What is this feeling - like whole psychological constructs are coming around full circle and merging together?
Why should I have to captivate people before they are willing to listen?
Why does this occur? Why do people refuse to believe something, or even consider something, until they are captivated?
Why is it that my considerateness for others is precisely what repels them?
Why do I need to invent a monolith in order to shut other people down?
Why do people admire such monoliths?
God is a monolith, and most religion is too - it is called a monolith because that is exactly what it is: a giant, unmovable boulder that people invest their confidence into, because they know that most individuals will not want to confront a monolith in a conflict.
They reside within our psyche. Not just our psyche, but the minds of everyone who believes in the monolith.
When people rely on a monolith, they use it as a tool for confidence. If someone criticizes them or their monolith, they play the social persona of “Pfft haha, you mean to tell me you don’t believe in the monolith? You must be unintelligent then, like a child. Everyone knows that the monolith is true.”
Children use monoliths the most, they use them to determine who is the “alpha” in a particular group.
They are argumentative tools mostly, but their application has played a larger role in human history than the occasional bickering - they have been used to manipulate entire audiences; they have been used to forge a super-nationalist mindset into entire populations, and fuel the fire of fascism. They have also given hope, faith, and motivation to our species, and given us the power to wait out our storms.
By adulthood, most people will synchronize with the Zeitgeist so that the presence of monoliths is no longer a problem, or at least so that their presence goes unnoticed…
The minds of adults are able to successfully lie to themselves; they are able to convince themselves that they must be righteous since their monolith is righteous, but they don’t know why their monolith is righteous and refuse to explain why they think it is righteous. They tell themselves:
“I am right, and the monolith that I represent is right… But I shouldn’t let others know about how I think the monolith is right, because then they will begin asking questions about the monolith. They will analyze it, test its durability, and point out its flaws to me. Once its flaws are exposed, then I too will be exposed; fetal, weak, and insecure.” – because in their minds, they know that they are wrong, and they know that the monolith they represent is wrong. They simply fall back on it for support, and don’t let other people know the precise nature of its existence - they know that other people wouldn’t immediately agree that the monolith is true; they would view it as a psychological device used to harvest confidence, and they would view it as such rightfully so.
These people know that they don’t have to take accountability for their shortcomings, because they can simply fall back on the monolith. They think “If you think I am wrong, then you must also think that the monolith is wrong”. Therefore, nobody challenges them, for they fear challenging the monolith.
The reason that monoliths are difficult to overcome is because the nature of a monolith: it is not possessed by an individual, but it is possessed by a large group of people - a common concept that is shared grounds for a body of people. Christianity is a monolith in this regard - so is science. Indeed, any body of ideas that is shared by a group, could be considered a monolith, especially if all the members of that group consider the monolith’s concepts to be “common sense”, or, widely accepted. Any idea that goes against the grain of the monolith is considered blasphemy.
The first response I thought of after acknowledging their existence, was that maybe I should try to rid myself of these monoliths - that the presence of monoliths is the sign of a primitive mind. But, this is not so.
Our problem with the monoliths stems from the occurrences in which they are exploited - where people take advantage of the loopholes in a monolith - when they use a monolith as a justification for their selfish actions.
Yet, perhaps they will pester us no more. A grand monolith is accumulating, one which sets objectivity and clarity as its motive. It is the monolith of empirical science.
This grand monolith would seem to be a solution which desimates all other monoliths, but that is precisely the problem.
What happens when this grand monolith asserts itself as the governor of all morality - when individuality is recognized as the source of malice, and the monolith then seeks to eliminate individuality. What then? When the human race is nothing but identical clones, and the human experience is farmed instead of being grown wild. We would not be the ones maintaining the monolith, the monolith would be maintaining us.
Would human existence still hold meaning? I don’t think it would be right for us to answer that from our own perspective, we must imagine ourselves from the perspectives of the individuals in this farmed human existence. Would they still feel that their existence held meaning?
Probably the intuitive sense of either the recognition of a paradigm or the shifting from one paradigm to another.
Paradigms are exclusive closed systems of conceptual relations, that bear prior evaluative judgments upon any data (idea, sense, percept) falling within the boundaries of the paradigm. If you are feeling like your ideas are merging together and creating interconnected systems which have an effect of pre-empting more objective and impersonal analysis and thought in terms of your introspection, and especially if you are sensing emotional or ego attachments to the set of beliefs or constructs, then these are a good indication that the beliefs/constructs and their relations to each other are solidifying into a more repressive and pre-emptive paradigmatic form. Or, perhaps more likely for you here, you are merely coming up against this form as it currently resides in your mind (as we all have them), as we all have compulsive paradigms such as this, and most of them are invisible.
Either people are turned off by your passion and sincerity, or they are seeking a quick fix for their wandering ADD-like attention, and cannot be bothered to generate their own interest in a subject unless you paint it up nice and flashy and fancy for them.
Precisely because most people think and react in terms of monoliths (what I would call paradigms, but I do sense there is a difference between these, perhaps in the angle of perspective or the mental utility of these objects) - I intuitively feel that the monoliths, as you call them, are the higher more conceptual/Ideal forms which rest upon deeper more structural paradigmatic networks.
But likely the difference here is a matter of personal interpretation. Do you sense that the monoliths as you understand them are similar to or connected with paradigms, as I describe them?
They are conditioned to do so, and others admire the monoliths, so they feel like an outcast or that they are wrong if they too do not admire the monoliths. Also, monoliths/paradigms are a fundamental part of how the human mind operates, at least initially (as you identify, children think this way). . . to the extent that we never question our own motives, thought processes or assumptions, it becomes hard to see, much less break out of, the compulsive hold of a paradigm/monolith.
Also, many people just do not have the environmental conditions and personal experiences/stimuli which would impel them to need to question or see these mental structures. Unfortunately modern society so blinds and mesmorizes us from ourselves and others that we live suspended in fantasy worlds, disconnected from our deeper natures, and likely this plays a large part in isolating the otherwise causitive effects that would generate from direct or indirect contact with our paradigms/monoliths, and the harms/contradictions/lies that result from them.
Yes, monoliths-paradigms can be used to support varying motives and intentions, “good” or “bad”. Inherently all such thought structures are “bad” in that they represent a compulsive and invisible mechanisms of bias, prejudice and blindness, a foggy window placed between us and ourselves, between us and our genuine reactions, thoughts and sensations of the world around us (and within us).
From the standpoint of authenticity, self-awareness and self-knowledge/personal freedom, monoliths and paradigms are “bad” (undesirable, generating bad/detrimental/harmful/limiting effects upon us), but we must remember also that monoliths and paradigms not only fulfil essential roles in the human mind (they exist for a reason, psychologically, evolutionarily, etc), but also that, as you say, it is possible that they can be “used for good”, so to speak - namely, in the sense that individuals tend to cling instinctively to their “good” ideas or deeper intuitions via monolithic and paradigmatic structures, even when they do not fully understand the nature of these deeper views and insights that they have. Of course it would be ideal that they obtain and understand these insights more fully and without the need for monoliths and paradigms, but in the absence of such a reality the monolith-paradigm can be used as a anchor to ground them into their deeper or more genuine selves, if indeed they are so oriented in motive and temperment.
You make an excellent point: the monolith or paradigm is not only a defensive shield against themselves, but also against others.
Exactly. And they do not challenge others, fearing that in this confrontation of a more sincere nature their own monolithic structures would be revealed. So true conflict (and thus, true resolution and understanding) is pre-empted, siphoned off into the superficial.
Yes, there is a difference in the monolith itself as opposed to how or why it is used. But I contend that the presence of these mental structures, as inevitable as they may be, is always going to be harmful - but that does not mean we cannot work to undermind this harmful effect on us, to diminush it with understanding and awareness and self-honesty.
I see emprical science as another harmful monolith, perhaps more harmful than most. The empirical science grand monolith can be used to blind us to the presence of monoliths themselves, indeed empiricism often comes at the cost of the “overall picture”, the deeper and more holistic/intuitive understandings. Also the grand monolith is so much more entrenched within our minds, due to the gravity of its importance and power over us via its central role in our societies.
As for human meaning in a farmed existence? In a sense we are already farmed, but I see the difference between this and what you speak of here. I would say that no, human meaning would not be the same in such a farmed existence and total dependence upon the monoliths - human meaning requires a degree of internal space, uncertainty and doubt, lack of understanding and perspective, room to make mistakes, and also room to grow, places to grow into . . . along with this is a freedom of will-power, personal motivation, passions and insight, the capacity for deep thought and an authentic honesty with oneself. It would seem that all of these things would be threatened greatly by the “farmed” existence you refer to here.
Most people aren’t educated enough to know what should captivate them.
It becomes a game of 20 questions where I have to narrow down what exact tier of knowledge an individual is at - some of them simply aren’t at a level to be captivated. However, others sometimes find what I say to be enlightening.
My point was, shouldn’t everybody give everyone else a fair chance in saying something they feel is worth saying?
I think of it more as a grand system of echoes - the ultimate goal of which is to assign positions in society. Or perhaps not assign positions, but at least teach people how to fill the role of the position they are aiming for. I’d say that it isn’t a monolith itself, but the two are definitely related and work together in the same process. The main reason why I think this is because the Zeitgeist performs interactions that aren’t exactly monolith-like. Like, for example, a mother will adopt a an abandoned child that she comes across - and this is an action of the Zeitgeist. The altruistic act of “adoption” is a natural instinct, but certain environmental and cultural conditions have to be met in order for that instinct to be unlocked.
Another example is when a bunch of people in a crowd start running away from some unknown threat, the other people in the crowd will be convinced that they should be running too, albeit they don’t know what they are running from.
Ah, and you are. Do you think your criticisms could be levelled at you by someone more intelligent/educated? Things that seem trifling irrelevancies to you or I, ivory-tower piffle of use only to the terminally intellectual, could be far too important for us to understand But yes, it is important that they have the chance to say it, even if we haven’t the grace to appreciate it.
I think of it more as a grand system of echoes - the ultimate goal of which is to assign positions in society. Or perhaps not assign positions, but at least teach people how to fill the role of the position they are aiming for. I’d say that it isn’t a monolith itself, but the two are definitely related and work together in the same process. The main reason why I think this is because the Zeitgeist performs interactions that aren’t exactly monolith-like. Like, for example, a mother will adopt a an abandoned child that she comes across - and this is an action of the Zeitgeist. The altruistic act of “adoption” is a natural instinct, but certain environmental and cultural conditions have to be met in order for that instinct to be unlocked.
Another example is when a bunch of people in a crowd start running away from some unknown threat, the other people in the crowd will be convinced that they should be running too, albeit they don’t know what they are running from.
[/quote]
I see the second example as far more “Zeitgeist” - ephemeral yet “given”. And indeed, there will be many who’d say “what, you’re not running? What an idiot!”
But yes, it is important that they have the chance to say it, even if we haven’t the grace to appreciate it.