have often hinted that "punishing" criminals is no more than answering crime with more crime. And, unlike fighting fire with fire, all it does is cause more pain and destruction while at the same time providing a further sense of entitlement to the so-called criminals. All "criminal justice" accomplishes is insuring the need for more "criminal justice".

The author of IN DEFENSE OF CHAOS, L. K. Samuels, spends a considerable amount of time in his book developing this same idea. He writes, "Nobody sees himself as evil" (p. 99). And he gives several examples from criminals to dictators who all believed, as I once did, that they were entitled to do what they did.

But, the problem is that our culture is built upon the principle of entitlement. Our most fundamental and basic laws themselves are a list of entitlements that we call "rights". And, every conflict that has ever developed, from who gets the "Eggo" from the toaster to world war, has been an argument over entitlement. Everyone feels entitled to do what they do, no matter how "criminal" or "heinous" it seems to someone else. And that's the problem.

What if nobody felt entitled to anything? Where does the sense of entitlement come from to begin with? What would happen if instead of telling (lying to) people about all the "rights" they have we simply informed them of their "responsibilities" instead? Like the responsibility to protect our loved ones, instead of the so-called right to be safe from harm (which is just Orwellian doublespeak if you think about it). I think there are real and meaningful answers to questions like these, and, that those answers could lead us to a better, freer, and far more compassionate reality.

(J.D. February 4, 2015)

The Three Faces of Truth

Like the Christian God, Truth had three distinct "faces" that are presented to us according to our ability to "see" and understand.

The first and most commonly perceived face of truth is what most people might call factual truth. But, it could also be called perceptual truth, or apparent truth. This is the first and most obvious face of reality itself that we all perceive through our various senses. The sky, the earth, our bodies, the air we breath; these are all perceived, or factual, truths.

It is in the face of factual truth that the vast majority of people live their lives. It is an ignorant and extremely limited view of existence, and thus we sometimes recognize it as the "small minded" reality in others, but seldom within ourselves. And yet, it is from this "little world" of factual truth that we judge each other, and end up judging ourselves. People tend to hide behind their precious facts, and use them to conceal the greater truths that typically terrify them.

Most of the "greater truths" (though they are only arguably "greater", as we shall see in a moment) exist in light of the second face of the truth, called relative truth.

Everyone knows about the "relative truth", but few understand it, and far fewer have ever managed to embrace it. This is the face of truth that tells us plainly that there is no right or wrong, good or evil, up or down; because everything exists only in relation to everything else. The relative face of truth knows for example that time itself exist only in relation to space. Time cannot and does not exist in the absence of space, nor can an evil human exist in the absence of good humans (and vice versa).

One way to better understand the difference between factual truth and relative truth is to consider how people use them to interact. Dishonest and deluded people use the factual truth to lie to other people and themselves all the time. They commonly even think of themselves as "honest" people because of their insistence on speaking only the factual truth. Christians, politicians, and lawyers usually rely on this form of deception. It is the "safe bet", and the "wide road", which is heavily defended by state, social and religious laws that are always violently enforced lest the relative truth be known.

A person who recognizes the face and value of relative truth will appear to "speak in riddles" as they strive to be more honest and respectful of the truth in general. Such a person is more interested in what their words actually convey, rather than what they say. They strive to come out from behind their words, rather than hide behind them. Their words, when taken out of context, the way lawyers, Christians and politicians love to do, appear contradictory and nonsensical. But, in context they express the relative nature of truth, and end up being more honest, even when they are factually not true.

When an honest person is confronted they might say, "but, that's not what I meant". While a less honest person will typically insist, "but, that's not what I SAID!". An honest person uses words to EXPRESS the truth, a dishonest person uses words to DEFINE it. (A careful reader might note that this is all extremely consistent with what I have written in the past about our "deception based justice system" and helps explain why such a system can only end up bringing more pain and suffering into our world, even as it claims to bring less - i.e. it's words are empty "factual" shells that do little more than conceal the relative truth of our reality that it is necessary for us to understand if we ever want to stop ignorantly causing ourselves and others to suffer.)

And finally there is the face of Absolute Truth, which I really can't say too much about because it is by definition and by necessity an indescribable truth. The Absolute Truth though is the ultimate source of all other truth. You could say it is the greatest truth of all, but you can't really compare and grade the faces of truth like that. They are each unique and crucial to the experience we call reality. And, our world, any world for that matter, could not exist without all of them together, nor could any of the faces of truth exist without all of the faces as One. I believe this to be the mystery of the Trinity that Christian's so often misrepresent (by trying to define and confine their truth with the so-called "word of God" that to an honest person is so obviously only the words of men). I also believe that all living beings are born with an understanding of the faces of truth, and how they represent the same One Being; but men, we humans, the "fallen ones", are taught to ignore and eventually forget what we knew so naturally as children.

The "prayer" in my own life (i.e. the ultimate driving principle) has always been, and yet remains, to see a day when we all remember what we have been trained to forget. Even when I was so badly deceived myself by the world of perceptions and factual reality.

I think that if a deceived man lives in the world of factual truths, and an honest man in a world of relative truths, then an enlightened man must live in the world of Absolute Truth, from which it is plain for him to see that ultimately there is only One Truth, and deception itself - death itself - is nothing more than a shadow of the truth - a shadow of life - and certainly nothing to be afraid of.

(J.D. January 28, 2015)