...Deception.

"Now I believe I can hear the philosophers protesting that it can only be misery to live in folly, illusion, deception and ignorance, but it isn't -it's human." -Erasmus of Rotterdam

(Note: I do take liberties within this discourse, out of need stylistically, to leave out other variables. I will however answer any and all reasonably argued questions that appear in comments as this work is just a piece of a much larger whole)

Man thinks himself at the forefront of evolutionary promise, the metaphorical end-all to the evolutionary process; or otherwise man believes himself superior to "Animal" or even his fellow man; or otherwise he denies his innate superiority to procure within social strata his own superiority as "humble"; or etc. Likewise, the phrase "survival of the fittest" tends to be thrown around in reference to this human "nationalism", the human species being the "nation". And not only this, but all natural selection brought about by the process haphazardly described as "survival of the fittest" is attributed progressive positivism, leading us from the needlessly complex to the simplistic perfection of future evolution. But what of deception? What of the inherent, naturally human, element of discourse that linguistically and psychologically plays a part in our everyday interaction? It's easy for one to state that humanity is in itself "animal", a part of the naturalistic process whereby humans seem to dominate. But I argue that humanity inherently nullifies the process of progressive positivism akin to "survival of the fittest" by including deception. What do I mean by deception, though? I simply mean the ability of a being of higher intelligence, through action or implicit wording, to manipulate another being of intelligence into procreation without the use of positive attributes to lure acceptable mating (a man, by all accounts with no positive attribute but intelligent wording or action, who lures in a woman of many positive genetic attributes or vice versa). These persons of the latter variety are, for all intents and purposes, "normal", whereas the persons in the former variety, though of intelligence enough to make a case for procreation on the grounds of deception (e.g. stating one is different to ones appearance, or that ones wealth will make up for ones faults, etc.), "stupid". By "stupid" I mean not those persons whose "inherent", "visible", "verifiable", intelligence is lesser to my own, but I mean rather those subsets of persons whose reactive substance has yet to grasp the flood of information which occurs in the so called "Information Age", thereby reflexively dimming the "inherent" intelligence of those persons. These subsets are at their most basic of two varieties: 1) those persons who have yet to assimilate to the fast-paced influx of information and then allow themselves to be ignorant of common theoretical, scientific, political, etc. progress and therefore tout obscure or out of date - nullified, in a sense - views (i.e. people of lower class, usually [in American terminology], or otherwise those of a higher class without time to spare [business persons, etc.)making themselves retroactively out to be labelled "stupid" (though it must always be taken as "misinformed"); these are usually those of a former generation as well, without proper access to information or access to too much information; and 2) those persons, usually of the generation current, who have assimilated to this "flood", but in a way which leaves them to only pick bits and pieces of what is relevant to them (in terms of information) and accept (but in general ignore, out of impatience or inattention) other ideological views, but take them as irrelevant to their immediacy making themselves retroactively to seem tunnel-visioned and pig-headed ("stupid", "misinformed", etc.). This second subset is that of the young entertainment addict, the existence of which reminds me of a story I once wanted to write about a man living in an old flat with a roommate. These two become great friends over the course of their stay, but something within the flat doesn't seem quite right. It turns out to be that the flat is haunted by a friendly spirit who attaches itself to the man, who (i.e. the man) is hesitant at first but quickly discovers the ghost is the greatest possible friend he could have, with a wealth of information, ability to access or bring any part of the world into existence before this man's very eyes. The man becomes obsessed and refuses to leave the house, quickly leading the roommate to move out. The metaphor is obvious, and rather cheesy, which is why it was never ultimately written, but it seems apropos to the situation at hand. Entertainment has become a literal specter invading the lives of any first world citizen. But what of deception here is even visible? The deception here is that of the entertainment, the comfort by which procreation can even be possible; but here procreation is metaphorical, the procreation at hand is the procreation of even positive thoughts, progressive thoughts which come from initiative, or even thought at all. And it is through this subset of entertainment addict that we see the most viable nullification of the natural selection principle. These persons, for whom entertainment has become their only modus operandi, are experienceless. A posteriori learning, in vein of Kant, is nonexistent in the ethereal world, not because no experience comes of it (indeed there is much to be learned from entertainment, especially via internet) but rather because there is so much experience available that TEMPORAL experience (i.e. experience outside the area one is accustomed to living) becomes superfluous. Here deception takes the guise of ignorance and misinformation simply because so much information is available, so much contradictory information that each thought has a counter-thought which destroys the others possibility of universal truth. So how can one defy the methodological deception that becomes an inherent part of modern living? Now more than ever we must instill a notion not of tolerance but of strict personal ideologico-political suspension in order to rid ourselves of deceptive influence. By this I mean the ideologico-political ideas which construct themselves in the forms of individualism. We must become a part of no system, not even the herd system of individuality, in order to nullify the lack-of-temporal-experience extant via deception. Even altruism, an act so violently tied to our minds, is deception at work. And this is precisely active in the modern political environment. In a recent YouTube video by the activist organization known only as "Anonymous", the org. highlighted a political bill: 112th Congress (2011 -- 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for. This bill will effectively, according to the masked figure (signature of the Anonymous) presenting the video, turn the United States of America into a war zone allowing the government to detain without trial anyone they consider to be in line with terrorism. Here the deception takes the guise of altruism. The government wishes to "altruistically" give the American people the security they wished for out of fear after the 9/11 attacks. The procreation this inhibits is, likewise to the former guise, metaphorical: the procreation of freedom of revolutionary action. As any mildly intelligent person in America knows, there is a major difference between terrorism and wishing democratically for a better government (i.e. revolutionary action along the lines of anti-totalitarianism), but this bill will allow for the government (Federal) to blur the lines between and destroy the rights of freedom of speech and the right to due process. The question presents itself though: will the American people "take the bait" of deceptive influence and state that "our need for security outweighs our need for freedom"? Firstly, I might respond with a quote by Benjamin Franklin, "Any nation willing to sacrifice a modicum of freedom for a modicum of security deserves neither and will lose both.", but this adage does not state one way or another the American opinion, but rather my own. Secondly, I might respond by referencing the work of German and UK neuroscienctists on the possibility of negative events happening in the future:

"[They] designed a fairly complex psychological test to determine how people planned for negative events in the future. First, they asked the about the likelihood of 80 different disturbing events happening, such as contracting a fatal disease or being attacked. After they'd recorded people's responses, researchers told each subject the actual, statistical likelihood of such events happening. In some cases, people had overestimated the likelihood and in some cases they'd underestimated it. Then, after some time had passed, the researchers asked subjects again about the likelihood of these events happening to them. Interestingly, they found that people had a much harder time adjusting their expectations if the real-world statistical likelihood was higher than what they had first guessed. They had little trouble adjusting expectations for a more favorable outcome. It was as if people were selectively remembering the likelihoods of future events — forgetting the bad odds but not the good ones."

So it would seem, based on the research, that the American public is going to react to this with mixed emotion and general positivism, which (if you click the youtube link at the end of this passage and read some of the comments to the video) is seemingly what is happening. An outcry from some, yes, but from most it is all talk and zero action. So a new question presents itself: how long before people actually stand up and take notice? How long before people are again willing to die for a cause?


Works Cited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso&feature=share

http://io9.com/5848857/your-brain-wont-allow-you-to-believe-the-apocalypse-could-actually-happen%3Ftag%3Dneuroscience