|
recently read (parts of) a very interesting book in the field
of consciousness studies (the nature and origin of conscious
awareness)called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. While reading the book I got an
idea regarding the possible origin of the sharp contrast in the views
of liberals and conservatives, which is based on part of Jayne's
theory.
The author proposes that at one time in our evolution a dominant
portion of the right hemisphere of the human brain told' us what to
do, and we were somewhat unconscious. These voices' were based on
how a child was raised in society, and also instinct. The author says
that at that time humans sometimes attributed these instructions' to
gods. Humans were isolated as groups, and they developed their own
theologies and legal systems. The breakdown' happened when these
different societies with different theologies and legal systems began
to run into and clash with each other. During this time some humans
learned (had to) to tune out the voices' of the right hemisphere,
which allowed them (forced them) to consciously consider different
choices and courses of action - rather than acting instinctively and
according to how they were raised in the society (the right hemisphere
talking'). The people who could not adapt were quickly eliminated by
natural selection, and we are left with a race of people where the
voices' of the right hemisphere are tuned out or turned off.
Following the argument of this theory, maybe some of us have not
tuned out the right hemisphere as much as we would think. Maybe we
think we are making choices, but we really aren't. Many people
choose' to live as they were raised. Is that the right hemisphere
talking? I have heard several people of different religious
denominations say that their religion interprets the bible the most
accurately (the religion they were raised with). They truly believe
this, and can quote scripture supporting it. Did they ever make a
real' choice? It seems obvious to me that if you could go back in
time and swap the families of two kids from that set, they generally
would say exactly the same thing about their new religion.
Conservatives are drawn to church much more than liberals.
Conservative Christians make up a major part of the Republican Party.
Conservatives seems to be more comfortable with religion, stricter
rules, and harsher laws. Maybe this is from the activity in the right
hemisphere they need a structured society, and they need to be told
what to do so they don't have conflict and stress from having to make
choices. Conservatives tend to have an authoritarian drive to make
others live under their rules. Perhaps this is because they need that
for themselves. Some people seem to really believe that god is
talking to them. Maybe those are voices of the right hemisphere
(Jaynes refers to this). These people tend to be conservative.
Conservatives are more bothered by guilt than are liberals. Guilt
comes from a conflict where some part of you thinks something is
wrong, whereas another part of you does not (the part that allowed you
to do it). The part that thinks it is wrong could be the left
hemisphere talking, referring to your upbringing, and guilt is the
result of the conflict with that and the conscious choice you made.
Religious conservatives would attribute this conflict to satan or a
demon tempting you, or just your natural sinful nature coming out.
In contrast, Liberals feels freer to live differently then they
were raised. Liberals are also mush less likely to seek out a church
to join. Perhaps liberals have tuned out the instructions of the
right hemisphere more then their conservative brothers, and thus have
less stress in making real choices, and thus make more real' choices.
So perhaps there are fundamental organic differences between
conservatives and liberals. I propose a solution to the Conservative
v. Liberal conflict. Consider the following example:
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling a couple years ago saying
that California's Three Strikes Law was not cruel and unusual
punishment. The court said it was OK to send a person to prison for
25 years to life (the years in excess of 25 at the whim of a parole
board) for shoplifting food from a supermarket, if that person had
ever been convicted of two prior felonies. This ruling was made by
conservatives. As is typical for our Supreme Court, the vote was cast
on a conservative/liberal line, 5 conservatives for, and 4 liberals
against.
I propose that conservatives be held to conservative standards,
and liberals be held to liberal standards. Maybe a conservative knows
best how to treat a fellow conservative. Perhaps if a conservative
steals bread for a third conviction, his life is actually wasted, and
he is too much of a threat to society to ever walk the streets again.
Maybe a conservative can't change, even if given better circumstances
to succeed. Maybe only a fellow conservative can see that, given the
workings of his own mind. A liberal would never see it, but maybe he
could be convinced of organic brain differences, and let the
conservatives rule the conservatives. The liberal would still find
the conservatives treatment of their own inhumane, but a treaty must
be drawn so the liberal will not interfere, so that likewise the
liberals will rule the liberals. In the above case, a liberal is
reprogrammable' and can make real' choices, so if society takes him
by the hand he can be led to becoming a useful, happy member of
society, and does not need to spend the rest of his life in a cage.
Thus it would be inappropriate for conservatives to pass judgment on
him. The conservative would see this person's guilt function as being
broken, so he could explain the person's actions in his own mind.
Perhaps a conservative, who cannot make real' choices and will
continue operating the same way, and who has a broken guilt function,
is really a threat to society.
Many aspects of Conservative v. Liberal legal thinking can be
explained by this hypothesis. For example, the Conservative is
compelled to say that an ambiguous law covers something, so that some
law covers the activity, and because societies morals' say it anyway.
This makes the Conservative comfortable, as he doesn't have to think
and make choices. The Liberal wants the law to be specific, and to
not exist if it interferes with his freedoms and does not benefit
society. There are many examples, but I think I've adequately
presented the argument.
Unfortunately for liberals, the conservatives are much more
aggressive in their politics, and they seek out jobs such as judges,
prosecutors, and police officers, where they can force their views on
others. They are driven to do this as a defense mechanism. They can't
handle change, and they need strict guidelines to live by so they
don't have to think and make choices. Liberals are agreeable people,
sometimes to their own detriment. Liberals need to be more vocal and
proactive to protect their own rights.
A solution: Amend the U.S. Constitution. How to do that?
Revolution.
[I attempted to crosspost this via Google, twice. The message never
showed up. I suspect one of the groups is moderated, and Google
doesn't know it, and th
|
| |
| |
|
