From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Silly Thought
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:26:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.193559.27818@ariel.ec.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>In article <C09ppF.KBx@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <gaboy.725907423@well.sf.ca.us> gaboy@well.sf.ca.us (Gerald Boyack) writes:

>>>The only interesting aspect is to try to figure out why so many
>>>people clutch at any pseudo-science mysticism concocted by
>>>Capra/Penrose ilk.

>>>To say that the pseudo-science mysticism writers are snake oil
>>>salesmen does not answer the question of why so many people, in
>>>this day and age of education and information availability, buy
>>>the stuff.

>>I would say that this explains why they are so effectively spread, but it
>>doesn't explain why people are attracted.  It's certainly a good point though.

>For a good, if somewhat Freudian, explanation, see THE NEW NONSENSE 
>by Charles M Fair.  His theory is that most people cannot handle 
>a secular zeitgeist.  

I have not heard of the book.  What's his explanation?  It seems to me that
it's a lot easier to "handle" secularism (since it can at least potentially
be understood) than mystical silliness (which is incomprehensible and 
unprovable).  What's Fair's explanation?

>I haven't seen any other books on the subject:  
>most skeptical books consist of anecdotes, frothy outrage, and, on 
>occastion, financial challenges.

true enough.  I can relate to the frothers though.  It is really
aggrivating to be bombarded by such thorough nonsense which is immune to
rational discussion.  It's even worse when the folks insist that they
are using reason and science even though they are doing no such thing.
Folks like Capra do more to hurt science than any open mystic since 
they give science a bad name.

>>>As is the case for many questions, there is probably a
>>>combination of answers.  There is probably is an element of the
>>>need for the mother's breast, and for dreams of power to survive,
>>>but I feel that there is also a strong element of anti-science
>>>obsession.  Those who do not think deeply believe that the
>>>development of the atomic bomb caused the worrisome and expensive
>>>cold war, and that the development of pesticides caused all the
>>>ills of the body extant, and that the engineers who developed
>>>motors caused the oil spills.  Anything that suggests that
>>>scientists and engineers are both demonic and stupid has appeal
>>>to the unthinking, of whom there are seemingly more than there
>>>are homeless people on the news.

>>I think there's more than a little anti-science and anti-achievement
>>sentiment at work here.  If you are a fairly ineffective person (or see
>>yourself as essentially pathetic), every scientific discovery, engineering
>>achievement, or business success is seen as a slap in the face.  When such
>>people are confronted by the obvious evidence that others are bettwe
>>in certain ways than they are, the need to deny this is often strongly
>>felt.  Ayn Rand called it "Hatred of the good for being the good"...something
>>more evil than envy.

>There is always a group of unsuccessful people who would tear down 
>the society that they resent if given the chance.  These people feel 
>that their own lives are unsuccessful, and blame others.  The 
>Chinese Red Guard is an example of a group that hated "the good for 
>being the good".

Indeed.  So is the Democratic party!

>But neo-Wagnerians like Rand (sorry, couldn't resist) 

Sheesh!  Wagner and Rand are pretty close to opposites.  I suppose they were
both outspoken people with strong opinions, but that hardly makes here a
"neo-Wagnerian".

>tend to overlook 
>the frequently swinish behavior of the "good".  Example:  in the High 
>Middle Ages, when the Church became wealthy and started commissioning 
>wars and art, it launched the idea that The Poverty of Christ was 
>a blasphemy:  Christ was actually wealthy (the Frankincense invested 
>wisely, you know).  The resentful peasants (who were not permitted 
>to read subversive works like the Bible) and lower clergy began 
>whispering that the "AntiChrist" was in Rome, as a false prophet among 
>false Christians.  The Cult of the AntiChrist certainly is an example 
>of hating the good for being the good---but also, the good weren't 
>really all that good.

But that's not what I'm talking about (and I don't think the church was
"good" anyway).  If a person or group is mixed in some way, say, a
great composer with a bad personality and bad politics like Wagner, if
he becomes a hated figure because of his bad characteristics, that's perhaps
justified.  But if he is hated BECAUSE of his great musical ability, that's
the nasty attitude I'm discussing.

>Now, imagine that it is nearly a thousand years later, and you work 
>45 hrs weekly in a dead-end job with 2 weeks vacation, a half-hr 
>commute, declining benefits, and hazardous working conditions.  You 
>never had a chance to go to College, and your kids probably won't 
>either.  "Good" does not consist of Great Art, it consists of decent 
>dental care for the kids and some recognition of one' humanity from 
>one's employer (you know, that Malibu State U guy who's read all of 
>Rand's books and is subsequently Expressing his Individuality at 
>the expense of everyone else).

If that's what you think Rand wrote, you ought to go back for a little
review.  She said that such individualism is to everyone's advantage,
not their expense.

>Of course, like Marlon Brando, you would like to have been among the 
>Good, to have been A Contender.  But, like that poor thug in The 
>Waterfront, you aren't, and it wasn't your fault, either.  So you 
>try to be one, pretend to be one, or take solace in the Bible's 
>promise that God watches every sparrow.  Just like people among The 
>Good like to believe that their Goodness is a result of their own 
>virtue, those not among The Good prefer to believe that their 
>unhappy lot is a result of accident, or even malice.  And while The 
>Good might deny it vehemently, often it is accident, and occasionally  
>even malice.

I agree that this happens, but I think it's a misguided view.  I assume
you would agree, right?

>>>I wonder why the modern mysticism muddlers have not organized
>>>into some sort of formal religion.  Perhaps they have and I do
>>>not know about it.   Anyone know of such a religion?

>>It's what is loosely called the "new age" movement.  It's sort of a mishmash
>>of every kind of irrational and anti-scientific belief.  If you visit one
>>of those new age book stores, you'll find the works of people like 
>>Capra, Penrose, and their friends displayed prominently.

>So many people look for some place where they belong, some 
>movement with some humanity.  The New Age, Christian Funda-
>mentalism, Self-Help, (Libertarianism) are all examples of 
>new movements that are providing what the Establishment does 
>not:  a moral and ontological foundation with some humanity.

Such movements are easy to adopt too.  You don't really have to read any books,
have a thorough understanding of any ideas, or anything like that.  All one
has to do is learn to mouth some senseless platitudes and keep quiet about
any doubts or inconsistencies one sees.  Learning all of the truths about
these issues would actually take some mental effort...something lacking 
in this intellectually flabby age.

--Brian