a reply to: thismilitarywife
In my opinion, if its a choice between believing he was killed and feeling the empathy and compassion that every human should feel when this happens,
or not believing and putting myself in existential relation to the death of another person by obsessing over a possible conspiracy at hand - I think I
would choose the former.
Everything in life is probability. No one can ever know - beside the killers and James Folely, whether what we saw was real or not. But I find the
fault for not believing - when you can't ever know for certain - is worse than the fault from believing and being gullible.
As a psychologist, it appals me how unaware so many people who believe in conspiracy theories are of their own internal and personal emotions and what
role their past history is playing in "framing" how we look at reality. This is why I am so dearly committed to the cause of mindfulness is schools.
People need to learn about the dynamics of their minds; the facts that have emerged from cognitive science, developmental and psychopathological
psychology, as well as recent theories in interpersonal psychoanalysis, create a picture that is consistent with the non-linear transformation in how
we view the sciences nowadays. Self is thought of in terms of the CONTEXT of the social. Cells in the context of the organs and body they operate
within. Natural processes - and human influences - within the ecological context of an Earth system within space. Everything nowadays is context
dependent: scientists are realizing that reduction doesn't lead to understanding: it leads to the uncomfortable revelation that the smallest
processes are affected by larger system dynamics.
That said, this society has a lot of uneducated, not very self aware people who are subjectively caught up in the process of "sharing what they
know" (or wanting to control the objects i.e the listeners - understanding) with other people. But they don't understand that their process of
understanding is being unconsciously shaped by dissociated affect dynamics (shifts in emotion that occur when people communicate with one another).
All that is in the speakers mind - if he isn't aware of himself as he discusses something - is the object of his interest (what hes talking about).
Do you see the problem? This site is about "denying ignorance". What greater ignorance could there be than not paying attention to the
emotional-psychological dynamics which emerges unconsciously as affect changes? Nothing tops that. The process is more basic than the content (or
So with this, I'm going to go with the position: He was actually killed, this is horrendous. Because on multiple grounds I see no justification in
assuming that the west wants to get pulled back into Iraq. To what good? For what reason? To draw this conclusion ignores everything we know - and
therefore determines our epistemological range - about Barak Obama's philosophy and political doctrine, the bulk of which is directed towards
shrinking the military budget and paying more attention to domestic issues (health care, etc). To just say: He wants more war! - boggles the
imagination. And implies a naivety about human nature. By which I mean, the multiple states of self which influence our perception of the world.
Obama, and all other politicians, it's safe to say, are humans just like us (Unless they're a) clones, b) reptilians c) illuminati black magicians )
and therefore deal with complexities similar to our own. True, I'll grant that more sociopaths find positions of power than their proportion in the
general population (assumed to be 1-2%, as "neurologically" sociopathic) would suggest, but overall the vast majority of our elected leaders possess
a conscience. They do have ideals. They have been affected by the discovering made by science, psychology and neuroscience in particular, and
philosophically, our society is growing more towards openness towards the "strange" - a veritable therapeutic orientation that'll help people think
in more basic, less constrained ways, with less dissociation and less enactments of their unresolved relational traumas (which is what causes us to be
as unruly and undisciplined as we are).
That being said, what happened to James Folely is horrific. Accepting that as fact, I can then "free" my mind to think about the really crazy
nonsense: Islamism. Islamism is a real force with a legitimate historical and psychological basis for it's existence: the west started the
scientific-humanistic revolution. They fixed their sociological orientation enough to "free" the "repressed" energies that Christianity imposed.
Christianity, like Islam, assumed state control. Christianity, like Islam, regulated what was explored and talked about (constriction on mental
possibilities). But Christianity, and Judaism, unlike Islam, has not undergone mass-transformation.
Todays Islamic problem is the creation of historical context and nothing else. Sure, you can blame the west for taking advantage of their advantage by
throwing Muslim countries into a position of "servant" - but that dialectic was already established before Europe emerged in the 17th century as a
world superpower. It began in our thinking; in our cultural understanding. Islam, unfortunately, has not had that "public conversation". They will
have it. It'll likely come. But because their societies are both a) poor, and b) radicalized by ancient religious/political convictions, these two
forces serve to mutually dysregulate one another. Being poor frustrates them and allows more primal concerns to becoming interesting and being
radicalized by religion causes you to ignore the state of the society - the problems which exist, and an ability to PROPERLY diagnose those problems.
Islamism supports poverty by making Islamic societies politically unstable.
So, this is just sad. Stupid and ignorant islamists doing barbaric and outrageous things to other human beings; and we in the west trying to help the
humanists in the middle east - like a therapist - we recognize the problems "there" and our friends there will work with us to do something about
this cancerous tumor.