There is a tremendous amount of things I cannot go into on this blog due to the general nature of it. I reserve my more incisive and relentless commentaries on more delicate issues for a secret blog that is published anonymously. The chances are you’ve never run across it and never will. And that’s fine by me.
However, from time to time I lean on my impression that those few people who do follow this blog are above average in intelligence and imagination, and have the ability, whole or in part, to at least reason in an honest way about matters of the world. So here we go…
25% of people are 1-dimensional thinkers. About 60% (the vast majority of all people of all races, gender, class and in all nations) are 2-dimensional thinkers—they flatten complex ideas down to the point of least offense or in support of some idealogical bias. Only about 15% of people who ever lived or will live are 3-dimensional thinkers—they consider the entire argument and tailor responses, remedies and reactions according to the actual problem.
For example, the political issue of Gun Control.
1-dimensional: There is no such thing as evil, therefore people are intrinsically good. However, guns, being inanimate objects, are intrinsically evil. Therefore all guns should be destroyed. The paradox in this line of reasoning is instant and indicting—and by the way, this is a real argument that was made to me by a close high school friend. The logical fallacy is obvious and immediate. If evil cannot exist, then guns cannot be “intrisincally” evil (his terms). Inanimate objects are exactly that—in (meaning not) + animate: they are not animated. Part of animation, by human definition, is moral animation.
Your average 1-dimensional thinker is a outright fool.
2-dimensional: Criminals use guns to threaten, injure, maim and kill people. Therefore all guns should be banned or destroyed. Like all 2-dimensional arguments this not a line of reasoning, but a line of emoting. This response treats the argument emotionally, and provides an emotional answer. The fact the answer is false seems to bother 2-dimensionsal thinkers very little. Why? Because “2-dimensional thinking” is an oxymoron. They are in fact 2-dimensional feelers. They are trying to offer a feel-good solution to a complex problem.
Further, the argument falls flat on its face when examineed in the clear water of history. Long before man invented gun (of any variety: drone, automatic, sem-automatic, rifle, pistol, musket, blunderbuss, muzzle loaded, breech loaded, matchlock, wheellock, snaplock, snaphance, miquelet, cartridge, etc.) the human race was doing a marvelous job of murdering each other with daggers, swords, lances, maces, clubs, axes, glaives, slingshots, bows and arrows, crossbows, trebuchets, etc.
2-dimensional thinking responds to the abuse of a right(s) by a minority by stripping the right from law abiding majority as well. Remember in grade school when the teacher would penalize the entire class because one student did or said something she didn’t like?
Well, it didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.
Your average 2-dimensional thinker is a half-mind caring only for his or her half of the argument that brings them perceived emotional comfort.
3-dimensional: The “right to bear arms” (lets go ahead and use Constitutional language simply because most people are familiar with it) is a right, or privilege. People who abuse that right by threatening, injuring, maiming or killing someone else should have that right taken away, either temporarily or permanently. These people are correctly labeled as criminals. The remainder of the population that lawfully and wisely observe the rules for owning, transporting and discharging a firearm should keep their right.
This is 3-dimensional thinking.
The problem is neither with the object (in this case a lawful material, unlike child pornography which is an unlawful material), nor the entire population of this or any other nation. The problem is with a minority of people, criminals, who do not obey the law. The solution should be strategically and precisely attentuated to address those persons who are violating the law, not those who are obeying it.
The 3-dimensional thinker is a whole intellect, nourished by analysis, balance and a lack of fear that empowers them to consider all the sharp corners of any argument.
To say this is obvious is tantamount so saying the sun is bright. It is an axiom, one recognized by any sane, clear-minded individual.
Now, knowing what we know now, let’s consider a popular target: the conspiracy theory.
1-dimensional: There no such thing as a conspiracy; therefore, the phrase explains something that doesn’t exist.
2-dimensional: They’re are conspiracies, but they are rare and often conducted by people wearing black cloaks, masks who meet at night and have secret handshakes to identify fellow conspirators. And most conspiracies occurred in the 1400-1500’s.
3-dimensional: They’re are conspiracies, but by their very definition, they are difficult to prove.
Again, only 3-dimensional thinking approaches the question of a conspiracy properly. Here is the definition of “conspiracy.”
–noun, plural –cies.
1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
After accumulating a quick list of ten people who regularly ridicule the idea of conspiracies as “absurd” I asked the same ten people if the founding of America constituted a conspiracy. Unanimously, all ten said the establishment of America by our founding fathers “did not in any way” constitute a conspiracy.
Thankfully, true 3-dimensional reasoning takes into consideration the fourth dimension, time, and perspective. I then asked the same ten people the same question, only rephrased:
Do you think George William Frederick considered the founding of America as having begun by conspiracy?
If you can believe it, all ten either said “no” or “who is he?”
Because I am pathologically thorough, I asked the same question a third time:
Do you think George William Frederick—King George III of England during the American Revolution—considered the founding of America by rebellion and colonial secession from Great Britain as either a conspiracy, or having started as one?
Astoundingly, three still said “no” and the other seven said “yes.”
By any of the five definitions listed above for “conspiracy” the American Revolution was a conspiracy, if only from the British perspective who considered the rebellion, well, a rebellion, or the unlawful throwing off of legitimate British government. A successful rebellion as it turned out, one that allowed me to write this blog, but a conspiracy nonetheless.
Its never a conspiracy when its in favor of what you want unless you are brave enough to admit it. It is only a conspiracy when someone else is doing it. By definition 5 (shown above) it can anything: partisan and political strategizing, corporate take-overs, lovers trying to conceal their adultery, military coups, etc.
I am struck by this fact because I once watched an internationally famous female television journalist inquiring about some events, and her tone in asking whether or not the events discussed would rise to conspiracy was absolutely mocking. Though she did not discredit a conspiracy outright, it was patently obvious from how she said it, her body language, her inflections and eye rolls that a conspiracy (of any kind, apparently, by her attitude) was on par with the credibility of the Keebler elves.
Now, I said all that to say this…
Call it suspicious, paranoia or even good old fashioned skepticism, but there is a part of my brain that is receptive to the uncomfortable premise that many things that seem totally random, are in fact clandestine evaluations.
McAfee recently had its antivirus program create havok by deleting critical operational files that it mistook for viruses.
An accident? Entirely and most feasibly so.
A clandestine shock assessment to measure the global impact of a purposefully delivered viral attack coordinated by McAfee, or any secret agency with which it is aligned? Probably not.
Personally, I think it is number 1.5.
If anything other than 1, this is how you do it: a deeply invasive estimate of world-wide security standards masked as a clerical error.
Governments, and obviously corporations, are not and never have been above using their own populations and client bases as unwitting test subjects and/or victims to gain credible intelligence they would defend as within the parameters of “national security.”
Just ask Ivan the Terrible or anybody at the CIA.
And let me say for the record: yes, I believe we landed on the moon. And no, I don’t think George Bush and his fantasy cabal of war-mongering theocratic Neo-cons spent years secretly wiring the World Trade Centers to implode.
Question everyone and everything, even when they tell you to stop.
Yourself and your motives most of all, even when you tell yourself to stop.