All Cultures Are Not Created Equal

Let’s get this out of the way, because it has to be said.  All men are created equal – but all cultures are not.  I am tired of the ridiculous farce we perpetrate on a daily basis here in the United States, and most of the rest of western civilization.  For reasons of political correctness, we blithely contend that “one culture isn’t better than another,” and that “you can’t judge other people based on your own values.”  This being a nice clean blog, I will say only this.  Both of those statements are complete nonsense.  Of course some cultures and values are better than others.

Before I defend that statement, I want to be sure we understand what we’re talking about.  A culture is the way of life of a group of people.  Values describe those things and behaviors which are esteemed and important to the group.  Culture provides a construct for understanding the world and for interaction with other persons and the environment. Values define what will be encouraged, or what will not be permitted within the culture.  Formally or informally, we impart our culture and values to our children.  Our shared culture gives them context for understanding who they are and how they fit into the big scheme of things.  Our shared values define how they can achieve success, meaning, happiness, and honor in life.

Consider this philosophical question.  If no one set of morals is any better than any other, then why have any systematic morals at all? If no world view or set of behaviors is better than any other world view or set of behaviors, then we should not waste time teaching our children to believe certain things or to behave in certain ways.  Moral structures by definition distinguish between correct and incorrect views and behaviors; they are implicitly discriminatory.  That does not mean they are wrong.  On the contrary, if we do not affirm that some values and behaviors are better than others, then we have opened the door to all forms of abuse and injustice.

I’m sure some reading this will want to tell me that I am espousing opinion, not fact.  Perhaps that is true.  Opinion cannot be proved, and fact can.  I cannot scientifically prove that some cultures are morally superior to others because the definition of morally superior exists only in human consciousness, not in the objective reality of the world outside.  But I can reason with you, show you why I believe as I do.  If you will accept certain basic beliefs – axioms – as true, then I can use those to prove the validity of my statements about the relative moral value of cultures.  Consider whether you can agree to this premise; it is my most basic belief about morality:  “That which affirms or increases life, dignity, liberty, and joy is morally preferable to that which denies or decreases life, dignity, liberty, or joy.”  If you can accept that statement, you will be able, with me, to discern whether certain traits, behaviors, or beliefs are, or are not, positive cultural characteristics or values.  

Cultures in which people are respected and have rights are morally superior to cultures in which people are oppressed.   A culture has value in proportion to the dignity it ascribes to its members and its environment.  A culture that routinely torments or segregates or kills dissidents or those who are different, that arbitrarily assigns rights and prerogatives to some persons but not others, that distinguishes between persons who have value and dignity and others who are expendable, that permits or encourages destruction of the natural environment – that culture is morally lacking and inferior to a culture in which all persons are valued, human dignity is respected, and the natural world in which we live is not abused.  

There are three main reasons why many people illogically (and perhaps immorally) contend that all cultures and values are of equal value. 

·         In the first group are persons who have never thought this through.  They find it easier to mindlessly avoid the need for critical thinking than to get thoroughly involved in critiquing their own culture and perhaps finding the need to modify their own values.  They find it easier to deny the importance of cultural values than to accept a personal obligation to live a moral life.  They fail to affirm positive cultural characteristics and values, and that in turn makes it more likely that their culture and values will degenerate into anarchy or oppression.

·         The second group is made up of persons who fear confrontation.  They may have seen historical precedent of one group imposing its culture and values upon another.  They may have noticed how intolerance of the past resulted in wars and oppression.   They fail to realize that affirming positive cultural values such as human worth and mutual respect makes confrontation less likely. 

·         The third and final group is made up of persons who draw an unwarranted conclusion.  They believe that any form of moral absolutism (believing in higher values) necessarily implies condemnation of all others.  That is not the case.  There are many morally neutral aspects of all cultures.  For instance, there is no moral advantage to eating with a fork rather than with chopsticks.  This is a morally neutral cultural characteristic.  There is no moral advantage to singing in a major key rather than a minor key.  It is a morally neutral cultural characteristic.  A proper appreciation for human dignity and individual moral responsibility, on the other hand, is a positive cultural characteristic with moral value, which will prevent oppression rather than fuel it.   An attitude of tolerance is itself a positive cultural characteristic and value, and failure to treat others with respect, even though they are culturally different, is in and of itself a moral failure. 

You still don’t think one culture may be morally superior to another?   Consider these questions. 

·         Was apartheid in South Africa an acceptable state of affairs because it was ingrained in the South African culture? 

·         Were the values of the Nazi party morally equivalent to those of all other groups?

·         Was slavery acceptable because it was at the heart of the culture of the antebellum American South?

Now here’s a dangerous one, because it deals with current reality rather than historical example.  Is it morally defensible to force a woman to cover herself from head to toe, prevent her from driving or being in public except in the presence of a male relative, or to stone her for the crime of having been raped?  No?

Not all cultures, not all values, are morally equivalent. 

Of course that does not mean that our own culture is the most moral culture.  It is our responsibility to use moral discernment to affirm the positive in our culture, and to change that which we find morally inferior.   Even if we conclude that our culture is morally superior in some ways to another, that does not necessarily give us the right to force change upon the other.  Go back to the axiom.  Any proposed action should “affirm or increases life, dignity, liberty, and joy.”  If it does not, we have no moral justification to act.  A positive example is always permissible.

Some parting warnings:

·         Do not use these comments as justification for intolerance or arrogance.  Intolerance and arrogance are morally indefensible.  

·         Realize that most cultural differences are a matter of preference, not of morality, morally neutral, and not subject to change by any appeal to cultural imperative or morality.  As Thomas Jefferson said, “Not every difference of opinion is a difference of principle.”

·         Realize that we may discover a morally superior characteristic in another place or people, as well as in our own midst.  It is our responsibility to affirm our rightness, when it is in evidence, and to humbly accept correction, when necessary. 

Now, go forth to increase life, dignity, liberty, and joy.

Gryphem

Discoveries About Life #2: "Courage"

Courage is an admirable quality which consists in facing fear and acting in spite of it, for some higher purpose.  Acting in spite of fear for no purpose is foolishness. 

Sometimes acting in spite of fear is deadly.  Sometimes acting in spite of fear makes one stronger.  Not knowing for sure what the result will be is what makes the act courageous.

How you live is more important than how you will die.

The most vulnerable experience a human being can know is falling.  Leaping from a cliff is an act of intentional vulnerability, usually intended to demonstrate the invulnerability of the jumper.  It may result in demonstrating invulnerability or foolishness.

If it puts someone else at risk, rather than yourself, it is not courage.

How NOT to Run a Scam - Some Free Advice from Gryphem

THE INTRODUCTION

I pay attention to advertising.

Why, you wonder?  Well, it’s not to decide how to spend or what to buy.  No.  I pay attention to television and radio commercials because I have always been intrigued by people who attempt to trick or mislead others. 

I am astonished how cheaply some businesses, their ad writers and spokespersons will sell their honor.  Provably false prevarication presented to the public for a little profit. 

Sometimes, when the deception is particularly dishonest or crass, I get upset.  More often, I am amused.  I am particularly amused when the would-be deceiver is really inept or misinformed or amateurish.  I take a lot of satisfaction in shining the light of day on their deceit. 

Here’s an example I found in an on-line advertisement for financial services.  It’s far from the worst I’ve seen, even recently.  But it is amusing in its combination of self-deception (‘Did they really think they were going to fool anyone with this?’) and utter incompetence. 

I’ve made a few inconsequential minor changes in order to protect myself legally.  The same people who would lie to get your money in an advertisement would be just as happy to take your money by means of a lawsuit.

THE ADVERTISEMENT

Jim Bixley, Consultant

Bixley Lending

Tarrant County, TX

Dear Sir,

Good day to you. My name is Jim Bixley, I saw your profile on online, we are private loan lender we work with angel investor too.
However, we can assist you with loan and also bank instrument such as BG/SBLC to enable you finance all your projects. Kindly get back to me so that I can give you more details.
I await your mail.

Jim Bixley
BIXLEY LENDING SERVICE

THE RESPONSE

Hey, Mr. Bixley, you’re kidding, right?  No?  Wow. 

Well, I’m going to do you a favor.  I’m going to show you just how poor you are at this scam game.  Not because I want to help you trick people.  No… the fact is, your incompetence is so blatant that I feel sorry for you.  Also, I have this irrational expectation that if you were to realize just how bad you are at this, you might quit doing it and get a real job.  Unrealistic, I know.  But hope springs eternal. 

The essence of your failure lies in your inability to speak English.  Yes, I know you are proud of your language skill.  But no native English speaker is ever going to believe that you are who you say you are, because you just don’t sound like Jim Bixley from Texas.  You might be Jawad from Karachi, or maybe Udo from Lagos, but definitely not Jim from Fort Worth.

If you ever aspire to success in the lending-scam business, you need to work with a native English speaker.  You should be able to find a native speaker easily enough, with the high U.S. unemployment rate.  Although most Americans remain scrupulous about niggling points like obeying the law, I am sure that a certain percentage of those unemployed Americans wouldn’t be too put off by the questionable legality of your venture. 

This will work best if you try to get someone from the area where your fictitious personality is supposed to be from.  You may not be aware that there are many distinct accents in a country as big as the United States, and credibility might be strained if the accent doesn’t fit the location.  Here are a few specific pointers drawn from your Bixley Lending scam ad… just for starters.

People from Texas do not say “Good Day” unless they are telling you in no uncertain terms to get out.  Go away.  Leave.

You might not know this from watching old western shows on television, but modern Texans rarely use the word “kindly.”  It might have been common among cowboys a hundred or more years ago, but it has fallen into disuse.  Any Texan who does use the word “kindly” today is either being excessively formal (see "good day" above) or  possibly calls everyone “pardner” as well.

No native English speaker would use the phrase “on online.”  It is redundant.  Also seems kind of silly.

Learn to use the infinitive form of the verb.  The phrase “enable you finance” just doesn’t cut it.  You need the word “to” in there somewhere.

Apparently, “Bixley,” you are a native speaker of a language which does not utilize articles as a part of speech.  Maybe if you wrote “a private loan lender,” or “assist you with a loan,” more people would be taken in.

Evidently, “Bixley,” you are proud of the English language skills on display in this little piece of fiction you’ve created.  I concede – You would probably get by just fine on the streets of Fort Worth or Boston or Atlanta.  But no one is going to mistake you for a native speaker.

You, “Bixley,” are definitely not a native English speaker.  On a separate part of your web advertisement you claim to have “many year” in the business.  Jawad – or was it Udo? – if you can’t even use correct singular and plural forms, how do you expect anyone to believe you are Jim from  Fort Worth? 

Incidentally, I was unable to access your website.  Too bad.  I was looking forward to more entertainment.  But really, if you want to collect scam candidates by means of a website, it is best to make sure your website is working.

Here’s the bottom line, Mr. Scam Artist:  Calling yourself Jim Bixley isn’t fooling anyone.  You should get a real job instead of trying to scam nice American people. 

You should know – most of us really hate being lied to.  Yes, I know I broke one of the rules of English grammar by ending that sentence with a preposition.  It was a choice I made as a skilled speaker of English.  I know the rules well enough to break them once in a while, when I choose.  Unlike you, “Bixley” – or whatever fraudulent pseudonym you are using this month. 

There you have it, “Bixley.”  A critique of your pathetic attempt to deceive.  So you see, you actually abandoned your honor for nothing.  How do you feel about that? 

I know that you probably will not reform.  Perhaps, though, this will help you recover a little of your dignity, if not your integrity.  It’s got to be embarrassing, selling yourself for nothing.  I mean, if you’re going to scam people, at least be competent.  That way when the victims of your criminal endeavors realize they’ve been had, they will at least have the comfort of knowing that they were taken in by an expert.  As it stands now, they feel doubly bad – once for losing money to your scam, and once for realizing they were stupid enough to be tricked by a rank amateur.  When you improve the scam, your future victims will feel better about themselves.

Oh, and one last thing.  Your level of English language expertise being what it is, you undoubtedly will not understand some of the idioms and uniquely American constructions I have used in this missive.  That’s okay.  Ask your new American accomplices to help you. 

By the way, I gave you one piece of bogus advice.  If you do not identify which bit is bogus, then everyone who reads your future ads will know immediately that you are a fraud.  Good Luck.

FOOTNOTE TO GRYPHEM READERS

Did you spot the bogus advice?  Probably not, because that was a little scam of my own.  I hope “Bixley” is still frantically trying to identify the error in what I wrote to him – and that he never visits the Gryphem blog.

Gryphem

Enhanced Airport Screening: An Indecent Proposal

This post is about airport security screening in November 2010.  For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, air travelers now cannot fly without undergoing either an imaging scan that displays the nude form to an observer, or an intrusive pat-down including genital groping and potential strip-searching.

I did not at first appreciate the gravity of this issue.  I was one of the majority who had no problem with “enhanced screening” because of its perceived necessity in an era of terrorist threat.  I wish to thank those who helped me gain clarity via their comments following various stories on news websites and YouTube, by means of which I came to understand the injustice which is being done. I am confident that as the full situation becomes clearer to more people, opposition to this over-the-top procedure will grow. 

If you are new to this topic, “enhanced screening” is a term coined by the author.  It makes subtle reference to the use of torture against suspected terrorists at Guantanamo prison.  Supporters of the use of torture euphemistically called it “enhanced interrogation.”

[Euphemism: “a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive.”]

For those of you who haven’t figured out the point of view Gryphem will present, here is a pictographic foreshadow.  You will see these words again.

"Enhanced Airport Screening"

New invasive inspection techniques cross the line.

The terrorists who hate us and wish for our demise have no further need to attack us.  They have set the process of our collapse in motion and it is now continuing of its own volition.  We have become the agents of our own demise.

It is not from terrorist attack that we will fail as an American nation dedicated to freedom and equality.  Not directly, anyway.  All the terrorists had to do was inflict one wound upon us, deadly but not crippling to our nation.  In our anger, fear, and frustration, we have done the rest.

There was no reason for the attacks of September 11, 2001 to bring about the demise of freedom in the United States of America.  To think that the terrorists could have triumphed in that conflict was ludicrous.  But they never intended to defeat us themselves.  They intended to provoke a response and watch us destroy ourselves.  We have complied. 

We have allowed our values to be compromised.  Our civil liberties have evaporated because we have allowed ourselves to give in to fear, anger, and frustration.  We have gone against all previous American tradition, of the past century at least, in condoning torture.  We have allowed a right-wing administration to eavesdrop on us and hold our fellow-citizens without trial for years at a time, in direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution and established legal principle.  We have allowed a left-wing administration to impose an injustice upon the entire populace rather than make the "politically incorrect" admission that certain groups may hate us and our America.

The airport screening debacle is the latest episode in a continuing tragedy.  It provides a clear depiction of just how much of our dignity and American values we have traded for safety – or for the perception of safety.

Now, apparently, we are willing to molest, and allow one another to be molested, in the name of preventing another terrorist attack.  All must submit to screening.  This is the mandate from our federal government, and no one is immune.  All must comply - the old, the infirm, the little children.  This is being imposed upon us not by terrorists, but by our own government.  What would you think of a man who would allow his own wife and children to be imaged nude or groped, for his own safety?  Not much?  What do you think of a nation which imposes this on its own people?  This Soviet-style dictate is unprecedented in American history and tradition.

The evil ones are laughing in their caves in the remote reaches of south-central Asia.  Their work is done.  We will publicly molest our own children out of fear that they may be the tools of terrorists.  In our paranoia, terrified, we have agreed to compromise our moral convictions to attempt to buy security. 

We are abandoning our own traditional values and laws. 

• Gone is our discernment.  We now impose unjust violation upon thousands of people every day.  There is no need for probable cause to believe anyone is a terrorist; all must submit.  A track record of commitment to America and her traditional values is meaningless; all must submit.
• NOTE:  The actual translated meaning of Islam is “submission.’  Who is winning in the jihad to force us to submit?
• Gone is our commitment to protect our children.  There is no need for the terrorist to harm our children, because to protect ourselves, we will violate our own children.  If our children are victimized, that is the price we must pay to protect ourselves.
• Gone is our reason.  In most European countries, air travelers still do not have to remove their shoes.  Instead of trying to inspect every square inch of every traveler, screeners actually speak with persons boarding planes.  Those who obviously pose no threat pass with a minimum of inconvenience.  Not a bad plan.
• Gone is our sense of proportionality.  In the name of equal treatment of all ethnicities, races, nationalities, genders, we refuse to actually attempt to discern who might or might not be a threat.  The end result:  We violate everyone.
• NOTE: I do not believe all Islamic persons are terrorists, and to require all Moslem persons to undergo unjust and unreasonable violation on the basis of their religious affiliation would be an affront as great as or greater than what we now see.  However, since the terrorists who seek to cause us harm are overwhelmingly Islamic, perhaps we should adjust our procedures to recognize that simple fact.  Perhaps we should both protect the constitutional rights of Islamic persons and also begin our search for the threat among that community.  This is not violation of rights; it is good investigative and security procedure.
• Gone is our Constitution.  The supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, had been under assault in many ways throughout our history, and this is one of the more egregious affronts.  The Bill of Rights clearly states: 
• “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” 
• How can anyone reasonably argue that these procedures are NOT a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, as well as a violation of the persons involved?  [A rhetorical question…]

We have let circumstance make cowards of us all.  Some have acquiesced to injustice out of fear or hatred of those who wish to harm us.  Others have acquiesced because of apathy.  Now we must decide, once again…  Will we stand up with courage, live our values, end the injustice, be worthy of our heritage of justice, equality, and continual improvement?  Or will we stand by and watch our America die a slow cancerous death – perhaps instigated by external factors, but now destroying the body and soul of America from within. 

All people in all times have a choice.  Ours is whether to accept the challenge before us with courage, or to defend unjust and unconstitutional decrees as “necessary,” or to remain silent and “safe.”

I think it’s time to listen to the courageous Founding Fathers, who risked everything for their liberty, and ours.  I think it’s time to prove that we are worthy heirs.  I think it’s time to stand up to a government which has become at best, patronizing, and at worst, despotic.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, once more:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Oh, and one more:

"What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?"

If we do not stand up against this violation of our rights and our persons, we are in danger of losing our collective American soul.

Gryphem

Discoveries About Life #1: "Good Advice"

Feel the sun, the rain, the wind on your face as often as possible.

Never let anger spew onto the people you love.

Listen to music that makes you better.

Don’t spit into the wind.

Admit your mistakes, forgive yourself, learn and improve.  But never forget.  If you forget, you may repeat the same mistake.

Hug people you love.  Even if you're shy.

At least once per week, talk to someone you’ve never talked to before.

Never stop dreaming about places to see, stories to share, and people to meet.

The 18 Minutes: Nixon, Mao, and Ninja Turtles

In a report this morning, CNN.com reported that a Chinese company had rerouted official U.S. email through China earlier this year.

- - - - -

CNN.com Report: Chinese Company 'Hijacked' U.S. Web Traffic

“Internet traffic from several U.S. government agency sites was briefly diverted through servers in China in April, congressional investigators reported Wednesday.

“For 18 minutes, about 15 percent of all web traffic was redirected through China, including traffic to and from the sites of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, the office of the Secretary of Defense, the Senate and NASA…

- - - - -

I think CNN.com has missed the true significance of the story.  In the public interest, The Gryphem Report offers the following additional comments, which explain the rest of the story.

- - - - -

The Gryphem Report:
Mao Tse-Tung and Ninja Turtles Implicated in Watergate Scandal

Apparently, earlier this year U.S. electronic communications were routed through China for 18 minutes.

CNN.com reported the basic facts on 18 November, but failed to understand and convey the true significance of the incident.  The Gryphem Report will fill in the gaps for you.

Notice the length of time when the electronic communications were diverted.  Apparently, no one at CNN has realized that 18 minutes is precisely the amount of time missing from Richard Nixon's Watergate tapes.  Add in Nixon’s involvement with China during his presidency, and it is easy to conclude – all this is much too strange to be coincidence.

For those of you under 40, The Watergate Scandal was a series of events in the early 1970s following a burglary of Democratic Party Headquarters (in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC) by persons on President Nixon’s staff.  Nixon may or may not have ordered the break-in, but he definitely did attempt to cover up the facts after the burglary.  President Nixon was forced from office as a result of the scandal.

During the investigation it was revealed that President Nixon had secretly (and illegally) recorded all conversations in the Oval Office of the President on audiotape.  Those tapes were subpoenaed by the investigators over the objections of the administration.  When the investigators inspected the tapes, they discovered that one particular portion, 18 minutes long, had been erased.

Previously, most Americans believed that the missing minutes were erased because those minutes were when Nixon discussed the cover-up of the Watergate affair.  Now we find it more likely that that those missing 18 minutes also involved discussion of the role of China in the matter.

Consider that Nixon was the president who normalized relations with China after decades of diplomatic animosity.  Consider also that Nixon had met with Mao in February 1972, four months prior to the infamous break-in that ultimately brought down his presidency.  The conclusions are inescapable. 

In the first place, this event provides the strongest evidence to date that China was somehow complicit in the Watergate scandal. Perhaps even more shocking is the slowly-dawning realization that Richard Nixon must somehow be involved in the electronic communications leak in early 2010.  Which means that his death in 1994 was faked!

How all this was overlooked by the mainstream media establishment is a mystery.  Or perhaps not so much a mystery as… a COVER-UP!

Astonishingly, there’s more.  Notice the name of the Pentagon spokesperson quoted in the story:

“Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham said the Defense Department is concerned…”

Could this be the former April O’Neil of TMNT renown?  Who knows what her surname might be today?  The timeframe would be about right for her to have reached the rank of Lt. Col. In the Army.  And according to Wikipedia, “April… was a skilled computer programmer…

Coincidence?  I think not.

And what about the fact that the leak occurred in the month of APRIL?  Is that "coincidence" too?  I wonder what Colonel "Cunningham" would have to say about THAT?  What?  Oh.  Well, maybe.  Okay, never mind.

Still - All of this means, of course, that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are somehow involved.  Whether they are on the right side of the law remains to be seen.  It bodes well that April O’Neil once was an investigative reporter.  Perhaps she is helping the Turtles get to the bottom of it all.  And yet, consider these responses April gave in response to questions from the media.  She stated that “The security of Department of Defense information is not affected.”  She indicated that the Pentagon had “no information to confirm whether the incident occurred.”  That doesn’t sound so good.  Is she merely buying time for the Turtles to bring the culprits to justice?  Or are she and the Turtles complicit in this Neo-Watergate Affair?  We most fervently hope not.

We have some messages for those involved.

For The President and Congress:  The time has come to uncover the truth.  Please appoint a Special Investigator and/or Prosecutor at your earliest convenience.

For the Ninja Turtles, and Colonel April:  Don’t get caught up in a cover-up.  Remember – Your integrity is your greatest asset.  So do the right thing.  By the way, how is Master Splinter?  Do you have any indication that Shredder might be involved in this deception?  We have wondered about these things, but we didn’t want to jump to any conclusions…

And finally, for Mr. Nixon:  First of all, great job on the faking your death thing.  What are you now, about 98 years old?  And now that we’ve said that, didn’t you learn the first time that crime doesn’t pay?  Sorry to have to bring your attention to this, but there will be no Gerald Ford to help you this time.  Also, Mr. Nixon, we’d appreciate it if you would prepare in advance - We have a lot of questions that need answers.

Has anyone seen David Frost lately?

Gryphem

Paranoia on the Horizon

I am getting really paranoid.

Last night I watched a television show in which the premise was that some alien force has been monitoring the human race secretly for God-knows-how-long.   They are benign, and only watching out for us… we think.  Although, who really knows why they are bothering with us?

According to the story, the alien overseers stay secret to prevent mass panic.  If the situation were real, I think their reason for remaining unseen would be to prevent utter loss of confidence and motivation among the entire human race.  What would be the effect on human persons and societies if they knew that all the human history they learned, all the world events they have witnessed, are at worst a lie, and at best a farce on a stage, orchestrated by some extra-human force.  It would destroy our self-confidence, our pride.  It would destroy our sense of what is real.  It would destroy our ability to trust anyone, or even to trust the validity of what we think we know.  It would destroy our sense of being in control of ourselves, our free will.  We would be reduced to the status of dependents, or slaves.  If we learned that alien overseers had been monitoring us, how then could we know even that we would have created or evolved as a civilization if those aliens hadn’t stuck their noses (if they have any) into our business?

Certain humans in last night’s story go to extremes to keep the alien presence secret.  At first they seem like bad guys, aiding and abetting the enemy.  But when called to account for their actions, they protest that they will do anything to preserve our way of life.  Unlike the protagonists, the protectors of the secrets recognize (and the viewers come to recognize) that as long as the aliens remain secret, human events will continue along as before.  Our society will continue, our place in the universe will continue, life will go on.  Once the alien puppet masters are known, however benign though they may be, all human accomplishment is shown to be a lie; the myth of human free will is exposed as a lie.  It’s as if we have been living in a fantasy world, created by and monitored by the others.  Our belief in human worth would be challenged.

Seriously, one of the things that makes me a little paranoid is that even if this premise is contrary to our common experience, it does provide a logically consistent explanation for the explosion in human knowledge, the technological advances, the drastic changes in society that have continually accelerated over the past century…  Or the past seven centuries…  Or maybe for the past 12,000 years.

Then this morning, I read a story about a new development in theoretical physics.  As if the concept of quantum uncertainty wasn’t enough, now we have physicists proclaiming that they have developed a workable plan for “cloaking.”  Okay, I thought - invisibility.  We’ve been thinking about that in a science fiction way forever.  But no, invisibility isn’t the whole story.  This predicted phenomena is like the science fiction concept of being “out-of-phase” and thus utterly undetectable to the rest of the universe.  No, these physicists, not content with mere invisibility, say it is theoretically possible, by manipulating the speed of light (didn’t Einstein say that was against the law of the universe?), to “cloak” something not only in space, but also in time.  Space-and-time cloaking...  According to this theory, we observers might be unable to see a cloaked event happening in our presence, unable to know of it even after it has happened.  This is so far out it seems less like physics than metaphysics. 

A completely meaningless but ironic sidebar… One of the expert commentators on the ‘cloaking’ story has been researching invisibility technology at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.  It is possible that I’ve heard of the University of St. Andrews before, but if I have, I don’t recall.  Except that it figured prominently in today’s headline story about the engagement of Prince William, heir to the throne of the United Kingdom.  Apparently it is where the Prince met his future bride, when they were students there.  Hmmmm…. Invisibility… temporal displacement… a future king and queen… a remote Scottish school… I can’t decide if it’s a significant geotemporal confluence of world-shaping events, or an episode of ‘Star Trek meets Hogwarts.’

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is

indistinguishable from magic.”  (Arthur C Clarke)

In any case, according to the cloaking theory, all our human senses may become unreliable.  According to these theoretical physicists, something could be happening in my presence that would be utterly undetectable, yet nevertheless completely real.  Actuality and appearance could be completely divorced... Truth and experience could be completely divorced…  Leaving us adrift in the universe, physically, mentally, emotionally, morally adrift… truthfully not knowing – incapable of knowing – fantasy from reality.

This theory proposes that the universe and our ability to comprehend it might be headed for a fork in the road – universal possibility going one way, our ability to perceive going the other.  This way lies true insanity.  Insanity for all humanity.  Insanity would be the only possible state in a world in which there is no discernable connection between observation and abstract reality.

Add all this to this my recent musings about nature and the supernatural, about God and technology.  Although I am a thinker and a rational person, I am also basically a technophobe.  I champion the supremacy of the analog (that which is perceived) over the digital (that which is mathematically demonstrated).  But a few days ago, I had a thought… What if the creator of the universe intends for us to comprehend the universe, at least in part, through abstract mathematics, divorced from everyday experience?  After all, if the universe can be described mathematically, in terms of quantum probabilities or hyper-dimensional space, then why shouldn’t we attempt to wrap our minds around those alternative ways of perceiving reality?  What if my emphasis on the human experience is misplaced? 

I do not believe this is the case.  I do not believe that the creator ever intended for ordinary human beings to find new ways to experience the universe that are totally separate from our natural means of interaction with the world.  I firmly believe that the human experience, as experienced through the senses, interpreted by the intellect, colored by emotion, is the essence of reality.  I believe that persons who perceive the universe in ordinary ways are perceiving reality, that human self-awareness and emotion and rational thought are the breath of the divine in us.  But I also realize that my understanding may be incomplete.

Here are my thoughts on these matters. 

• In the first place, if there are extra-human forces out there, I want them to go away.  Our destiny is our own.  If we live or die, it must be our own doing.  (Sidebar:  How does this statement color my understanding of the current state of US foreign affairs?  A topic for another time…) 
• Secondly, if there is any theoretical possibility of creating a capability to hide events in both time and space, I want that capability to be prevented or nullified.  The danger to humanity from such a development is greater than the danger posed by nuclear weapons.  We are creatures of time and space, and to remove us from time and space (or vice versa) will destroy us. 
• Our human experience is paramount.  Anything that implies that we are not acting from free will is a damnable prevarication.  Or should be.  Anything that states that the time and space in which we live are not reliably consistent is a damnable prevarication.  Or should be.
• Finally, I believe that we have been created to live in this universe as it is, to perceive this universe as we do, to be fully human.  We were not created to be some other type of creature operating in other dimensions contrary to the actual, universal human experience.  We should embrace our humanity, not seek to escape it.  I acknowledge that the creator of all is unlimited, that anything is possible.  I concurrently affirm that we the people of this time and place and planet and universe were created to live here, in this plane of existence, in ways that are consistent with the universe as it has been revealed and perceived and understood by all persons in all times.

I realize that I have not set forth everything I should have about these matters.  These thoughts are perhaps not fully logical, not fully expressed, not fully coherent.  Nevertheless, they do encapsulate a broad and serious concern for my people, my human race, my planet.  They do state my initial rejection of concepts and entities and forces which may present an unprecedented, exotic, and possibly unfathomable threat to our existence and perhaps even our reality.  

I thought it more important to get these ideas out there in the public arena for discussion, rather than waiting until they are comprehensive, logically consistent, and systematic. 

This is all the more true as we are only two years away from the end-date of December 2012.

I told you I was getting paranoid.

Gryphem