“The purpose of your magazine,” my father replied without looking up from his paper, “is the purpose of every magazine: to sell as many copies as it can.”

That day, I began to be incredulous.

Or, rather, I regretted having been credulous. I regretted having allowed myself to be borne away by a passion of the mind. Such is credulity.

Not that the incredulous person doesn’t believe in anything. It’s just that he doesn’t believe in everything. Or he believes in one thing at a time. He believes a second thing only if it somehow follows from the first thing. He is nearsighted and methodical, avoiding wide horizons. If two things don’t fit, but you believe both of them, thinking that somewhere, hidden there must be a third thing that connects them, that’s credulity.

Incredulity doesn’t kill curiosity; it encourages it. Though distrustful of logical chains of ideas. I loved the polyphony of ideas. As long as you don’t believe in them, the collision of two ideas—both false—can create a pleasing interval, a kind of diabolus in musica. I had no respect for some ideas people were willing to stake their lives on, but two or three ideas that I did not respect might still make a nice melody. Or have a good beat, and if it was jazz, all the better.

“You live on the surface.” Lia told me years later. “You sometimes seem profound, but it’s only because you piece a lot of surfaces together to create the impression of depth, solidity. That solidity would collapse if you tried to stand it up.”

“Are you saying I’m superficial?”

“No,” she answered. “What others call profundity is only a tessaract, a four-dimensional cube. You walk in one side and come out another, and you’re in their universe, which can’t coexist with yours.”

-by Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum. Pages 49-50

…the sentences in bold are my doing

Maybe G-Unit’s music does subliminally command one to perform horrible acts and maybe your level 32 Halo skills invoke you to lob real grenades in the actual world. I’d be just as naive if I said these factors are completely frivolous, but I highly doubt they are noteworthy. On top all the exploitations, we are asked to move on as though burying the event will offer solace. Life does move forward regardless, but we shouldn’t brush our social issues under the carpet along the way. Why does it remain so difficult for our culture to ask the tough questions? Could society be partly at fault? Are there certain values and beliefs we hold so dearly but are fundamentally flawed? The tremendous loss resulted from one individual’s frustrations, but that doesn’t mean societies hands are entirely clean. As long as we believe it disgraceful to evaluate society’s possible influences, this will happen again.

The courts deemed him a threat to himself and others around him. In this respect, the system did work. Nonetheless, the system failed in that knowledge of this court ruling was not disclosed to the store which sold him his guns. What’s so catastrophic of a thoroughly regulated, licensing and screening process for acquiring weapons? Not to infringe on our 2nd amendment, but what exactly are the purpose of armor piercing bullets again? Driving a car requires a vision test, in Texas you can now legally hunt if you are blind. Albeit I’m not one to shy away from a good slippery slope argument, but a social contract exists in society to maintain tranquility and order. Regulations could be the seed to suppression but only if we water them and let them grow wild.

The dramatic events saddened everyone—most of all the friends and family of the deceased—my thoughts go out to them. It continues to be very surreal for me and I can get very passionate, sometimes misguided, when expressing my views. But I do think we underestimate the complexity of the casual relationships which produced this tragedy. By removing the veil of denial, that society is completely innocent, can we hope to arrive at a remedy; and only through critical reflection and re-evaluation of ourselves. What’s seemingly counter-intuitive is that serious matters, such as our basic cultural values, those which for example fuel our obsession with appearance and material wealth, get the least attention. The more important the subject matter, the less we analyze them. The impetus of our convictions may very well be displaced, but as long as we avoid the discussion we can’t discover ways to mitigate their fallout.

Arguments for and against gun control both make valid points. Therefore, we must arrive at a compromise soberly and free from invested personal interests. It is very unlikely that had Cho not been unable to acquire a gun it would have stopped him from committing some other terrible act. Whether he would have made a home-made explosive and demolished a building or simply used a knife to harm one individual, we would still need to figure out what could have been done to circumvent it. Adjusting our approach to degrees of severity is dancing around the core problem.

Cho lacked an emotional maturity required to deal with his stresses, whether what caused him to pull the trigger involved a genetic disposition, environmental pressures, and/or personal anxiety. The values which elicit the courage to avoid emotional offense by middle-school bullies, find comfort in solitude, communicate one’s problems, and appreciate life above all else were never instilled or learned.

The media coverage’s quantity and quality of this tragedy disturbed me. The videos of Cho should have been disclosed only to experts and the authorities. The public should see the videos, but only after a certain time had elapsed. As tragic as this event was, it does not warrant the news stations to completely ignore all other news, much like during the Anna Nicole Smith fiasco. It’s as though nothing happened anywhere around the world for the week. Actually, since 4.16 more than 20 US soldier fatalities in Iraq have been reported.

I marveled at the response of the Virginia Tech community. The unity and solidarity which the students showed in expressing their sadness and grief was overwhelming and endearing. Nevertheless, and not to be cynical, the kindness which everyone exhibits now will in a few months, disappear entirely. How unfortunate in the immediate aftermath of such a tragic event, our potential for solidarity becomes so blindingly apparent, only to eventually dissolve as quickly as it had materialized.

By Umberto Eco

Writing in New York Review of Books, 22 June 1995, pp.12-15. Excerpted in Utne Reader, November-December 1995, pp. 57-59.

In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it. * * *

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages — in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice;” such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge — that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

Read the rest here.

Countless experts. Conflicting conclusions. But then, I am pro-choice and in favor of same-sex marriages so I should remain loyal to those dang crazy ecoliberals vomiting their dang blasphemous rhetoric. Isn’t it clear? The global warming movement is communism dressed in green and it’s imperative we create a united, bipartisan front against this disastrous hoax.

Hmm,

Well is it a political or moral issue? Are we responsible for climate change or is this our planet running its natural course? Is global warming a left-wing conspiracy? Maybe, maybe not. Although what I do know is we have another issue and a respective million folks reaching conclusions on it based mostly on their gut + bais news. How exactly does a person arrive at a decision regarding global warming —that they would die by— only after watching ‘Inconvient Truth’ or this Global Warming Swindle clip?

Let’s not get naive and forget 99% of everything has spin, let us not take propaganada’s effectiveness for granted now. Not only does it influence what I think but it often successfully distracts me from the issue all together. Arriving at a reasonable, more appropriate conclusion for myself —a person who doesn’t understand the polar winds or the the evolution of the ice caps— becomes rather hopeless. Let’s say we are not responsible for global warming. When exactly did we decide pollution needs activists?

Why not find an alternative fuel source? Exactly what is all the need for such furious rejection of global warming (unless you enjoy taking a particular stance for the hell of it)? I agree that the truth is important, but why not a cleaner Earth? The cost-benefit of converting could be economically disastrous but then why not a gradual, non-debilitating turnover? How about we just be happy that this issue is getting attention and being debated. You know, this video would probably be more convincing if Paul Driessen, Paul Retier, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Tim Ball, Fred Singer, Ian Clark, and Richard Lindzen (the dudes on this video) weren’t associated with right-wing lobby groups like Tech Central Science, Cato, Fraser Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, heartland institute, and National Center for Policy… all of which received funding from Exxon. But I guess that doesn’t really change anyone’s opinions about anything.

Maybe the major oil corporations have realized our oil supplies are diminishing fast so they instigated all this global warming fuss to scare us into turning green…because they’ve already invested in green technologies in preparation [cue thunder sound effect].

Galileo questioned why God would give us our senses and reason then want us to abandon their use, by giving us some other means the information that we could gain through them. I know that you feel that somewhere deep down in your heart you believe something must exist to explain for the complexity and beauty of everything around you. Yet at one time, hurricanes were the results of angering the Greek God Poseidon. I know this doesn’t seem like an appropriate analogy, the very fact I make the association may seem to you demeaning. Religious faith, a belief in an omnipotent presence and an afterlife is a rather taboo subject matter. Nevertheless, the double-standard it presents us is in no way subtle.

We require evidence for everything except when it comes to matters of faith. Imagine if the notion that faith in me being Spider-man awarded you eternal bliss, thereby a dependence on reason, observation, and intelligence (that I’m not spider-man) assured everlasting pain. Ingersoll would say this is” too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called faith.” I don’t doubt that faith has gotten people through some hard times or made people do great things. Yet this premise doesn’t soundly confirm God’s existence. It only shows that faith is merely a method or tool for tapping into a potential in ourselves that always existed. Consider the power of self-hypnosis in eliminating unwanted habits. Nothing external of ourselves can be attributed to the potential for courage and altruism we are capable of during harsh times. Faith restricts our potential by constantly placing reliance on an external presence. John Dewey explained how faith limits our advancement towards the ‘good in life,’ by causing us to wait upon some power external to do the work we are responsible for doing. Religion is a relic of history which constantly interferes with the growth of our individuality and civil society.

The major religions do seemingly exhibit a stringent ethical code, however, I don’t need to discuss the byproduct of this stringency throughout history (any semi-informed person can list off a few). Some believers of religious dogma claim that without the ethical code offered by religious scripture the world would become chaotic. I very much hope not…give humanity a little credit. What does this belief in heaven and hell infer? For one, I, your friend, must accept an afterlife of eternal damnation. Are you OK with that? …No seriously! Einstein expressed his dismay for humankind if our behavior had to be ‘restrainted by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death’. Having no belief in an afterlife is in no way depressing let alone detrimental to my sanity. Just because someone you love passes away doesn’t mean you value her life or the memories any less without the belief that she’s on her way to heaven. I know it may seem reassuring and rather satisfying to believe you will die and meet your loved ones in the afterlife but this is simply not so.

Accepting death is accepting an inevitability of every living organism on this planet. One can still be angry, sad, and cry. These are natural mechanisms of dealing and responding to losing someone close. I think we are all capable of dealing with events without relying on fantasies for comfort. Imagine if custom was throwing a wild party after someone dies as a farewell. This seems ridiculous but the possibility of a ritual such as this is not an more unlikely than anything else we’ve already become accustom to. If someone talks to an imaginary friend he is considered crazy, however, if one talks to God it is considered prayer. To believe that a loved one will go to an afterlife is not an intrinsically human characteristic, it is an illusion that may help one deal with the event, but it is no less an illusion. Believing in an afterlife is not an innate characteristic of man, just a current tool we use to deal with the fear of finality. But as Bertrand Russel said, “fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty..To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.” As a child grows and becomes wiser, he realizes the notion of Santa is rather ludicrous. Why? Because he realizes his parents buy the gifts. But till that realization, the concept of Santa is nothing more than a place-holder, a fictitious story to make Xmas fun.

I don’t agree that man needs faith, this is a pompous affirmation. Once we lose our belief that an afterlife exists we will be encouraged to enrich ourselves now. Emerson stated that ‘if death is the end, then living is everything’. In the same regards, Umberto Eco said, ‘when men stop believing in God, it isn’t that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything.’ The predispositions that arise from religious faith, dogma and creed constrain our creativity. Precedence slows, if not deters, our potential for social advancement. Clari Barton described precedence as a type of tyranny. Religion, according to her, closes the mind. Tradition itself is dangerous in that it encourages us to replay actions, once based on certain premises, which may have very well become expired. B. Hardy explains that, the unchallenged and exercised as habit rapidly becomes ritual. When this occurs, dissent becomes an object of surprise, if not resentment.” This resentment will reinforce a sturdier ignorance and narrower perspective.

I remain skeptical as to whether or not its in our capacity to discern absolute truths if any exist at all. To even consider evaluating a concept we describe as independent of our faculties, such as a belief in God, is naive since we cannot hope to escape the confinement of our vocabulary. Faith is intellectually bankrupt insofar as its implementation negates reason. Therefore, I believe our only responsibility is to re-describe and refine our reality for the betterment and survival of future generations. But since I began reading more about science and religion I have come to denounce faith, I suppose I exude an arrogance that I can’t help be weary of. Nevertheless, unlike the religious who believe they ‘know’ I have reached a point in my life were I can say I don’t ‘know’. This isn’t a plea for religious fanatics to reconsider their Faith because religious moderates are not innocent either. As Umberto Eco said ‘one can reach the point where there is no any difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and developing the habit of believing.’

Faith DENIES scientific reason. Once something can be scientifically reasoned it no longer requires faith. Therefore, for faith to exist, there must be something to believe in that cannot be proved. So is God a possibility? Yes, but not any more then the possibility of any other idea or object your imagination can conceive of, its not any more likely than me claiming to be spider-man. As Nietzsche famously put it, “Faith: not wanting to know what’s true”. Faiths power is undeniable, and as Seneca the Younger noticed, it is something that the common people have always regarded true, the wise false, and the rulers as useful.

As you read this, I know you feel as though I’m asking you to realize you’ve been betrayed, fooled, or ignorant. As though I’m asking you to give something up that belongs to you, your driving force, that which gives you purpose. If we stumbled on proof that life has no purpose would you change your plans? For this reason, I think finding a meaning or purpose to life is a hollow endeavor. What we need to be doing is asking some better questions. To part with the concept of Faith may feel like parting with a limb. But the purpose of this post is only to provoke thought. If I started slinging web and climbing walls, then you have at least the logical motive to hypothesize about my mutant qualities and test its validity. If evidence was discovered tomorrow that God exists, I would give it credit. If evidence was discovered tomorrow that God doesn’t exist, the faithful would consider such evidence erroneous.

God speaks through Fox News….our last line of defense against atheist tyranny. I wonder what sort of mental manipulation these atheist conjured up to deceive these innocent kids into speaking in tongues. Next thing you know they’ll denounce Poisedon’s existence after the devastation from Hurricane Katrina. If you want to be a half-decent parent then listen closely. The next time your kid asks you why its thundering outside, tell him Gods angry. Then when he asks why Gods angry, tell him its something he did.

On a much more genuine note…both these guys scare the living daylights out of me.

“The being we call god is merely a pawn working for a powerful and rational force in some far-off galaxy. This force is trying to weed out people who are irrational by seeing who would be stupid enough to believe in his god illusion so easily. Those that believe in this illusion, he will send to eternal damnation and he will deliver the rational beings, those who stoically refused to believe in a god, to heaven.”
- Nicholas Yee