Politics And Brains One Causes The Other

Please follow and like us:

First published Friday, September 10, 2004

The Politics Resulting From Brain Function

How Liberals and Conservatives are Different

Albert Einstein once said, “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That’s relativity.” [7] It is also perspective. Opening a piece on the politics of brain function with a quotation from Einstein is a perspective issue as well. Some may find it absurd and preposterous by focusing on the source, while others would contemplate the quotation while focusing on the quotation.

The perspective of the observer determines relativity as it does the perception of reality as it is permitted by the method that results in the form of observation.

Much discussion has been forthcoming regarding reality. The basic premise was argued by Francis Bacon. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” Chicken or egg? Reality existed before consciousness pretended to understand it or consciousness could not pretend to get it so wrong for so long.

Reality exists independent of consciousness. Before humans, (those conscious creatures who dare to impose their perspective upon reality) there were creatures who depended upon reality without the baggage of attempting to make it fit their perspective. Had those creatures attempted to change reality it would not be reality and they would not have evolved to adapt to it.

The theory of evolution requires a reality that must be obeyed. That has not stopped humans from attempting to ignore it.

“The statement ‘Reality is Absolute’ is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects.” [8]

“The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existents (things that exist). For two reasons we say that existence is primary, that consciousness requires existence and that there is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, there can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive. Nothing can have an identity (to be identified) without existing. The fact that something is identified necessarily implies its existence which necessarily implies existence in general. Thus there is no consciousness without existence.” [8]

“Because consciousness identifies existents, consciousness itself must exist in order to do the identifying. Along the lines of Descartes cogito, to be conscious (to identify), a consciousness must exist. A faculty can not operate and not exist at the same time. A verb without a noun makes no sense, and the noun must exist in order for the verb to take place. Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness.” [8]

“All forms of mysticism derive from the false premise of the primacy of consciousness, which is demonstratively false.” [8]

Therein comes the difference between the types of brain function required to establish the propensity for either a liberal or a conservative mind. But let us not jump past the attempts to ignore the cause.

The debate has raged for quite a long time. Perspective has gotten in the way, every step.

Scientists like to lump concepts into easily identifiable names. One such ‘name’ is ‘contingent identity’, which is a discussion of consciousness over-powering reality. Materialism is where it is derived (yet another ‘name’). Consciousness itself is one of the objections in philosophy to materialism. Held over from the time when very little was known, scientifically, the debate raged over spirits and ghosts.

Materialism was born out of the replacement for any spiritual connection to reality. It was more of distaste for the elusive than a replacement for it. Democritus took reality as being explained by matter. Science has since learned that matter is explained by fields. Fields are as yet unable to receive agreement. All things could previously be explained by using matter in motion: therefore the ‘classical’ physics model. Since then the quantum model has been tested and retested and observations have deduced it to be nearly reliable. But…

Nothing much has really changed. Today science speaks of what is observed. If it can be seen it can be believed. If it cannot be seen it cannot be believed. It is it seen it is the cause. If it cannot be seen it has either no cause or its cause it randomness itself.

There has never been a concept that could be seen and no concept could ever be random.

Gottlob Frege put forth the concept that observation is deceiving in his reference to the ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ ‘star’. What philosophers had observed in the morning star and had observed in the evening star were actually, due to scientific investigation, one in the same, planet Venus. Science was not able to identify the concept of contingent identity between the morning and evening stars until it reached a point that identifying the same celestial body as responsible for two completely different observations came from its own independent observation. The concept of the two being the same was never ‘material’.

J.J.C. Smart, a modern materialist by ‘name’ put forth in a 1963 article that consciousness was identical with states of the brain. His argument was, essentially in more modern terms, that the reality of the hardware determined the potential of the software.

Philosopher Norman Malcolm argued against that concept, but not for the logical reason shown above. Malcolm mixed results with cause in saying that ‘brain phenomena and ‘mental phenomena’ do not have a ‘contingent identity’. One leads to the next. How more contingent would one want? But both arguments discuss reality from the basis of the conscious observer’s consciousness which is indeed “demonstratively false”.

Back to Liberal vs. Conservative:

In a now famous study, “Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park” [6] published what amounts to one form of brain function evaluating the other form of brain function and coming to the determination that perspective is right and reality does not exist without it. (Demonstratively false.)

After wading through fifty years of research literature (observations of opinions of others about opinions of others’ observations) they came to the conclusion that “the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality”. [6]

So let us examine just those two assumptions before embarking on why they made them.

What is a “resistance to change”? It is the term applied to the observation of the results of something that was determined by the observers to be a resistance to change. Could it not also be a determination to evaluate before accepting difference? Could it not also be a result of contemplation that often resulted itself in rejection of a ‘change’ for very logical conceptual reasons? Could it not be simply the observer’s perspective of what they did not like about conservatives?

Yes, it could be all three. But a ‘resistance to change’ is a result of observation, not a cause.

What is “a tolerance for inequality”? It is the term applied to the observation of the results of something that was determined by the observers to be a tolerance for inequality. Could it not also be a determination to evaluate before accepting difference? Could it not also be a result of contemplation that often resulted itself in rejection of a perceived inequality for very logical conceptual reasons? Could it not be simply the observer’s perspective of what they did not like about conservatives?

Yes, it could be all three. But a ‘a tolerance for inequality’ is a result of observation, not a cause.

“The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought – the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.” [6] Could that also not be simply a rejection of absurd conceptual excuses for change without logical justification? Of course it could.

Liberals do not think in concepts. Conservatives do. How concepts are created in the brain, versus that other form of thinking responsible for the liberal perspective is what this piece is about. Aren’t you glad you finally reached it.

Once a liberal has created a visual image of the reality they have determined through observation to be reality for the rest of the world: it is like being faced with the statement: black is white and white is black.

White is the collection of all colors, while black is the absence of all colors; or is it that black is the collection of all colors while white is the absence of all colors?

Depends on the perspective and method of observation. It is relative.

If one is speaking of light as a source, black would be the absence of all colors. But if one is speaking of light as reflecting, black would be the collection of all colors. It is why in HTML, the code 000000 (a big nothing) is black, while the code ffffff (the opposite of nothing) is white. But when mixing paint, a mix of 000000 would give you white, while a mixture of ffffff would give you black. The absence of color is white, all colors is black.

The concept that black is white and white is black is not that the colors are the same, it is that the result of different observations are the same. The only thing in the way of admitting it is the perspective of the observation; Einstein’s relativity.

To understand how the brain can result in two completely different forms of thinking , one has to understand what the humans brain’s functions are. This explanation is a condensed and simplistic version of what the reader will find in detail in the book, “The Brain is a Wonderful Thing”, available through EnticyPress.Com. (Free)

1: To compare, combine and output.

2: To compare, combine and output.

3: To compare, combine and output.

In the first level, (1) input is compared to long-term memory and then sent to output for motion and to short-term for (2).

In the second level, (2) the result of (1)’s comparison is compared to short-term memory and sent to output and back to short-term memory (as short-term memory in humans is a loop, which creates the concept of ‘you’) and to long-term memory (which is how you remember you are you).

In the third level (3) both outputs are compared and the result is sent to motion which is compared to input which creates feedback.

That is as simple as it is.

What makes it complicated to understand is the mechanisms of each level and the diversity of inputs. How such diverse inputs combine to create a single thinking entity has everything to do with the process of memory and the biological clock.

Memory is the most complex of the two issues. Memory has to created through comparison to input, be sent down a pathway for retention, and in some way be sent back for processing in the same order it was sent for retention. Complicated? Not at all.

Memory is fired in synchronous order. What goes in first, comes out first. If it were any other way, you would be remembering the past backwards. What good would that be?

This is how memory functions: If you imagine a very tall ladder (so tall that standing at the top of it, its length provides perspective making the ladder’s base appear to be smaller). Starting at the top you feed a half full glass of water down the right upright. It reaches the first rung. At the juncture it meets a second glass (the biological clock’s base frequency value), filled to the rim. The two join and the resulting 3/4 filled glass is sent up the left upright to meet the input comparison process. Just add that process for each rung, and step the process in logical order and the ladder takes on the appearance of a flowing process where what goes down, creates what comes up. The equality of the base value from the biological clock maintains credibility of the returning ‘memory’. If you are a short-term visual thinker, refer to the animation located at EnticyPress.Com for a depiction of the memory process in action.

Become sick enough and the base clock frequency value reduces, making memory recall cloudy.

The biological clock may seem complex but it is not.

When you determine time you do so by seeking multiplication functions; (ie: addition). When the body determines time it does so by division; (ie: subtraction). It is simply upside down to the output and therefore observed to be upside down to the normal method of telling time. How can division result in multiplication?

As each memory value passes lower on each rung of memory it becomes smaller. As it returns up the other upright for recall it becomes larger. Relativity. The further down the ladder memory goes, the smaller it is and the smaller the returning value will be. That is how you perceive previous events to be in the ‘past’. It is also how you perceive time to pass into the ‘past’ (therefore appearing to move into the future).

The clock starts with a base frequency, which in humans, ranges from 35,436 to 36,006 hz. (Other species range differently which prohibits inter-species mating). From that base frequency, all levels of brain function occur. Each level functions at a different division of the base in linear order. Let us use the average frequency of 35,721 to investigate how it division turns into multiplication.

ie: Base: 35,721
/2 35,721/2 = 17860.5hz (firing frequency of input receptors 2x per second)
/10 35,721/10 = 3572.1 (firing frequency of motor functions)
/30 17860.5/30 = 595.35hz (firing frequency of long-term comparison to input and long-term memory functions)
/30 595.35/30 = 19.845 (firing frequency of short-term comparison to long-term output)
Divisions of a base frequency place firing rates:
Input: 2 per second
Long-term memory: 60 per second
Short-Term memory: 1800 per second
Motion: 10 per second

The greater the division, the greater the multiplication. In order to create an exponential process, one need only apply the same frequency to the previous result in division and the end result is a multiplication of rate.

That is the most efficient method to cause multiplication. From one base frequency, comes multiple levels of exponentially increased firing rates. It makes for interesting and confusing visual observations. An interesting example of using division to reach exponential multiplication is housed at EnticyPress.Com under the ‘Wave Calculator’ link. That excel spreadsheet starts with an average population human frequency and divides to create the exponential frequencies of a standard 88 key piano. It too, is free.

Understanding how memory works and how the firing rates of the brain are determined leads to applying them both in the diverse inputs of receptor type. (Yes, we’re getting closer to understanding Liberal and Conservative brains.)

Each process in the brain functions in the exact same manner. It is how visual memory can be processed in the same ‘hardware’ as aural memory, smell, taste, pressure and temperature. There are different types of Neurons but the process of a neuron does not differ.

Scientists have been enamored with the latest visual toy: fMRI. By watching blood flow rates they have determined that the more blood is needed in a specific piece of brain real estate, the more that function is taking place in that real estate. That is a lot like determining the noise of a dance hall is where the logical debate of the next door courthouse takes place since it is louder. It is visual thinking perspective determining reality without relevance to reality.

As fMRI’s will show (yes, they are good for something) the two primary functions of the brain are visual and aural processes. All other sensory functions take up far less real estate.

A battle rages in the brain for mechanical dominance in both long and short-term memory processing as well as between them.

As depicted in a far more elaborate method in the book, “The Brain is a Wonderful Thing”, the following different eight types of human brain dominance are:

1: Female Long-term visual dominance with short-term visual dominance (typical female)
2: Male Long-term aural dominance with short-term aural dominance (typical male)
3: Female Long-term visual dominance with short-term aural dominance (tom boy female)
4: Male Long-term aural dominance with short-term visual dominance (compassionate male)
5: Female Long-term aural dominance with short-term visual dominance (lesbian potential)
6: Male Long-term visual dominance with short-term aural dominance (gay potential)
7: Female Long-term aural dominance with short-term aural dominance (lesbian)
8: Male Long-term visual dominance with short-term visual dominance (gay)

But to listen to the ‘experts’ one would not dare concern oneself with how a function operates, only with what it results in. Brains result in things that are observable. One of those things is ’emotion’. Emotion is actually nothing more than a long-term memory motor output without much short-term motor control. The less short-term control, the more emotional.

From the New York Times: “Studies of stroke victims, as well as scans of normal brains, have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy.” [1]

Yes, there are those real estate parcels in the brain that are said to play a part in all sorts of observable outcomes of the brain. Not one has ever been attributed to a function by the visual thinking scientists who are simply not contemplating their observances, other than to connect and relate them to another observance. That makes the science of neuro-insight, the “demonstratively false” mysticism of the “false premise of the primacy of consciousness”. Read “Modern Mysticism” available free at EnticyPress.Com for more proof of delusional focus.

The quote from the New York Times was in relation to the study at UCLA. That study, already shown above to be flawed in its deductions is drawn upon assumptions that emotions make a person somehow better and that leaves the relatively non-emotional Republican brain somehow insufficient.

In reality (the real one, not the perceived and concocted one) emotions are at fault for nearly every mental condition that pays the bills for psychiatry and psychology.

Long-term memory is reactionary. Short-term memory is pro-actionary. Long-term memory in control of a person’s brain results in emotional reactions that help form support for previous long-term reactions. The result is a person who reacts.

A person who reacts finds a proactive person to be exactly the opposite. After all, if you were sure beyond your imagination that your reaction to an emotional event was the correct reaction, then a person who did not display such a reaction would not be ‘normal’ to your perceived reality.

That accounts for the liberal brain’s refusal to believe that others may think differently and that the reality they have created from experience and input is actually reality and not their perception of reality.

“…some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, Terror management.” [6]

Each of these ‘attributes’ imposed upon another through observation and biased personal realities is deemed to be what the lable says it is. But what are they really?

Fear and aggression: Fear is apprehension and actually one of the only things that has kept the human race from doing things that can destroy it. The lack of it can cause the same result as the inability to feel pain. Aggression is the product of a dual aural brain (if it is proactive) and has accounted for the preservation of the species. It is why the default brain condition of males has been type (2) Aural-Aural (or the alpha male). Without that conceptual double layer fear could occur at the wrong time.

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity: Dogmatism is an observation, not a condition. It requires an observer to make the distinction of being assertive and at the same time being unrealistic. One person’s unrealistic is another person’s reality. An intolerace of indecision is a trait that has permitted the species to not put up with its lunatic fringe. To be tolerant of ambiguity is to permit less than logic to take control. Listing it as a trait of conservatives surely places the blame squarely on the researchers to defend the proper position of being indecisive.

Uncertainty avoidance: To avoid uncertainty is to evaluate certainty. To claim that the lack of evaluation of certainty is somehow a bad thing is to desire uncertainty, which would be a fast track to end the species.

Need for cognitive closure: This one is simply amazing to a conceptual dual aural thinker. Not that others are not likewise absurd, this one tends to place the coating on the cake. Cognitive closure means to have a lack of uncertainty and a unambiguous evaluation resulting in discovery. For a group of scientists to declare that having a need to finding the answer is a bad thing should mean they should leave their chosen field. Science is about finding answers yet today’s scientists are more interested in protecting and supporting theory. Even Stephen Hawking has made that error. “‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?’ Professor Hawking: If the set of rules and the equations are not the same thing and there is only one of them, and if it could not explain what causes it all, then it could not be the unified law. Theories are not what science seeks.” [9] “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Albert Einstein, again.

Terror management: Notice the term was not ‘crisis’ management. That is a function left to liberals after being forced to realize the image controlling their beliefs is a lie, no matter how slight. “The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.” [6] It is interesting to note that the concept of death escapes the visual image not already containing it.

“The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought – the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.” [6]

Well said by liberal minds. Contemplating the concept of the absurdity of uncertainty to anything progressive and the absurdity of assigning certainty to a ‘condition’ instead of the POINT OF RESEARCH could only be considered logical when the things being discussed amount to concepts that a visual image cannot reproduce.

Liberal brains are based in images that are created from input which means the liberal brain is defending its past without regard for its present, let alone its future. It is why the concept of ‘consequence’ never enters into a liberal potential.

“Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism – an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).” [6]

Here, the researchers deduce that the mental picture they have of what they consider to be improper applies to the focus of their study in general (conservatives are evil) when in the real reality, such behavior is from the lunatic fringe and the age old retention of tradition imposed upon a people to keep them in line and under the power of rulers who could never allow freedom to gain a foothold in fear it would topple the caste system, the apartheid and the ignorance of bigotry.

“Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.” [6] Showing an ignorant bigotry of their own the researchers declare tyrants and a detested (from the left) American President as being conservatives because why?

Reagan did not preach a return to an idealized past, he called for and led a country back to the real reality.

Hitler and Mussolini did not preach a return to an idealized past they both abused the long-term thinking public through mob control into falling for their lies through finding, and then capitalizing on a manufactured common enemy. Much as today’s lunatic wing of the Democratic party invokes emotions from Al Gore and whatever it is Howard Dean attempts to do.

Reagan detested inequality in any form, while Hitler and Mussolini portrayed a class equality based on a common class enemy. It is the visual thinkers who fell for it and helped make the mobs that followed the leader who created the best personally appealing visual image.

Rush Limbaugh states conceptual objections to the lunacy of visual thinking and does not know he’s doing it. Sean Hannity addresses issues from a conceptual perspective as well and does not know he’s doing it. The power of talk radio is completely embraced by the dual aural thinking hosts that rule it. Radio is conceptual.

In one of the most hilarious lines of the UCLA study’s report: “The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.” [6] Actually it was linked to a liberal lying for liberal gain. That concept was completely missed by the biased researchers.

Steven Johnson, author of ‘Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life,’ writing in the New York Times said: “Could the U.C.L.A. researchers be creating the political science of the future? Consider this possibility: the scientists do an exhaustive survey and it turns out that liberal brains have, on average, more active amygdalas than conservative ones. It’s a plausible outcome that matches some of our stereotypes about liberal values: an aversion to human suffering, an unwillingness to rationalize capital punishment and military force, a fondness for candidates who like to feel our pain. ” [1]

What it actually shows is a dependence on long-term reactionary brain function. If one would just unplug the short-term process liberals would make wonderful cats.

With an active short-term sense of self, liberals suffer far greater reactionary emotional conditions. They are controlled by the input they allow to remain in brain. If that input matches previous input it supports the mental image of reality of that person. Almost no amount of logic or reason is going to make that person disagree with the perspective reality they live.

Conservatives do not have that problem.

Thinking in words does not permit an image to form. Thinking in words does not permit a concept to be generated other than through conceptual comparison. That process causes visual thinkers to believe the aural thinker to be:

“Strangely enough, conservatives aren’t all that much different than regular people like you or me. In fact, if not for the fact that they are unable to refrain from speaking loudly for periods of longer than 45 seconds, they might outwardly blend right in with the rest of normal society! (This is not taking into account the fact that the vast majority of conservatives have chosen the guise of well-dressed overweight white men, thereby making them much easier to spot.) No, to see the most important differences, one must look inside. …rather than housing the standard brain that most people have, this area of a conservative instead is outfitted with something called an “RR” Chip, which stands for “Rhetoric Regurgitation.” This chip allows the conservative to subconsciously and automatically recall catch-phrases, topic-twisters, incorrect but unverifiable support information and party-approved spins whenever necessary. This also renders the conservative incapable of independent thought. Much like many others in the animal kingdom rely on their instinct, the Conservative relies on this chip to provide the information necessary to live a very comfortable life, completely devoid of questioning.” [3]

Observation tainted by the perceived reality of the observer: a form of mysticism. “All forms of mysticism derive from the false premise of the primacy of consciousness, which is demonstratively false.” [8]

When a conservative is short-term dominant and not reactive long-term emotional the observing liberal will find that conservative to be cold-hearted, detached and intolerant. Actually that conservative is in control of his or her brain and not the product of environment or mob rule or indoctrination through lies repeated enough to become a perceived reality.

“While the other four senses seem to work fairly well, conservatives have a tremendous amount of trouble with the ‘sight’ category. It is unknown whether the inability to physically see things in any context other than black and white is a product of their absolutist philosophy or the cause of it, or whether both are the results of faulty programming in the aforementioned “RR” chip. In any case, their view of the world is very different than that of normal human beings, and you must always remember to take this into consideration. Lastly, there’s the heart. …the Conservative heart is clearly three sizes too small. Undoubtedly, this flaw is responsible for the Conservative’s inability to ever feel joy, compassion, empathy, or – saddest of all – true love. This is also presumably why the Conservative cannot make friends or appreciate culture, and why they are so sucessful in business. Of course, some research indicates that the Conservative actually is capable of these emotions, but only when directed at inanimate objects, such as money, cars, or the bible. Still other research suggests that the Conservative often shows something resembling joy when in the company of prostitutes, which are certainly not inanimate, especially the good ones. Neither of these studies have produced conclusive results.” [3]

It is amazing how many people, when faced with the reality that their method of thinking is not another person’s method of thinking, will reject the concept of diversity.

Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer of San Fransisco Gate said: “It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative brain? The study starts by assuming that people adopt a belief system such as conservatism partly to satisfy some psychological need. ‘This does not mean that conservatism is pathological,’ the authors hasten to note, ‘or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational or unprincipled.’ As Seinfeld might add, ‘not that there’s anything wrong with that . . . .’ The authors also maintain they’re not judgmental. Labeling conservatives ‘less integratively complex,’ isn’t precisely the same as saying they’re simple-minded. It merely means conservatives aren’t compelled to jump through complex, intellectual hoops to justify their relatively black-and-white view of the world.” (See conceptual conundrum above.) “One of the researchers’ methods involved analyzing political speeches and judicial opinions on the basis of structural complexity. Conservatives thought and spoke more simply — hence President Bush’s observation ‘Look, my job isn’t to nuance.’ But how to explain the polysyllabic, baroque rhetoric of William F. Buckley or George Will? ‘They are exceptions,’ allows study co-author Jack Glaser. Glaser, an amiable assistant professor at Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy with a Ph.D. in psychology, calls himself a ‘relative liberal.'” [5]

Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online said of the UCLA study, “These scientists went off to find negative traits, and when they found what they were looking for they stuck in a pin and said, “Here’s a conservative.” This is the equivalent of only looking for your car keys where the light is good. In short, they started from a position of cognitive closure. So I guess they were conservatives after all.” [4]

The main problem conservatives have is the name they use to describe their political beliefs. Looking up the word ‘conservative’ will result in a literal meaning of the word ‘conserve’ applied to a political ideology without relevance of the concept of conservatism. Conservatism is not at all a resistance to change, a desire to remain stuck in the past or as HyperDictionary [10] puts it: resistant to change, conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; “a bourgeois mentality”, unimaginatively conventional; “a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business”- Newsweek, avoiding excess; “a conservative estimate”, opposed to liberal reforms.[10]

Conservatism is the ideology of personal responsibility. Conservatism is the political movement of expecting, anticipating and avoiding unnecessary consequences. Conservatism is the use of the human brain to its evolutionary mechanical ability.

Short-term memory processing runs an exponentially increased pace faster than long-term reactionary processing. To ignore that evolutionary advancement by living through long-term dependent images that are sought to be protected and required to be supported to find self-worth is, to a true conservative, a horrible waste of human evolution.

Every so often, human society moves from a visually dominated to an aurally dominated condition and back. Changing and occurring in ‘waves’ just like brain functions, society has evolved from one dominance to the next. Traveling through ‘time’ the changes in human society are marked by either visual (liberal) or aural (conservative) dominance.

Early humans were at first aural in nature with male aural dominance and created innovations of function and concept. We will start this ‘time’ journey after the human being became self-aware: 9000 BC – 4500 BC, NEOLITHIC : First Permanent Settlements. The Neolithic is traditionally the last part of the stone age.[11] This ‘up’ ‘wave’ advanced the species into farming and cultivating and societies for protection and familiarity.

During 3200 BC – 1200 BC, BRONZE AGE : First Pharaos. The earliest hieroglyphs appear at about the beginning of the pharaonic age. [11] This ‘down’, visually dominant ‘wave’ stopped true advancement and replaced it with substance through labor. It used the advances of the ‘aural’ period.

From 1200 BC – 1 BC, IRON AGE : Start of the Trojan War Time of the Judges: Israel is a twelve-tribe confederation. 1175 BC The ‘Sea Peoples’ were moving out of the Aegean and Anatolian regions.[11] Once again ‘aural’ conceptual changes take place. This ‘up’ aurally dominant ‘wave’ of human society attempts to right wrongs and begins a world conceptual movement to realization.

332 BC – 63 BC, HELLENISTIC PERIOD A regional process of Hellenization begins all over the eastern Mediterranean.[11] This ‘down’ visually dominant ‘wave’ of human society falters regionally and overlaps the aurally dominant Iron Age.

30 BC – 476 begins the ROMAN PERIOD The Roman Empire is the term conventionally used to describe the Roman state in the centuries following its reorganization under the leadership of Gaius Julius Caesar.[11] This overlapping aural ‘up’ ‘wave’ dominant society created laws and conceptual foundations of leadership.

476 – 1453 MIDDLE AGES The Middle Ages was the middle period in a schematic division of European history into three ‘ages’: Classical civilization, the Middle Ages, and Modern Civilization. [11] This ‘dark time’ began the ‘wave’ of ‘down’ visual dominance as ‘castes’ were created to maintain the image of power and retain the ancient ‘slave’ as a ‘serf’.

1350 – 1600 RENAISSANCE “Renaissance,” French for “rebirth,” perfectly describes the intellectual and economic changes that occurred in Europe from the fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries…[11] People were consumed with appearance, realistic art, interpretive art and color. This ‘down’ ‘wave’ of visual dominance resulted in a society protecting the image of itself and led to the Reformation as a slight attempt at ‘up’ ‘wave’. The ‘ages’ become shorter as the knowledge with which brains are employed becomes more.

1500 – 1600 REFORMATION The Protestant Reformation was a movement which began in the 16th century as a series of attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church, but ended in division . [11] A shorter time period of ‘up’ ‘wave’ aural dominance rejects the visually dominant ‘literal’ religious edicts.

1600 – 1800 ENLIGHTENMENT Religious Fatigue – It is impossible to overstress the importance of two factors that played heavily in the lives of Westerners by the year 1650.[11] Backfiring, the aurally dominant Reformation gives way to another period of visual dominance in a short ‘down’ ‘wave’.

1750 – 1945 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION The Industrial Revolution was a period of the 18th century marked by social and technological change in which manufacturing began to rely on steam power, …[11] Sparked by aurally dominant curiousity to improve and expand without regard for the image of the past this ‘up’ ‘wave’ of human society lingers into today and is fading as innovation has become improving. All that is yet to be discovered has not been discovered, but the emergence of the ‘visually’ dominant scientists of today are keeping ‘theories’ the focus, while ‘laws’ are detested as being ‘non ambiguous’ and “uncertainty avoidance” and the “need for cognitive closure” (ie. answers). All of which should be and until recently were, the primary focus of science. “The twentieth century was remarkable due to the technological, medical, social, ideological, and international innovations,” [11] but it came to an abrupt change with the reality of nuclear weapons.

1945 – Present 20TH CENTURY This age began the slow ‘down’ ‘wave’ of visual dominance following the visually stimulating horror of nuclear results. Visual started to become interested in protecting what was perceived to be threatened. Visual people started to join together in protest and great things occurred. Racism was no longer tolerated by law (yet it lives in ignorance). Equal rights were admitted as rights in law. Trees were saved. Whales were saved. The environment became interesting and worthy of protection. The television brought it all into the homes of Americans making the image of reality to visual thinkers include things their own experiences could never have provided. No matter what the actual reality may have been, the images of the news, the cartoons of youth, the movies of violence and gore, the realistic appearing special effects and the lies told enough to become accepted norm, permeated the society and the next ‘down’ ‘wave’ of visual dominance began. Innovation now comes in the form of different application of existing technology as the next ‘cool thing’.

Conservatives continue to seek just that one thing that matters: the concept of consequence. Liberals continue to seek that one thing that matters: their perceived visual reality.

Reality is indeed ‘absolute’. It is not, by the very nature of pure logic, dependent on consciousness. Reality is indeed, not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. “Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness.” [8]

Liberals are mostly conscious visual thinkers who’s perspective curses them with a visual image that unless it is guided or controlled by a dominant short-term memory process, results in an individual reality that is defended at all costs and without regard for consequences not already in the image. It is completely impossible to cause an image to not be that image unless there is an image that already fits it. A comparison, strong enough to replace the image’s parts with a ‘better fit’. If short-term memory process is not dominant over long-term process those Liberals will suffer from frustration anxiety and fall victim to the acceptance of malaise.

Conservatives are mostly conscious aural thinkers who’s realization that reality exists independent of their mere perception of it causes them to worry about consequences. If a short-term memory process is not dominant over the long-term process those Conservatives will suffer from expectation anxiety and fall victim to the malaise of acceptance.

The past’s ‘waves’ of society, trading between liberal visual and conservative aural ‘down’ and ‘up’ conditions has reached a point, where not only are they both working equally in American society, but they are fighting for dominance of the country’s future.

One, without concern for consequence to a reality not contained within their perspective conscious image and the other consumed by reality found to be real and not a matter of the primacy of consciousness.

At the same time a radical (by today’s standards) mob mentality is gaining ground in the world as ‘terror’ is found to be a tool of destruction for the explicit and simple goal of causing societies of the world to ignore the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the Renaissance and return to a time when visual dominance was prime and rulers ruled over cowering believers who dare not question the word of someone they were not worthy of meeting let alone questioning.

The issue for today is whether such reversal of societal evolution can be permitted to exist when its time should have made it extinct long ago.

Each form of mental sensory dominance has its chance, through the evolution of society. To permit an intruder such as that which uses terror, is to stop the progress of the human species. To dare to afford a single supportive comment or act, to use the evil of terror as a political tool, to divert attention for personal gain, to make statements and claims that support one’s personal perceptive reality without regard to overall consequence, stands to be the downfall of yet another individual society.

But that, would be a consequence.


[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/magazine/22IDEA.html
[2] http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2004/as-insight-0723-0-4g22r1433.htm
[3] http://www.xcursus.com/conservative2.htm
[4] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/printjg20030730.shtml
[5] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/03/IN250702.DTL
[6] http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
[7] http://straight-edge-life.com/SXE/425
[8] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/index.html?
[9] On The States Of Energy, Gravity & The Exponential Universe. EnticyPress.com
[10] http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/conservative
[11] http://www.timelineindex.com/content/select/612/44,612?id=612&prev_id=44,612&so=d&