tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post2741715904270698303..comments2023-10-31T06:01:54.153-04:00Comments on Pretty Lady: The Authority ProblemPretty Ladyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00342833918614545778noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-45136620924986842492007-12-04T12:08:00.000-05:002007-12-04T12:08:00.000-05:00Robert Anton Wilson, as you might imagine, was ver...Robert Anton Wilson, as you might imagine, was very fond of referring to the Milgram experiment. Also he liked the results of the <A HREF="http://www.prisonexp.org/" REL="nofollow">Stanford Prison Experiment</A>, carried out a round the same time as Milgram's work (and headed by a high school classmate of Milgram's).<BR/><BR/>Wilson's conclusions are somewhat different from yours, though. Rather than being somewhat confused and horrified at how difficult most people find disobedience, he found it quite natural and understandable. More importantly, he recognized -- which you, Pretty Lady, apparently do not -- the potential within himself -- within <I>all of us humans</I> -- to do the same.<BR/><BR/>To me, too, that's the most important lesson of the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments: Almost everyone, given the chance, would be a concentration camp guard. Maybe we all wouldn't be the most sadistic guard at Treblinka; but neither would most of us be the most compassionate, either.<BR/><BR/>A small example from my own life. I believe, and will quite passionately argue (with very little provocation), that the so-called security routine Americans submit to when traveling by airplane is not only not helpful but actively harmful. I believe that the humiliation of taking off our shoes and belts, and forcing people to carry liquids in quart-sized (not gallon or pint) clear plastic bags, is at least a waste of effort and at most designed to soften American citizens up for the next assault on privacy and freedom.<BR/><BR/>I further believe -- cribbing again from Robert Anton Wilson -- that the only truly inalienable human right is the right to say no and take the consequences. I believe that the only way to stop the nonsense of so-called airport security is for us, the people, to stand up and say no. To refuse to submit to it.<BR/><BR/>I almost never take an airplane anyway, so this is an easy stand for me to make. Except just last week my wife and I traveled to Las Vegas so she could receive a prestigious award. I agonized over how I would handle the security issue. And when the time finally came...I took off my shoes. Because...<BR/><BR/>Because. I can invent a lot of reasons. But, ultimately, there are <I>always</I> reasons. The human brain is absolutely unparalleled in inventing reasons for the things it does. Why sit idly by as your Jewish neighbors are arrested and sent away in cattle cars? Why administer deadly electric shocks on the orders of a man in a white coat? Why pile up naked prisoners and take a picture? Why take off your shoes at an airport checkpoint?<BR/><BR/>To me, enlightenment -- wisdom, whatever you choose to call it -- is understanding, truly understanding, that <I>you yourself are not above this</I>. Yes, there are always times and places where some individuals find the courage to stand up, and we'd all like to hope that we'd be like those people. But that's just hope.<BR/><BR/>It's the hope that keeps me going, but that's all it is: Hope.Chris Rywalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766746064219235983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-45170764750821053982007-11-30T13:13:00.000-05:002007-11-30T13:13:00.000-05:00P.S. The Course in Miracles defines 'ego' as the f...P.S. The Course in Miracles defines 'ego' as the false, separate sense of self which imagines it is <I>in competition with God.</I>Pretty Ladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00342833918614545778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-62244724034792946312007-11-30T13:10:00.000-05:002007-11-30T13:10:00.000-05:00are you referring to ego in the Buddhist sense or ...<I>are you referring to ego in the Buddhist sense or in the Freudian sense?</I><BR/><BR/>I have no use at all for that bastard Freud. He is a classic example of clinging to ego, in the non-atman, mystical sense (your philosophy professor was indeed an idiot. Ego =\ atman, at all, at all) in the sense that he doggedly continued to attach his self-identity to a ridiculous theory, in the face of overwhelming evidence of its ridiculousness. 'Penis envy' indeed. Hmph. <BR/><BR/>I am using 'ego,' as I said, in the mystical sense, as in 'the illusion that one's identity is separate from, and in competition with, the whole.' The Buddhist notion of 'atman' defines the True Self, or soul, as unified with the whole, and is thus the opposite of ego.<BR/><BR/>Your sense of self as a child of God is precisely what I am talking about, as a non-egoic perspective. People who truly understand their nature as children of God have no need to identify themselves with human authority, in opposition to other children of God.Pretty Ladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00342833918614545778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-29894926341024327762007-11-30T08:03:00.000-05:002007-11-30T08:03:00.000-05:00Clarification: if you are using ego = atman, as m...Clarification: if you are using ego = atman, as my college philosophy teacher (erroneously in my opinion) did, then the Buddhist vs. Freudian use of ego leads to differing results. <BR/><BR/>PapapeteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-86384124389541384352007-11-30T08:00:00.000-05:002007-11-30T08:00:00.000-05:00I must ask: are you referring to ego in the Buddhi...I must ask: are you referring to ego in the Buddhist sense or in the Freudian sense? Your statement can be read either way with vastly differing results.<BR/><BR/>BTW, if ego = sense of self, then I must disagree with you. It is my understanding of who I truly am and my place in the universe as God's child that anchors my morality. In that sense my ego is what keeps me from submitting to immoral orders from authority. <BR/><BR/>PapapeteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-31299163031953165332007-11-28T23:41:00.000-05:002007-11-28T23:41:00.000-05:00But...but....I was just Following Orders!!!But...but....<BR/><BR/>I was just Following Orders!!!The Aardvarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425052822588090155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-7520527190861719632007-11-28T21:33:00.000-05:002007-11-28T21:33:00.000-05:00Thank you, k, my transpersonal friend. I was goin...Thank you, k, my transpersonal friend. <BR/><BR/>I was going to go into a long riff about legalistic quibbling being the opposite of morality, but my scribbling skills seem to have genuinely rusted over my vacation.Pretty Ladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00342833918614545778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20403719.post-8783173201595566382007-11-28T21:17:00.000-05:002007-11-28T21:17:00.000-05:00I remember this study very well.Your last paragrap...I remember this study very well.<BR/><BR/>Your last paragraph makes the one point that people miss. Over and over and over, they walk right by it.<BR/><BR/>Those who don't consider that distinction haven't even begun to understand the nature of morality.khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06430423256832961746noreply@blogger.com