Monday, June 23, 2008

Idols of Convention

A heretic is one who refuses to genuflect before the idols of convention. Though heresy is usually perceived as occurring in religious contexts, that toward which we hold religious zeal does not have to be religion at all. In fact, profanities can only be lodged toward that which we hold as true and dear, and in our post-modern age truth increasingly has little to do with religion.

Of course, we've come up with truths to replace the church and there have been heretics to make trouble. Consider, for instance, the blasphemous nature of Robert Anton Wilson's statement below:

" Democracy has been less than a total success--and the intellectuals' half-shamed cynicism about democracy is justified--to the extent that traditional society did not need, could not use, and in many ways discouraged the development of high verbal ('rational') skill in the majority of the population. That is, concretely, most people are not encouraged to be very smart, and are rather heavily programmed to be comparatively stupid. Such programming is what is needed to fit them into most traditional jobs. Their bio-survival circuitry works as well as that of most animals, their emotional-territorial circuitry is typically primate and they have little third-circuit 'mind' to verbalize (rationalize) with. Naturally, they usually vote for the charlatan who can activate primitive bio-survival fears and territorial ('patriotic') pugnacity. The intellectual looks at the dismal results and continues to believe in "democracy" only by an act of Blind Faith similar to the way beliefs in Catholicism or Communism or snake-worship are maintained.


Stevenson, McGovern and other darlings of the intelligentsia were speaking to the third circuit, which is not very highly developed in most domesticated primates yet. Eisenhower in his Father way, and Nixon in his bullying Big Brother way, knew how to push the right Second-Circuit emotional-territorial buttons to get a lot of primates to follow them."

Unfortunately, it's rare that democracy gets likened to snake worship. Say something to most people about the dubious merits of electoral politics as a vehicle for significant change and you might as well say Lake Wobegone is fictional or that apple pie isn't American.

When such heresies rattle the cage of religiosity, invocation of the saints and their self-affirming statements is usually the first resort. "Well as Saint Churchill says, 'Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have,' " becomes the incantation of the democracy devotee. The correctness of the quotation is hardly the point here, rather it is the belief, so spurned by the religion skeptic, that performs an identical faith-like function. Belief in "democracy" has the same selective basis in reality as the pork-eating fundamentalist who proclaims homosexuality "an abomination".

No one is without beliefs. Since the rise of the bourgeoisie (around the time of Martin Luther 1483-15346 and Descartes 1596-1650), intellectuals have pertinaciously sought to shuck off of anything that smacks of the church, in the errant belief that it is only the church that is the domain of belief-oriented sentiments that should be greeted with skepticism. Consequently, popular atheistic social intellectuals marshal evidence to show that religion is a particularly pernicious form of fanaticism, for which national democracy is the panacea (except in cases where national democrats oppose the colonial superstructure, see H. Chavez, Iran, and Indonesia ).

Well everyone has their sacred cow. No? Depending on whom you ask, no doubt, you're going to hear how some cows are more sacred than others. The Christian defenders will trumpet the "Call of God" to murder and maim, while the Shintoist murders and pillages in the name of "the eternal tradition." The Capitalist will torture with preemptive altruism, while the Colonialist will take up his burden by slaughtering the hopelessly benighted. Of course, the Animist will kill because of the "evil eye" or other such "forces."

Religion apologists observe that nationalism has killed far more people than religion ever has. This seems a somewhat disingenuous argument, because there have been many more people living in the nationalist era than in the religious era. If you're wondering when the religious era existed, we're essentially talking about the time before people had sugar in their apple pie, before Columbus.

As Woody Allen reminds us, one is never at the top of one's game when on the defensive. The religion apologists appear to be in a similar predicament, otherwise they would parry their detractors with a more systematic critique of some of the logical shortcomings of nihlo-materialism and its idols, particularly consumerism and "efficiency".

It doesn't matter. We all have idols. Understanding the psychological aspects of idolatry gives us some way to understand how religion or nationalism function as only nominally different emanations of the same brain phenomenon. The elegance of Wilson's Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness is that we can avoid engaging in the deadend debates about which is better: nationalism or theocracy; racism or linguisticism; materialism or spiritualism. Whenever such comparisons occur, the territorial needs of the second circuit, that part of the brain that is identical in other primates, is being served.

The defense of territory, whether conceptual or physical, is a non-rational phenomenon, meaning behaviors motivated from the second circuit do not involve thought; it is only performing the function of establishing dominance or submission. It is the realm of posture and as Wilson essentially states fear and safety seeking.

This is why American cultural prohibitions against speaking politics and religion are so uncannily profound: no amount of talking can change feelings that run much deeper than the rational mind. Of course, religion adherents make no claims about the rationality of their beliefs, but the democrat believes that his system is born of reason. Nothing could be further from the truth, otherwise one would be able to speak upon his political positions, particularly in the company of those who disagree, without fear of ostracism, disdain, emotive display or other reactions reflective of animals that run in packs.

This does not mean that one's political decisions by matter of course are sub-rational. It only indicates a strong tendency toward irrationality that savvy superstructures exploit to their benefit. These very same entities understand that the greatest tool at their disposal is the individual fear of being outside the pack, i.e., unconventional. As such, whether the papacy or the contemporary voting charade, superstructures are careful to construct idols, much as Aaron's golden calf, that affirm convention.



Monday, June 16, 2008

Food: Not for Spectators

People who know me are aware that I'm a bit of a food enthusiast. From my time at Pastabilities, a gourmet purveyor of fresh pasta for the local restaurants in Ann Arbor to the thorough gustatory schooling I received on numerous occasions in China, I have come to appreciate the art form of food above all others. There's something more meaningful about art that requires more than idle spectatorship.

I primarily like participating in food when I travel. If Thailand didn't have rockin' food I don't think I'd be much for visiting it, and I wonder just how much Los Angeles' food keeps me here. After all, we have Thaitown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Tokyotown, Monterrey Park, Chinatown, Little Saigon... a veritable universe of some of the best eats in the world.

When it comes to national cuisines, I always feel a twinge of guilt when communing with my French friends (I know I should tap it out but other issues appear more pressing). Anyway, the guilt stems from feeling that I should be on the French food bandwagon as much as the French, if that's possible. It seems much of the world, and certainly the Chinese have bought into the French food mystique, but I just don't know what's wrong with me. Can anything really top the spicy fish soups of Thailand? DISCLOSURE: I know a French woman and she is perhaps the best cook I've ever known, though I quake imagining the umbrage my New York crew would take with such an admission.

Let's catch our breaths, shall we?



There are different things that I like about different places' food, but I'm not eating out much less lately. Sure, expense matters but when it comes down to it quality matters more, and it's rare that a restaurant can do better than I with simple fresh ingredients. When I came back from Thailand, I realized how horribly dead my diet was. I was eating too much frozen, packaged stuff. There's a certain convenience to such stuff, but it leaves an unsatisfied feeling that makes me eat more when it is not quantity my body craves but quality.

There is an energetic zing to the restaurant food of Thailand. Thai food culture is partly interesting because people by and large do not prepare food themselves. Perhaps it has to do with the complexity of making the sauces and curries, but in any case, unless one is looking to roll in a fancy restaurant, prepared food is cheap, delicious, and fresh.

Freshness is noticeable when you get the opportunity to eat primarily locally grown food. Unless you live in California that opportunity isn't happening much and probably not in proportions necessary to make any difference health-wise. That's what's great about being in places like Thailand and China, getting the right proportions is easy and inexpensive. I understand that until very recently things were like that in France as well.

I regularly procure my vegetables from Hmong. They're the only ones who grow all the fabulous greens eaten in China. Besides the Hmong table, there aren't many Asian farmers to speak of, though there are a few Japanese who sell what everybody else sells: spinach, squash, avocados. There is, however, one Japanese couple that hock a delectable variety of concord-type grape, called Kyoho (the wiki translation here might be a little off. The second character 峰 means mountain peak not just mountain), which becomes available in mid-September.

Chinese of China are avowed meat eaters, but they know more than a thing or two about eating greens. I don't mean beans and rice, corn or potatoes, limas or beets, or even cabbage. I mean real live greens: bok choi, hom choi (Cantonese), gai lan (Cantonese), collards, broccoli, turnip, gai bai sen (Viet), chard and spinich. Prices have gone up a little less than 25% from recent robust action in the oil futures, but still the quality and prices are much more competitive than what you'll find in grocery stores. This is quite different from the farmer's markets in the DC area, where you'll pay pretty pennies or in Dallas, which doesn't have much variety.

One of the things I came to appreciate in China for the first time was dinner parties. Back in the 90s when Beijingers were still riding bicycles, we always found ways to gather for excellent food and stories. Next to locality, spices are the most important part of a dish, especially when you want to wow guests with something they haven't tried before. Sure, often plain greens are just what the doctor ordered. Sometimes a little garlic is in order. Other times, it's really a matter of going for the artistic gusto. That's when I like to get my boy Dhiraj's spices to vaingloriously create "my own" dish.



Contrary to my unorthodox nature, I've done no experimenting with the "Gobi" pack because the curry with cauliflower (or broccoli) is so dynamite that I know there's no improving upon perfection. The blend has citrusy high notes that I have never experienced with any Indian cuisine, yet it's dynamically balanced by roasted cumin. Friends who've had a change to try it out, always ask me about it. Among the other blends, I find the shrimp pack highly conducive to experimentation. The other day, I stir-fried some broccoli, adding the Goa Shrimp pack with udon, shoyu, ginger, and a little fish. Yowzaa!!

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Orthodox Economics

Most of you probably won't read this article because, if you're like me, just the mere mention of the "e" work excites such intense bleary-eyed blahs, that you'd much rather move on to find out the latest on Brittney or Obama.

Mind you, whenever I think of economics and finance, I get this "let me crawl to my hole because economists do calculus so much better than I" feeling that I just don't want to be bothered. Admitted, their reasoning skills go beyond that of the common mortal more concerned with whom the Pistons are going to pick up next season than with say, the relationship between international trade agreements and the deluge of economic refugees from Latin America.

Yep, financiers and economists are very "critical thinkers," just about as critical as most journalists for whatever Times or Journal of your choosing. Basically, they're critical about what they're supposed to be critical, for as long as it is permissible to be critical. Some may call this a criticality of convenience, which doesn't account for much, but it sure is "smart" if you wanna keep your job and keep everyone impressed with how astute you are for spouting the cliche du jour.

Remember how they waxed euphoric about Argentina's economy, which had pegged to the dollar in the early 90s, before they crashed it and went in to buy everything on discount? Do you remember how the rhetoric by the very same critical minds shifted overnight? Sure you don't, but I bet you remember the outrage over Janet Jackson's tit during Superbowl half-time. Admit it, tits are more interesting than economics.

Remember the praises for South East Asia (wherever that's supposed to be, because if isn't France or UK does it really matter anyway?), before the currency crisis initiated by George Soros-- whose name is still a bad word in Thailand? Do you remember what the critical crickets started chirping about "crony capitalism" and "transparency?" Never mind about the lives that were destroyed for the sake of buying things on the cheap.

I had the pleasure of eating dinner last month with an interesting collection of individuals. A very wealthy septuagenarian English couple (house in a fancy part of LA, flat in Paris, and cottage in Dampngloomfordshire, England) who blamed the Americans for the fall of colonialism--a development, by reckoning of the lively vocalizations of the wife, which definitely did not benefit Africa. Yes. They'd lived throughout Western and Southern Africa as well.

Among a few Frenchies, there was an Ivorean (a country so unimportant that he took it upon himself to right the situation by emigrating to Paris) in his 20s engaged to the daughter of the Parisian woman of the house. He is an engineer, with an engineer's analytical qualities: the kind of qualities that has him handling international accounts and thinking critically about the things he should be critical for as long as it is permissible. Despite the language difficulties (boor that I am for refusing to learn any European language), I was dazzled with his assessment of post-colonial Africa. He may have never read Fanon, Nkruma, or Ngugi, but he must have certainly been hip to the French version of critical publications like the Economist. The dazzle? Corruption. African leaders are corrupt and that's why the continent is mired in the problems it is. Again, there was a language gap, so the sexy French word du jour for "crony capitalism," which he no doubt knew, would have been lost upon me anyway.

If you haven't already fallen asleep, then I'm sure it's because you're still wondering when I'm going to get back to to the real critical issues, i.e., Superbowl obscenity, with a few illustrations. I understand and I'll try to indulge you if you just cut me a bit of slack while I explore the offal topic of cause-and-effect.

Even though the smart people know that what Rev. Wright said was "reprehensible, offensive, and downright unpatriotic," a similar conclusion is drawn by Chalmers Johnson in Blowback. The colonials, and by that I mean the normal everyday "innocent" people who support colonial ventures in the name of "protecting our freedom" (read: our wealth vis-a-vis their misery), shriek (not Shrek but that movie sure was entertaining wasn't it) and howl when the chickens of theft, chaos, and death come home to roost. Somehow, bombing the hell out of Cambodians, Panamanians, and Iraqis (to name but a fraction, remember my calculus is no good), is irreproachable. It is questionable whether the laws of cause-and-effect concur.



Many lefties conclude that several "isms" are motivating factors, particularly racism, for global economic policy. But if you disregard discrepancies in educational funding, prison sentencing, prison populations, capital executions, Guantanamo, life-expectancy, and intentionally accidental bombing of civilian targets, you really find that race has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, beyond the overall inappropriateness of applying race analysis under any circumstances, such spurious viewpoints would do little to explain what happened to Argentina, which unless the smart people didn't get the memo, is the most European country of the Americas, certainly Latin America.

Beyond this, the sentimental simpers of race-cardists would hardly explain formation of institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, which were primarily created to help the 3rd World. Sure, John Perkins' tell-all Confessions of an Economic Hit Man provides some convincing detail of global economic structure and dominance, but isn't it more than a bit fantastical to assume that all countries should be of equal footing economically? Isn't it human nature that those on the top strategize to stay there? And in the long run isn't this best for the world, even if they don't know it? After all, could you imagine the mayhem of a truly democratically structured United Nations that did not funnel important decisions of life and death to the Security Counsel, where aside from the token rotating members, the permanent member-states (colonial powers) ensure progress?



But the point here is not about the 3rd world; it's already been established that it doesn't really matter. In fact, even the people of the 3rd World (don't the smart people say "developing world" why am I being so insensitive) know that it doesn't matter, otherwise they wouldn't be clamoring to relocate to Toronto, Miami, Manchester, or Lion. Right? Proof positive that we've got it figured out. It has nothing to do with the "hit" they've been taking for the past 500 years, right?



Anyway, we need to continue to pursue this cause-and-effect thread, because if race hegemony isn't the motivating factor, then we might guess that some of the same "capital freeing" policies that have been applied in the 3rd World will eventually hit home, er I mean the home of the racially inoculated. In other words, if it is possible to apply the law of science that "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction," then it is scientific to conclude that those opposites have a little reacting to do here in the "civilized world." It doesn't seem unreasonable that one such reaction is immigration, but whether that will fully account for bombs in the name of freedom is up for the historians and historical revisionist to decide.

Since The Yang Zhu is just another way of saying heretically inclined, it is interesting to note what appears to be a thawing in the reception toward heretical economic views, particularly in the UK. It seems that this receptivity has much less to do with any innate English sensibilities (though I must confess that to put English and sensible together strikes me as tautological) than with the crunch that the smart economists and financiers have begun exacting upon the erstwhile English middle class in the fashion that seemed darned humanitarian when exacted against the 3rd World. But as they say, what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Thus, a new critical view or more precisely a new receptivity toward critical views of global economics is emerging. The tendency has been for leftist malcontents to play the race card, but greed and it's off-shoot entitlement are probably more responsible. Whether this new-found receptivity reaches the 3rd World probably depends on our ability to recognize 3rd World humanity, but didn't we already establish that this would be akin to enabling atavism, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to move here and get what we got in the first place? Right?

Gods of Greed
Nassim Nicholas Taleb: the prophet of boom and doom



Wednesday, June 4, 2008

RAW On Orthodox Medicine

I've just finished writing a project that uses Robert Anton Wilson's Eight Circuit Model of Human Consciousness along with EFT to clear core issues that block our innate human potential.

Triumphantly, I decided to do a bit of a word search to see what RAW devotees might be here in Los Angeles. I turned up this article, which I'm sharing in whole because it's so doggone funny.

Enjoy...

Evading Dogmatic Medicine
by Robert Anton Wilson
written for Smart Basics IntelliScope

Everybody has their own special nightmare, their private version of living in a Kafka novel. Some worry that they might fall through a timewarp and land in the hands of the Gestapo or the KGB. Others live in perpetual anxiety about an IRS audit. In New York and New Jersey, most people have an acute terror about accidentally saying or doing something that annoys the Mafia. Californians dread losing their temper and thereby appearing "unmellow," which they evidently believe might lead to their getting deported back to the U.S. mainland.

I, too, have always had a personal horror: the concept of becoming hospitalized while in the United States and thus falling into the hands of the American Medical Association. Fortunately, at the age of sixty, I have managed to avoid this terrifying experience all my life-and hence really only know about the Horror through the pathetic stories told by friends who have actually spent time in American hospitals. These tales sound much like the stories of others I know, survivors of the Holocaust, with one additional misery often included at the end: after "liberation" and escape back to normal non-nightmare life, the butchers go on pursuing you, until you have lost everything in your savings account and gone through bankruptcy court.

How have I evaded the Dr. A.M.A. House of Blood? I don't know, really. Maybe I just got born with some especially good genes. (Materialists would like that explanation.) Or maybe I have an Ally, an occult or extraterrestrial Protector. (New Agers would love that one.) Personally, I see no special reason to believe either of these charming notions. I tend to suspect that I slid easily through the `40s and `50s-years of prostate cancers, lung cancers, rectum cancers, heart attacks, strokes, and other miscellaneous unpleasantnesses for most males -because I started doing acid (ascorbic acid: megadoses of vitamin C) at around the age of 37. I had heard Dr. Linus Pauling lecture on that marvelous substance, and I figured Dr. Pauling's ideas deserved a fair trial because (1) the A.M.A. immediately denounced vitamin C therapy violently- always a good sign that somebody has discovered something important; and (2) Dr. Pauling already had two Nobel prizes, so I could hardly consider him an idiot.

23 years later, I continue to take megadoses of ascorbic. Despite a number of bad habits during most of those years--including smoking and bad diet--I have not only stayed out of hospitals, but have also never had a cold in all that time, while people all around me often sniff, snivel and slide down the slippery slope from the common cold to the major flu or even pneumonia. I noted this "magical" immunity especially during my six years in Dublin, Ireland, a city located (I must tell you because most Americans don't seem to know) further north than almost all of Canada. Irish wits describe the Celtic climate as "nine months of winter and three months of bloody awful weather.")

My total freedom from head colds especially impresses me, since almost everybody except us "vitamin nuts" gets a few colds a year. But, of course, one can explain this by invoking the almighty Genes or the occult Allies (or maybe even the marvelous Coincidence, that supernatural entity that always seems to banish or at least disempower all inconvenient data.)

Over the years I have tried to learn more about vitamins, nutrients, and health. Since the federal government currently holds to the view that the First Amendment does not permit controversies in this area, I must write with great caution throughout this article, so I remind you again that you can dismiss everything here by invoking Genes, occult Allies, or maybe good old panchrestomathal Coincidence. I started using PERSONAL RADICAL SHIELD and CHOLINE COOLER about six years ago.
The PRS contains as much vitamin C as I think I need, plus many other goodies, and the CHOLINE COOLER has ingredients that often have appeared beneficial in laboratory tests (which conservative M.D.s still dispute, of course.)

While living in Los Angeles a few years ago, I went for a medical checkup. The doctor I chose had an orthodox M.D. but also used "alternative," holistic, and even Chinese medical techniques, whenever they seemed appropriate. At the end of the exam, he asked me what vitamins and minerals I took regularly. I told him, and he had never heard of PERSONAL RADICAL SHIELD. He asked to see a bottle, to read the contents, so I came back the next day and left an empty bottle with his nurse. He called me that evening. "That has everything you need," he said. Well, now, I begin to suspect that not all doctors share the dominant allopathic bias against nutritional and vitamin data. It just seems that way because the allopathic Fundamentalists make a lot a noise and try to pretend they represent the whole medical profession.

He asked me what vitamins and minerals I took regularly. Of course, PERSONAL RADICAL SHIELD and CHOLINE COOLER have not helped prevent all health problems. (I never thought they would.) For a while, I had high blood pressure and my Los Angeles doctor put me on heavy doses of allopathic medicines, which he warned me would have some bad side-effects. He also urged several changes in lifestyle, including breaking the smoking addiction, avoiding red meat, and exercising daily, which
would help me get back to normal blood pressure without increasing dependence on the medications. Blood pressure dropped slowly back to normal over a period of nearly two years--but meanwhile I suffered various side effects of the drugs, including lethargy, tired eyes, inability to concentrate, decreased work output, and uncharacteristic depression.

Gradually the doctor decreased the heavy allopathic medicines (which lower your blood pressure in much the same way as getting hit on the head and staying in bed does)--and all these distressing symptoms went away. My energy came back, I regularly work a full day again without drowsing, and I feel happy again.

One month ago, in Soquel--a small burg on the Central California coast, where I now live--I again went in for a checkup. As usual, I picked an M.D. with training also in alternative medicine. After the checkup (in which blood pressure and other vital signs appeared normal, as they have all this year), the doctor said, "You ought to take a few vitamins and nutrients, to stay in good shape." "What do you recommend?" I asked. "For general health, PERSONAL RADICAL SHIELD," he said. And in your case, I think CHOLINE COOLER will prove helpful."

I have continued the changes in lifestyle (i.e., I still avoid smoking and red meat, and I continue exercising, when I remember that I should) and blood pressure now remains normal without the heavy medications. I suspect the CHOLINE COOLER has helped a good deal in my recovery from the loss of concentration and loss of work energy which the allopathic chemicals induced. My doctor thinks so, too--but then again, such opinions always need a disclaimer in this country, where the First Amendment still remains suspended and no citizen may safely question A.M.A. dogma.

I therefore disclaim my possible errors and heresies one more time: maybe we should attribute all this to Genes, or Occult powers, or Coincidence. Meanwhile, I seem in damned good shape for a man of my age, and not even the most conservative "experts" could seriously argue that my vitamins and nutrients have done me any harm. And I doubt that anyone could claim, with a straight face, that equal doses of allopathic drugs, taken for an equal period of time, would do no harm to mind, memory, sexuality, or general energy.


Copyright: Robert Anton Wilson